Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon)

2006-10-15 Thread Scott Long
Danial Thom wrote: --- Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:57:32AM -0700, Danial Thom wrote: Stating facts is not trolling. true, but ... The fact that you may not want to hear it is your own problem [...] You can't keep promoting this junk they're putting

Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon)

2006-10-15 Thread Danial Thom
--- Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:57:32AM -0700, > Danial Thom wrote: > > Stating facts is not trolling. > > true, but ... > > > The fact that you may not want to hear it is > your own problem [...] > > You can't keep promoting this junk they're > putting

Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon)

2006-10-15 Thread Mark Linimon
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:57:32AM -0700, Danial Thom wrote: > Stating facts is not trolling. true, but ... > The fact that you may not want to hear it is your own problem [...] > You can't keep promoting this junk they're putting out. You can't just > keep kicking the Matt Dillons out of the cam

Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon)

2006-10-15 Thread Mike Horwath
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:57:32AM -0700, Danial Thom wrote: > Hi Kip, > > Where you a troll when you outlined how your port > of FreeBSD 6 to Solaris was so bad that it was > virtually unusable? Stating facts is not > trolling. And you crossposted this to performance...why? Kip might be right,

Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon)

2006-10-15 Thread Danial Thom
Hi Kip, Where you a troll when you outlined how your port of FreeBSD 6 to Solaris was so bad that it was virtually unusable? Stating facts is not trolling. The fact that you may not want to hear it is your own problem. I'm fairly certain that you know that every single thing I'm saying is true, bu

Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon)

2006-10-12 Thread Danial Thom
--- Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Danial Thom wrote: > > The right thing to do is to port the SATA > support > > and new NIC support back to 4.x and support > both. > > 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system > and > > FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away > from > > ever being

Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon)

2006-10-12 Thread Kip Macy
Please do not feed the trolls. -Kip On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Danial Thom wrote: > > > --- Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Quoting Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 12 > > Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200): > > > > [moved from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon)

2006-10-12 Thread Vlad GALU
On 10/12/06, Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Danial Thom wrote: > The right thing to do is to port the SATA support > and new NIC support back to 4.x and support both. > 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system and > FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away from > ever being any good at

Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon)

2006-10-12 Thread Danial Thom
--- Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 12 > Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200): > > [moved from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > The main problem is - 6.x is still not > competitive replacement for > > 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old

Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon)

2006-10-12 Thread Alexander Leidinger
Quoting Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200): [moved from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The main problem is - 6.x is still not competitive replacement for 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported hardware - I speaked about performance in some situatio