On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 03:59:06PM +0100, Karel Kulhavy wrote:
I have also a feeling that deleting huge files or large directories with
loads of tiny files in subdirectories is slower.
I have a different feeling.
/t
--
Tell me about your mother.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 10:06:43PM +0100, Joachim Schipper wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 12:36:00PM -0500, R. Fumione wrote:
Hello,
I am using OpenBSD on server since few years now, and I am very happy
with it's easy maintenance and it's stability. I want to try on
desktop, and I am
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:48:44PM +0100, Karel Kulhavy wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 12:36:00PM -0500, R. Fumione wrote:
Hello,
I am using OpenBSD on server since few years now, and I am very happy
with it's easy maintenance and it's stability. I want to try on
desktop, and I am
snip
Everything is much slower than existing Linux system. For example,
Firefox takes 3-5 seconds to start on Linux but ~10 seconds on
OpenBSD on same machine!
I have the same problem. The FFS doesn't seem to be as fast as ext2.
The issue is not filesystem speed, but rather prelinking
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 10:23:28PM +0100, Vim Visual wrote:
Agreed. It's not the lawsuit that makes people use Linux instead of the
BSD's; it's the holier-than-thou,
fuck-'em-if-they-dare-question-our-judgement attitude.
Jeff
indeed...
actually, I was curious to see what answers
In epistula a Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] die horaque Mon, 19
Mar 2007 13:53:00 +0100:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 10:06:43PM +0100, Joachim Schipper wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 12:36:00PM -0500, R. Fumione wrote:
(...)
I would like to point out here that the idea of optimization is
I have the same problem. The FFS doesn't seem to be as fast as ext2.
Since OpenBSD sucks so hard it might be time to upgrade to something
much more feature rich. I suggest Linux or OSX or Vista.
Suggesting things is fun!
Karel Kulhavy wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 12:36:00PM -0500, R. Fumione wrote:
Hello,
I am using OpenBSD on server since few years now, and I am very happy
with it's easy maintenance and it's stability. I want to try on
desktop, and I am having trouble.
Everything is much slower than
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:53:00PM +0100, Karel Kulhavy wrote:
It's therefore not the responsibility of the programmer to check whether the
result of optimization is correct. Therefore it's not the optimizations that
are source of bugs, but bugs in GCC.
But if you write a program and the user
On 3/19/07, Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 12:36:00PM -0500, R. Fumione wrote:
Hello,
I am using OpenBSD on server since few years now, and I am very happy
with it's easy maintenance and it's stability. I want to try on
desktop, and I am having trouble.
Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:48:44PM +0100, Karel Kulhavy wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 12:36:00PM -0500, R. Fumione wrote:
Hello,
I am using OpenBSD on server since few years now, and I am very happy
with it's easy maintenance and it's stability. I want to try on
desktop,
Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's therefore not the responsibility of the programmer to check whether the
result of optimization is correct. Therefore it's not the optimizations that
are source of bugs, but bugs in GCC.
Good thing we're not just programmers, but actually
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 07:23:43AM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:53:00PM +0100, Karel Kulhavy wrote:
It's therefore not the responsibility of the programmer to check whether the
result of optimization is correct. Therefore it's not the optimizations that
are
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:26:56AM -0400, Nick ! wrote:
On 3/19/07, Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 10:06:43PM +0100, Joachim Schipper wrote:
Aggressive compiler optimizations are not generally a good idea. The
developers believe they are an unnecessary
Really?
I have a completely different experience: I never managed to completely loose
a filesystem, except by on OpenBSD...
I've been using slackware linux on reiserfs and xfs for many years now, on my
home PCs and company laptop (so, no real production environment) and I'm
happy with both their
On 3/19/07, Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have also a feeling that deleting huge files or large directories with
loads of tiny files in subdirectories is slower.
A feeling?? Entirely subjective readings like this mean nothing and
are at best noise and at worst FUD. Come on, be
If you like losing data ext3 and reiserfs work just fine. I manage to
lose Linux installations pretty often by doing crazy things like
rebooting.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 03:41:05PM +0100, RedShift wrote:
Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:48:44PM +0100, Karel Kulhavy wrote:
On
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 07:23:43AM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:53:00PM +0100, Karel Kulhavy wrote:
It's therefore not the responsibility of the programmer to check whether the
result of optimization is correct. Therefore it's not the optimizations that
are
On 3/19/07, Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:26:56AM -0400, Nick ! wrote:
On 3/19/07, Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 10:06:43PM +0100, Joachim Schipper wrote:
Aggressive compiler optimizations are not generally a good idea.
In epistula a Manuel Ravasio [EMAIL PROTECTED] die horaque Mon,
19 Mar 2007 07:47:46 -0700 (PDT):
Really?
I have a completely different experience: I never managed to
completely loose a filesystem, except by on OpenBSD...
I've been using slackware linux on reiserfs and xfs for many years
Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 07:23:43AM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:53:00PM +0100, Karel Kulhavy wrote:
It's therefore not the responsibility of the programmer to check whether
the
result of optimization is correct.
Marco Peereboom wrote:
If you like losing data ext3 and reiserfs work just fine. I manage to
lose Linux installations pretty often by doing crazy things like
rebooting.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 03:41:05PM +0100, RedShift wrote:
Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:48:44PM +0100,
It's therefore not the responsibility of the programmer to check whether
the
result of optimization is correct. Therefore it's not the optimizations
that
are source of bugs, but bugs in GCC.
