From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 16:27:09 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4248B16A4D2; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:27:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan@obluda.cz) Received: from smtp1.kolej.mff.cuni.cz (smtp1.kolej.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.24.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B1143DF9; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:25:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dan@obluda.cz) X-Envelope-From: dan@obluda.cz Received: from [IPv6:2001:718:1e03:a01::7] (dan.kolej.mff.cuni.cz [IPv6:2001:718:1e03:a01::7]) by smtp1.kolej.mff.cuni.cz (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k9CGQgJq014226; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:26:43 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dan@obluda.cz) Message-ID: <452E6C55.4030003@obluda.cz> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:24:53 +0200 From: Dan Lukes User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060105 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: danial_thom@yahoo.com References: <20061012141930.41607.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20061012141930.41607.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alexander Leidinger , security-officer@freebsd.org, Garance A Drosihn , performance@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Stable Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon) X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:27:09 -0000 Danial Thom wrote: > The right thing to do is to port the SATA support > and new NIC support back to 4.x and support both. > 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system and > FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away from > ever being any good at MP. Come to terms with it, > PLEASE, because it is the case and saying > otherwise won't change it. Despite I'm initiator of this way of discussion (in security list), I can't agree with you. No way. You are not allowed to tell to someone working as volunteer several months on something that the best way is rollback all work and start from scratch. Despite of your complaints are competent or not. You totally miss the right time for this type of complain. It's too late now. 6.x is not crap in any way. It has some problem, even after many months of development, but it can be resolved if volunteers decide to use it's power to polish previously implemented code. Current 6.x is better in many parameters than 4.x. Well, some important parameters are worse, but correct decision is improve them, not rollback all work. I voted against premature EOLing of 4.x, but returning to FreeBSD 4.x is not acceptable way in any way - at least because it's the DragonBSD's nest now. Dan