Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!oleane!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!boulder!news.coop.net!hops.entertain.com!usenet From: dwatson@abwam.com (Darryl Watson) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Subject: Adaptec licensing Date: 4 Sep 1995 15:45:34 GMT Organization: ABWAM, Inc. Lines: 27 Message-ID: <42f6uu$6ng@hops.entertain.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp005.entertain.com X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.5 The only two things that are short-comings of BSDi, as far as I am concerned, are: 1) lack of multi-processor support. This ain't a biggie, since BSDi cranks on Intel platforms. I've got an EISA 486-66 that out-performs lots of Pentium-based systems running SCO or Solaris. At least, it does for the things I need it to do. 2) No Adaptec support for greater than 174x controllers. #2 is a total bummer... I understand that Adaptec won't license the necessary info to BSDi without the condition that they (Adaptec) can jerk the license any time they want. Unfortunately, Adaptec makes the most popular controller cards on the market, and they perform well. Is there any chance BSDi or Adaptec might back off on their respective stances? (Eyelash bat-bat-bat) Pretty please? If not, are there any other controller manufacturers that compare in performance to Adaptec, that are supported by BSDi? I'd be interested in finding out the relative performance between EISA, VESA, and PCI controller cards. It was my impression a year ago that EISA cards still had the edge in performance over PCI cards. Is that still true, or are there (gasp) more factors involved? (At least, that is what it seemed for 486 systems. Pentiums with the Triton chipset might change the game...)