Contributed by grey on from the security, SMP, and free? OpenBSD gets more big iron credit dept.
Indeed, the push to get SMP going in OpenBSD as a priority feature for 3.6 should make a lot sense for those who haven't been paying attention to the direction the cpu industry is taking in the coming months.
(Comments are closed)
By SH (213.15.68.89) on
/SH
By Stephen Paskaluk (129.128.138.50) sap@66h.42h.de on
There are other small mistakes too, quite frankly I'm shocked that this article was actually published as is. All in all I think it was a pretty poorly written article, though it'll probably provide good publicity for OpenBSD.
Comments
By Brad (216.138.200.42) brad at comstyle dot com on
Comments
By Stephen Paskaluk (129.128.138.50) sap@66h.42h.de on
That's my bad, I was remembering an earlier statement when they first got the Intel kit to test which referred to them running the i386 port on it. In my defense I did acknowledge that I wasn't sure about the status of that :)
By Sean Brown (68.147.170.205) on
Comments
By Stephen Paskaluk (129.128.138.50) sap@66h.42h.de on
I disagree with your reading, since your interpretation ignores the obvious HP-UX on Itanium reference, and HP-UX is very well established on PA-RISC. They're talking about the level of support for the Itanium in AIX and HP-UX, clearly not a performance comparison. I think it was a simple typo that should have had HP-UX instead of AIX, but for some reason you think an out of place comparison that isn't supported by the text of the article is more likely than one more typo.
By Otto Moerbeek (213.84.84.111) otto@drijf.net on http://www.drijf.net
Oh man, you are easily shocked. This is an online, business publication. What's important is the general message. Like other posters already mentioned, the errors you are seeing are not really errors. And after all, Solaris is BSD derived.
But mickey might be shocked because it says hppa64 is on the wane....
Comments
By Marco Peereboom (67.64.89.177) slas@peereboom.us on Marco Peereboom
By Stephen Paskaluk (129.128.138.50) sap@66h.42h.de on
I know Solaris is BSD derived, but that really doesn't impact the sparc and sparc64 ports as near as I can tell. Solaris (unlike the earlier versions of SunOS IIRC) is also very much SysV, and I don't think calling Solaris and OpenBSD close cousins is a very accurate comparison, not more than any other Unix-like systems can be called close cousins.
I suppose you think my criticism is unfounded and that it was a well written article then? The general message is important, but details shouldn't be ignored. If people making decisions feel that the article is poorly researched they're less likely to accept the general message.
By jtorin (194.103.189.24) on
What I feel is a shame is that none of OpenBSDs security features are mentioned. SMP in all its glory but to be frank, most other unices in competition has had it for many years... So it's not that big news for the rest of the world.
I consider OpenBSD a good choice not because of performance, but because of security and stability. And if you read Theos slides you realise how many techniques, large and small, that have gone into OpenBSD at this stage.
By Eduardo Alvarenga (66.110.114.5) eduardo at thrx dot org on http://www.thrx.org
By nikns (195.122.29.100) nikns@secure.lv on pazeme.lv
By Kevin Kadow (163.192.21.44) on
I'm actually quite suprised at the push to incorporate the very recent SMP changes in a -RELEASE version, it almost seems to go against the OpenBSD philosophy to make such a major change in such a short time.
For my purposes, the performance boost will be a nice bonus, but I am slightly concerned that stability might be degraded?
Comments
By Brad (216.138.200.42) brad at comstyle dot com on