From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 8 16:09:38 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2068B16A4CE; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 16:09:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from audiogram.mail.pas.earthlink.net (audiogram.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.253]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD94D43D31; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 16:09:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from algould@datawok.com) Received: from 31-21.lctv-ubr2-blk1.cablelynx.com ([206.255.31.21] helo=[192.168.63.10]) by audiogram.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.34) id 1CFxJJ-0004vH-GK; Fri, 08 Oct 2004 09:09:37 -0700 From: "Andrew L. Gould" To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:09:43 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <1f9.7520fc.2e98121d@aol.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200410081109.43273.algould@datawok.com> X-ELNK-Trace: ee791d459e3d6817d780f4a490ca69564776905774d2ac4b44ebe9c6ccb676dd91b7c7a42be6aa20350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 206.255.31.21 cc: TM4525@aol.com cc: questions@freebsd.org cc: tedm@toybox.placo.com cc: Bart Silverstrim Subject: Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:09:38 -0000 On Friday 08 October 2004 11:05 am, Bart Silverstrim wrote: > On Oct 8, 2004, at 11:54 AM, TM4525@aol.com wrote: > > You guys are the ones making the claims that 5.3 is "going to be > > so great". I just wonder how you come to that conclusion if you > > don't have any definitive tests. I dont have a release to test, so > > when its done > > I'll test it. > > I think it sums it up nicely then... > > TM is saying he doesn't like people claiming it's going to be great > when there's no release yet. Kris posted benchmarks showing things > have improved and he has reason to believe it will be better. TM > replies not with his own benchmarks, but basically saying he refuses > to test anything until it's released and that no one should claim > it's better until it's marked as a "release" version. > > So conclude by saying that there is reason to believe the next > version will be better, "Here's why", and that you can have the drawn > out fight over performance benchmarks up the wazoo after the release > is actually...well...released. TM won't be happy until it reaches > this status anyway so there's no use in arguing it if only > benchmarking "release" versions is one of the requirements for the > argument to come to a conclusion. > > :-) > > -Bart Well, that and: "YMMV". :-) Andrew Gould