Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:34:49 +1100 From: Brett <brett.mahar@gmx.com> To: "Thomas Mueller" <mueller23@insightbb.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [head tinderbox] failure on arm/arm Message-ID: <20121110233449.66b06b6165747c64dcafc36c@gmx.com> In-Reply-To: <38.2F.17144.7904E905@smtp01.insight.synacor.com> References: <38.2F.17144.7904E905@smtp01.insight.synacor.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > NetBSD is hit-or-miss to build successfully, more miss than hit. NetBSD supports GPT awkwardly but has no support for USB 3.0. > > NetBSD is rather unstable. I think I'd trust FreeBSD-current over a stable or release version of NetBSD. > > How does OpenBSD compare in that regard? > > I think DragonFlyBSD just introduced USB 3.0 support in 3.2.1, but that is off by default. > > There are live USB images available for DragonflyBSD from www.dragonflybsd.org, > and live USB images available for OpenBSD at liveusb-openbsd.sourceforge.net . > > I'd like to try, just to see what they look like and how or if they support my hardware. > > > Tom I haven't used NetBSD for a while. OpenBSD (both current and release) are very stable and predictable. Totally trustworthy. The six month release cycle seems to encourage incremental change. The lack of multiple branches means its a lot easier for developers and porters to stay on top of things. FreeBSD has more new features (such as the USB 3.0 you mentioned), also more support for other hardware tweakables (e.g. more Intel CPU power saving modes). I've only briefly used DragonflyBSD but plan to get it cranking again on one of my machines soon. The release version I tried before seemed pretty solid and gave good (desktop) performance. Its interesting to look at the relative strengths and weaknesses of each, how they've evolved, and hopefully learn some more. Brett.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121110233449.66b06b6165747c64dcafc36c>