From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 16:36:44 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 6CEB416A415 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:36:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dudu@dudu.ro) Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com (nz-out-0102.google.com [64.233.162.194]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B21443D7F for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:36:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dudu@dudu.ro) Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id 13so281302nzn for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.160.7 with SMTP id m7mr3108095qbo; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.225.13 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:36:05 +0300 From: "Vlad GALU" To: "Dan Lukes" In-Reply-To: <452E6C55.4030003@obluda.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20061012141930.41607.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <452E6C55.4030003@obluda.cz> Cc: FreeBSD Stable , performance@freebsd.org 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 16:36:44 -0000 On 10/12/06, Dan Lukes wrote: > 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 Don't go with the flow, he's a known troll. -- If it's there, and you can see it, it's real. If it's not there, and you can see it, it's virtual. If it's there, and you can't see it, it's transparent. If it's not there, and you can't see it, you erased it.