From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 20:54:47 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 3C7D816A40F for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:54:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: from web33305.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web33305.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.206.120]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A71143D8E for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:54:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 39898 invoked by uid 60001); 12 Oct 2006 20:54:34 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=LUuTVb47D9UJ1IdaQnsuG1TD7sfMOaoG67cN6gJ1GqCQ7ZJWQ9eYk8djb7+gm1XRI1mij3cWAbC1uPvdd3PysTCigwmH6Jq+1C8jvfkOGjkUYjaM6xReBMqe61YbDXeQUWwvYWo+pAC9n1t9GSoc5y8jbWPQsrPW9/O0+8u0kwY= ; Message-ID: <20061012205434.39896.qmail@web33305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.34.182.15] by web33305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:54:34 PDT Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:54:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Danial Thom To: Dan Lukes In-Reply-To: <452E6C55.4030003@obluda.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 Reply-To: danial_thom@yahoo.com 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 20:54:47 -0000 --- 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. > I didn't say to roll back all of the work. I said to support 4.x as a UP solution, and 6,7 or whatever as what it is now. 5+ will never be as good as 4.x UP, and many networking applications such as firewalls and routers simply will never be able to scale to utilize MP anyway. You had the best damn UP OS in the world, why not continue to support it as so while you try to figure out MP? DT __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com