Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New NetBSD Port, NetBSD/Iyonix

Posted by michael on from the is-there-anything-it-can't-do? dept.

agent dero writes "Gavan Fantom of NetBSD, has imported a new port into the NetBSD source tree, the new NetBSD/iyonix port. The IYONIX pc is an ARM-based desktop machine. It offers virtually silent operation, low heat, and all the other odds and ends offered by a modern PC. NetBSD is one port closer to a NetBSD/toaster port."

4 of 76 comments (clear)

  1. Caution: OS Wars Ahead by stienman · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    NetBSD is one port closer to a NetBSD/toaster port.

    Now only if it were useful as a desktop OS...

    -Adam

  2. Netcraft: 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD

    Go back to play with linux, cute little kid! :-D

  3. Re:Now, *that's* something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Oh it's useless, until FreeBSD claims to "support" it then it will be on the "Hey, FreeBSD is the shizzle" list that the *BSD drones spew from their dying systems, trying to keep *BSD relavent as it decays. FreeBSD's SMP is subpar to begin with. Switch to Slackware and don't look back, fools.

  4. my BSD gig aint cuttin' it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you BSD fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a BSD box (a PIII 800 w/512 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this BSD box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
    In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Emacs Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

    I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various BSD machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a BSD box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the BSD machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 800 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that BSD is a "superior" machine.

    BSD addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a BSD over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.