Sorry, my last email was sent prematurely. I hit 'send' a bit too
soon.
| > Why don't they just add an extra CPU to handle the GUI?? ;-)
|
| They did. 4.0.2 was the ES/MP (Enhanced Security/Multi Processing)
I thought only NT did that. I was *trying* to be funny. :-)
| Not really. A lot of them are rehashing things we've known
| for a long time, and UNIX just hasn't implemented, for whatever
| reason (usually, failure to incorporate patches). For example,
I know that's an especially touchy point for you. :-)
| Luigi did FACK/SACK patches against FreeBSD around 1996, and Rice
| University did LRP against FreeBSD around 1998, and neither were
| commiited. Rutgers has implemented a stateful failover API with
| minor stack modifications against FreeBSD-STABLE, which they are
| very interested in seeing incorporated in FreeBSD, and they are
| basically being ignored.
|
| I'd say it was more "people who refuse to learn from history are
| doomed to repeat it".
See, this stuff annoys me. Getting people to contribute isn't easy.
Especially quality code. Ignore volunteers, and they'll go away.
| I don't know where this whole idea of having a bunch of knobs
| that you have to turn away from the defaults to get non-mediocre
| performace came from, but the mythology that has grown up around
| the believe is, well, really annoying. 8-(.
That's one thing I really like about Unix/FreeBSD. It really
performs well in many situations, without needing a lot of tweaking.
Of course, I'm a neophyte, so I've never really put it to the test,
but still. :-)
jm
--
My other computer is your Windows box.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
