Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:51:06 -0400 From: jhell <jhell@DataIX.net> To: vadim_nuclight@mail.ru Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Policy for removing working code (Was: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon) Message-ID: <4C89107A.6050802@DataIX.net> In-Reply-To: <slrni8eq8q.2h26.vadim_nuclight@kernblitz.nuclight.avtf.net> References: <opviol28ky17d6mn@nuclight> <20100908073019.GA16493@lonesome.com> <slrni8eq8q.2h26.vadim_nuclight@kernblitz.nuclight.avtf.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09/08/2010 06:44, Vadim Goncharov wrote: > Hi Mark Linimon! > > On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 07:30:19 +0000; Mark Linimon wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon': > >>>> The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology. > >>> For a practical reasons, "it works but slow" is better than >>> "doesn't work at all (due to absence of code in the src tree)". >>> "Make it work. Make it right. Make it fast. In that order", know this? >>> Sacrificing "work" for "fast"?.. Hmm, if it is not ideology, then what is >>> it?.. >> >> It wasn't "it works but slow". It was "it works, but networking throughput >> is limited on the modern hardware that the majority of our users employ". >> In particular, IIUC, 10GB network drivers were suffering under the old >> strategy. We simply were not competitive with other OSes, and we have >> many multiples more users interested in 10GBE than in ISDN. > > I understand that we need to support modern fast hardware but that doesn't mean > we should drop working features for that. And... > >>> You do not understand the problem. It is not in notices & volunteers, but >>> rather in the Project's policy - delete something which could still work. >> >> You do not understand how this was handled. > > ...and how this is handled in other OSes to which we have compete, er? They all > also do dropping features to frighten away old users? Are there no alternative > ways to handle? Put network Giant code into bunch of #ifdef's, after all. > >> The situation was: an announcement was made that "in X months, all network >> drivers need to be made to run Giant-free so that FreeBSD can drop Giant >> from the neworking stack to move forward." Within that period, most of >> the drivers were updated. Repeated postings were made to the mailing list >> that "the following drivers still have not been converted, and need to be >> updated or they will be dropped." They weren't; they were droppped. > > No. See my answer to vwe@ that there were no proper announcements. With them, > for example, someone could get sponsored to update these drivers which were > needed by those FreeBSD users who can't maintain code themselves. That's a last > resort, more likely volunteers will come, but you get the idea. > >> So while it could "still" work, it was slowing down progress. > > If it is not ideology, then what is it?.. > >> The fact of the matter is, FreeBSD is a big project with a finite number >> of developers. We try to keep as much coverage of systems as we can, but >> a reality of any large software engineering project is that older features >> sometimes have to be dropped to make progress. > >>From time to time such critical cases could possibly be handled by another > ways, I've mentioned one possible above. > >> The code still exists in the repository for any interested party to pick >> up and modernize. > > I hope that for this particular case alternative from ports will be enough. > But policy is not tied to one particular case, alas. > Would you please stop provoking a situation for which you are no more involved in other than running FreeBSD. Thank you. PS: The website in your signature is broke. This should give you enough to do for a while. -- jhell,v
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C89107A.6050802>