From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Dec 10 14:13: 6 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from blackhelicopters.org (geburah.blackhelicopters.org [209.69.178.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8592937B405; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:12:54 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mwlucas@localhost) by blackhelicopters.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fBAMBnj32526; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:11:49 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mwlucas) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:11:49 -0500 From: Michael Lucas To: D J Hawkey Jr Cc: Robert Watson , Michael Lucas , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Tangent for discussion: FreeBSD performs worse that Linux Message-ID: <20011210171149.A32462@blackhelicopters.org> References: <20011210074151.A29219@sheol.localdomain> <20011210155924.A1542@sheol.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20011210155924.A1542@sheol.localdomain>; from hawkeyd@visi.com on Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 03:59:24PM -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 03:59:24PM -0600, D J Hawkey Jr wrote: > Right now, these is exactly one such release, 4.3, for security fixes. > Will there always be exactly one, such that when 4.5 is released, 4.3 > will fall off the planet, and 4.4 takes its place? Or might there be two, > 4.3 and 4.4? As far back as possible. Bad answer, I know, but it's much like the answer for 3.x. :( > This comes 'round to one of my original questions, too: Why, as an example, > isn't the DELACK patches Matt made recently considered "important" enough > to be backported to RELENG_4_3 (which I have more generically referred to > as RELENG_(current - 1) or RELENG_(release - 1))? It has been said that a > fix might be backported to RELENG_(current - 1) that isn't necessarily a > security issue; can't that be expanded to any (or perhaps just "major") > fixes that don't imply a new feature of RELENG_(current)? Because DELACK isn't a security problem. It's a performance problem. It's a serious performance problem, but not a security problem. They had to draw the line somewhere, and since the security-officer group is supporting this they get to call the shots. If you do a good enough job, perhaps you can wind up supporting this in the main source tree. :) > The site Michael and I have discussed will be hugely deficient in terms > of what can be made available to any previous release (compared to what > is applied to -STABLE), but as it sits right now, it would be better than > nought for those that can't stay -STABLE. Bingo. Something is better than nothing. -- Michael Lucas mwlucas@FreeBSD.org, mwlucas@blackhelicopters.org http://www.blackhelicopters.org/~mwlucas/ Big Scary Daemons: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message