But if you write a program and the user finds it full of bugs, are they
going to care that
In epistula a Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] die horaque Mon, 19
Mar 2007 15:59:06 +0100:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:15:16AM -0400, Jason Beaudoin wrote:
snip
Everything is much slower than existing Linux system. For
example, Firefox takes 3-5 seconds to start on Linux but ~10
In epistula a Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] die horaque Mon, 19
Mar 2007 16:00:49 +0100:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:26:56AM -0400, Nick ! wrote:
On 3/19/07, Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 10:06:43PM +0100, Joachim Schipper wrote:
Aggressive compiler
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 04:19:11PM +0100, Karel Kulhavy wrote:
We can analogically use this argument for ocassional errors in memory, too. If
We can, but we won't.
Yes, the GCC bugs should be fixed. Yes, it's important to communicate
with the GCC people that -O2 breaks things sometimes.
This
On 3/19/07, Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 07:23:43AM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
But if you write a program and the user finds it full of bugs, are they
going to care that you can say that it's GCC's fault? The burden falls
on the developers to make code
Yes but since these are production machines in a lab that requires
clearance I can't share. We keep backups around for all these machines
since every now and then we lose one for no good reason. In contrast
the windows and openbsd machines we have deployed do not share this
behavior.
You are
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:26:12 -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
Yes but since these are production machines in a lab that requires
clearance I can't share. We keep backups around for all these machines
since every now and then we lose one for no good reason. In contrast
the windows and openbsd
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 22:06:43 +0100
Joachim Schipper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since prebind has already been explained in detail, I want to add that
does indeed work, but if you use it on your ports it will invalidate
all of the hashes used by pkg_add (which is most likely one of the
issues theo
Joachim Schipper wrote:
Since you didn't mention what you are using at the moment, I can't very
well tell you to switch to a lighter window manager, can I? Ion *is*
nice, though... ;-)
ion whips a giraffe's ass with a belt from a balcony [0].
[0] wesley willis (
On last thing that might add to openbsd's startup overhead is the
aggresive security stance. I don't know if library randomization has
anything to do with it, but w^x propolice have been stated to give a
5% to 10% performance impact in certain cases. I've noticed this mostly
in applications
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:03:37 -0700
Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh really, it has been stated. By who? Overall, I doubt that all
of our security technologies add more than about 2% of a performance
hit. Even a 'make build' on most architectures did not add that. I
think you need
On 2/17/07, R. Fumione [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I am using OpenBSD on server since few years now, and I am very happy
with it's easy maintenance and it's stability. I want to try on
desktop, and I am having trouble.
Everything is much slower than existing Linux system. For example,
Oh really, it has been stated. By who? Overall, I doubt that all
of our security technologies add more than about 2% of a performance
hit. Even a 'make build' on most architectures did not add that. I
think you need to go back and read my slides again. Spreading lies
about 5-10%
* Travers Buda [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-02-18 14:42:34]:
* Jon Drews [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-02-18 11:17:08]:
On 2/17/07, R. Fumione [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I am using OpenBSD on server since few years now, and I am very happy
with it's easy maintenance and it's stability. I
Hello,
I am using OpenBSD on server since few years now, and I am very happy
with it's easy maintenance and it's stability. I want to try on
desktop, and I am having trouble.
Everything is much slower than existing Linux system. For example,
Firefox takes 3-5 seconds to start on Linux but ~10
On 2/17/07, R. Fumione [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I am using OpenBSD on server since few years now, and I am very happy
with it's easy maintenance and it's stability. I want to try on
desktop, and I am having trouble.
Everything is much slower than existing Linux system. For example,
On 17/02/07, Jeff Quast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/17/07, Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/02/07, Jeff Quast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/17/07, R. Fumione [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I am using OpenBSD on server since few years now, and I am very
happy
Agreed. It's not the lawsuit that makes people use Linux instead of the
BSD's; it's the holier-than-thou,
fuck-'em-if-they-dare-question-our-judgement attitude.
Jeff
indeed...
actually, I was curious to see what answers fumione would get
Mine is: I have been using GNU/Linux for years and I
On 17/02/07, Jeff Quast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/17/07, Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/02/07, Jeff Quast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/17/07, Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/02/07, Jeff Quast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/17/07, R.
On 17/02/07, Joachim Schipper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 12:36:00PM -0500, R. Fumione wrote:
Hello,
I am using OpenBSD on server since few years now, and I am very happy
with it's easy maintenance and it's stability. I want to try on
desktop, and I am having
On 2/17/07, Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's stopping YOU? And even if something is stopping you, why do you feel
it necessary or wise to tell that user to use Linux instead of working to
improve OBSD and/or help him with his problem?
Because in general it's a waste of time to
Most modern Linux distributions optimize dynamic library load using
prelinking; 4.0 and later have a comparable idea implemented
('prebind'), but in a way that does not interfere with OpenBSD's
security features. This is not enabled by default (I'm not sure why not,
and would be very grateful
On 2/17/07, Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/02/07, Greg Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/17/07, Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's stopping YOU? And even if something is stopping you, why do you
feel
it necessary or wise to tell that user to use Linux instead
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 05:09:26PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Most modern Linux distributions optimize dynamic library load using
prelinking; 4.0 and later have a comparable idea implemented
('prebind'), but in a way that does not interfere with OpenBSD's
security features. This is not
46 matches
Mail list logo
