Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!newsdist.tc.umn.edu!uum1!newsserver!rhealey From: rhealey@sirius.aggregate.com (Rob Healey) Subject: Re: 4.4-lite? Sender: usenet@newsserver.aggregate.com (Usenet News Administrative Account) Message-ID: <Ct8o9E.8My@newsserver.aggregate.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 12:34:25 GMT References: <2vgvc7$3tg@spruce.cic.net> <30finf$98e@pdq.coe.montana.edu> <Ct75oE.75p@newsserver.aggregate.com> <30h9jl$fg4@pdq.coe.montana.edu> Nntp-Posting-Host: sirius.aggregate.com Organization: Aggregate Computing, Inc. Minneapolis,MN Lines: 30 In article <30h9jl$fg4@pdq.coe.montana.edu>, Nate Williams <nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu> wrote: >But what about someone doing a PPC or a Alpha port? > It appears the Alpha port is already in progress judging by defines sprinkled throughout the system. The PPC people are still mumbling so I don't know where/if that is going. >> How would switching to FreeBSD speed it up any? >*Significant* VM enhancements. > OK. EXACTLY what are these VM enhancements. They've been touted up and down but no specifics have ever been given. Let's hear 'em! How exactly is FreeBSD's VM so much more lightning fast than NetBSD and how does that apply to non-x86 architectures, ESPECIALLY big endian? >> As far as the implication that somehow NetBSD 1.0 is tainted, and I >> doubt this implication is an accident due to it's recurrance in >> FreeBSD postings, I would like to see proof backing up this claim. >If you are sued, you'll have to prove that it isn't. Starting from scratch >makes it *much* easier to prove. According to CSRG, they started removed >all tainted sources from their tree, but see where it got them. Given >USL's past legal history, I wouldn't want to be in NetBSD shoes. > You still didn't answer my request: WHERE in the NetBSD 1.0 code is there tainted code? -Rob