From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 1 12:44:30 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1C7116A418; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:44:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from raven.bwct.de (raven.bwct.de [85.159.14.73]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4746413C48E; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:44:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely5.cicely.de ([10.1.1.7]) by raven.bwct.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id lA1Chrhd034802; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:43:54 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (cicely12.cicely.de [10.1.1.14]) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id lA1ChiGm052231 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:43:45 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lA1Chi7d092130; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:43:44 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.13.4/8.13.3/Submit) id lA1ChgCp092129; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:43:42 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:43:41 +0100 From: Bernd Walter To: "Matthew D. Fuller" Message-ID: <20071101124341.GL82954@cicely12.cicely.de> References: <4724BAD9.7000400@charter.net> <20071028164152.GA7516@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <4724BEB3.5080905@charter.net> <20071029132447.GA2658@kobe.laptop> <4727063E.7060107@dial.pipex.com> <20071031143923.GA1580@over-yonder.net> <20071031190830.GJ82954@cicely12.cicely.de> <20071031193045.GD1580@over-yonder.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071031193045.GD1580@over-yonder.net> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely12.cicely.de 5.4-STABLE alpha User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on cicely12.cicely.de Cc: stable@freebsd.org, ticso@cicely.de, Alex Zbyslaw , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/share/man/man8/MAKEDEV.8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ticso@cicely.de List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:44:30 -0000 On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 02:30:45PM -0500, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:08:31PM +0100 I heard the voice of > Bernd Walter, and lo! it spake thus: > > > > I don't completly agree. > > Many people forget that FreeBSD is used on slow embedded systems as > > well and I prefer having manpoages there as well. > > Oh, I don't argue that there are cases where catpages are still > useful. But I think they're the exception, not the rule. When you're > setting up a tiny system (by whatever the standards of the given day > are) or an appliance, you expect the tradeoffs to be rather different > than on a normal (by said standards) general-purpose computer. My point was against retirement, which was mentioned by Alex. For me and many others slow systems are daily business. For many others modern systems are daily business, but those shouldn't think they are alone. We have already to face many slowdowns over the last years, such as the new rc.d system, which is painly slow on slow systems, but it has a real win, so I never complained against rc.d as such and I can live with it, since my systems rarely reboot. In case of catman retirement I just don't see the win, only the negative and just because many people don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Why do you expect me any tradeoff when there is nothing to trade? Show me the positives that outweights the negatives and I'm on your side. > Heck, looking at Soekris, everything above the 4501 class is probably > faster than my laptop 8-} Yes - but the 4501 is not the slowest system we support. And - many people may be surprised - but the 4501 is extremly power hungry compared to what we can do with ARM. The difference between a 4501 and an at91rm9200 based system is nearly a factor three, so there are valid reasons for such a system. And the at91rm9200 is very compareable in speed when it comes to network traffic, although it seems to be unexpected slow on some other points. -- B.Walter http://www.bwct.de http://www.fizon.de bernd@bwct.de info@bwct.de support@fizon.de