Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 11:53:33 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: james@wgold.demon.co.uk (James Mansion) Cc: skynyrd@opus.cts.cwu.edu, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Price of FreeBSD (was On Holy Wars...) Message-ID: <199704201853.LAA08286@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <3357C6DD.2482@wgold.demon.co.uk> from "James Mansion" at Apr 18, 97 08:09:17 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Well, personally I think the problem is that if I say 'FreeBSD does > not have SMP support', then I mean 'finished and working' and by > implication given the way the (admirable, IMHO) release process > works, this means that stable releases don't have it. > > Trouble is, people pop up and say 'yes it does have SMP support'. > > This is confusing, to say the least. I think there is a bit of semantic confusion here. You are not drawing a distinction between "XXX has SMP support" and "XXX supports SMP". I don't know if anyone in any of the free UNIX camps have stated that "XXX supports SMP". FreeBSD supports "ls". FreeBSD has "sendmail" support. See the difference? (BTW: This is about to become mute; the current discussion on the SMP list is how to get the code main-lined). Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704201853.LAA08286>