From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Feb 15 19:26:51 1995 Return-Path: questions-owner Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id TAA01942 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 19:26:51 -0800 Received: from hudson.lm.com (hudson.lm.com [192.231.221.4]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id TAA01932 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 19:26:48 -0800 Received: (from news@localhost) by hudson.lm.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id WAA04346 for freebsd-questions@freefall.cdrom.com; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 22:27:12 -0500 Path: hudson.lm.com!ivory.lm.com!not-for-mail From: peterb@telerama.lm.com (Peter Berger) Newsgroups: mail.freebsd-questions Subject: Re: BSD for DEC Alpha Date: 15 Feb 1995 22:27:00 -0500 Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh, PA USA Lines: 24 Message-ID: <3hugm4$cq@ivory.lm.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: ivory.lm.com Apparently-To: freebsd-questions@freefall.cdrom.com Sender: questions-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In article , Tom Samplonius wrote: >On Wed, 15 Feb 1995, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >> since I monitor both operating systems), I'll note that the NetBSD >> port to the DEC Alpha seems to have begun to be checked in to their >> current CVS tree starting as of a night or two ago. I understand that >> the kernel work is nearly finished but still a bit shakey, and that > > Isn't NetBSD "shakey" on all platforms? That's an unworthy comment. NetBSD 1.0/i386 is rock solid, and arguably more of a "clean" release than 2.0. I've run both; I'm running FreeBSD now. NetBSD has it's own problems, the main one being an installation procedure which is not only unfriendly but actively hostile towards sharing a disk with another OS; but stability is not one of those problems. -- ...................................................................... Peter G. Berger, Esq. Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh Internet: peterb@telerama.lm.com Phone: 412/481-3505 Fax: 412/481-8568 http://www.lm.com/~peterb