2 Jun
2013
2 Jun
'13
4:37 a.m.
On Jun 2, 2013, at 7:20, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
On 2 June 2013 08:59, Mouse <mouse at
rodents-montreal.org> wrote:
I beg to differ. I've run NetBSD for a long time on my old (pre-iMac)
PowerPC Macs as well as the 68k series because it still supports
them fairly well. Recent releases (there was a gap from 1.6 to 5.0 where
I didn't upgrade) have been really unpleasantly slow, primarily
because of bloat in the userland.
It makes for a difficult situation; I'd gladly just run 1.6, but any of the
common third-party userland components (Apache, etc.) have the
same problem, and I'd want to be running the latest for security's
sake. The other alternative is writing my own, which I don't currently have
the time for and which wouldn't guarantee security anyway.
I use OpenBSD for my routers, usually on x86 boxes. I started with a
PC104 ?lan SBC with 32 MB of RAM, which the OpenBSD of the time (3.0)
ran quite comfortably even with a RAM disk to take all the log files so I
wouldn't murder the CF card with writes. I've recently moved to an
Atom Mini-ITX board with 2GB of RAM, since OpenBSD 5.2 was running
my previous VIA Mini-ITX board with 128 MB out of RAM. It's a little
distressing how out of hand memory consumption in the userland has
gotten.
- Dave
I'd say it _once was_ the reference etc.
It's been headed downhill for
a long time, though; I now see it as trying to take on Linux at its own
game (desktop market share), and, of course, losing - and, in the
process, alienating the user base its former strengths attracted.
That's not NetBSD. If anything - and I think it's still a very unfair
description - then what you are describing is the significantly
different FreeBSD. Especially PC-BSD or GhostBSD.