Peter writes:
>In article <[log in to unmask]>,
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>Yes, BSDs are more stable than Linux. I would encourage
>>those who are thinking of switching to a new platform
>>to seriously consider BSDs. Linux has a faster filesystem,

>Not any more. With SoftUpdates the BSD filesystem is as fast as the
>Linux Ext2FS filesystem, and because it still orders writes it's just
>as resistent to corruption as the old syncronous-updates version was.
>
>The only reason to go with Linux is if you're running a lot of
>bleeding-edge desktop applications, because Gnome and KDE are mostly
>developed on Linux, or if you need some Linux-only software package
>like VMWARE. Or if you have Linux expertise available already.
>
>The driver situation is more complex. There's some devices, mostly low
>end hardware, better supported in Linux. Server class hardware often
>has better support in BSD. It all comes down to what the developers
>use, and FreeBSD developers are more likely to be sysadmins...

What about non x86 cpu support? And do they have a true ia-64 version?

While I think BSD has a lot going for it, I wonder if the IBM effort
behind getting Linux running on ALL of their systems along with HP's
effort toward getting Linux/64 a happening port is going to create
enough momentum to make Linux a preferred server platform.

What do you think Peter... you seem to be reasonably versed in
this aspect of the technology...

Duane Percox

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *