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
--- 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
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
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,
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
RW> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:17:20 +0100 (BST)
RW> From: Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RW> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
RW>
RW> > Perhaps work on 7 should have been delayed until 5 and 6 were able to woo
RW> > people away from 4 -- or at least not leave valid reasons for peop
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
I am all for it.
According to this thread, it appears the 4.x branch is still used for
whatever reasons, may they be perceived good or bad depends on one's own
consideration and feeling. If the FreeBSD Project is going to relinquish
RELENG_4 suppo
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 09:59:10AM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Oct 11, 2006, at 6:36 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
I think the most likely path of success is, as you say, to make the
4.x
userland more like 6.x.
For anyone who really wishes to stick to fr
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
Perhaps work on 7 should have been delayed until 5 and 6 were able to woo
people away from 4 -- or at least not leave valid reasons for people wanting
to stay behind. (Note that I'm more sympathetic than my tone might
indicate; I've also gotten in
Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 10/13/06, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DragonFly has made substantial rewrites/changes since the fork from
FreeBSD.
I think to assume that there are no regressions in either stability,
speed,
or support may be naive.
Has anyone tried benchmarking DragonflyB
At 09:39 AM 10/11/2006, Dan Lukes wrote:
Even if no new ports will be compilable on 4.x, even if
the old ports will not be updated with exception of update caused
by security bug, I vote for delaying EOL of 4.11
I would second that vote. Yes, some of the new enhancements in 6.x
are n
Chris Laco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From my personal experience of (4) 4.x machines and (1) 5.x machine,
> all on the same hardware, I've had more problems with my 5.x install
> than I ever did with my 4.x install. I'm afraid to even look to see
> if 6.0 will run on it.
The transition from 4.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Chris Laco wrote:
Just a lurker, and FreeBSD users since late 3.0... From my personal
experience of (4) 4.x machines and (1) 5.x machine, all on the same
hardware, I've had more problems with my 5.x install than I ever did with my
4.x install. I'm afraid to even look to s
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
On 2006.10.12 10:59:18 +0300, Patrick Okui wrote:
One of my servers is colocated in a place on a different continent - which
is why I haven't been able to upgrade it beyond RELENG_4. Google turns up a
binary upgrade as the only way I can get to REL
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
Your 4.x system is not doing to die when we EOL 4.x. We're only
saying that it is not going to see any additional work on it in
the official FreeBSD repository.
Actually, we're not even saying that. We're just saying that it will no
longer be o
On 10/13/06, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DragonFly has made substantial rewrites/changes since the fork from
FreeBSD.
I think to assume that there are no regressions in either stability,
speed,
or support may be naive.
Has anyone tried benchmarking DragonflyBSD against FreeBSD 5.
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 09:59:10AM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
> For anyone who really wishes to stick to FreeBSD 4.x for performance,
> we should refer them to dragonflybsd, which seems to be taking this
> approach. It was forked from FreeBSD 4.8 and seems to pretty modern
> in userland.
Dra
--- 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
Doug Barton napsal/wrote, On 10/12/06 21:06:
The odds are pretty close to 100% that things will run better with 6.x
than with 5.x. Many fixes that have been MFC'ed to 6.x have not and will
not be ported to 5.x.
It's better to explicitly ask for MFC to selected branches when
submitting PR. MF
Chris Laco wrote:
From my personal experience of (4) 4.x machines and (1) 5.x machine, all on
the same hardware, I've had more problems with my 5.x install than I ever
did with my 4.x install. I'm afraid to even look to see if 6.0 will run on
it.
The odds are pretty close to 100% that things
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 05:43:01PM +, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
> KK> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:46:54 -0400
> KK> From: Kris Kennaway
>
> KK> The 4.x support policy was announced some time ago and may be found
> KK> here:
>
> "policy" != justification
Yes, and the justification has also been d
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 09:59:10AM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> On Oct 11, 2006, at 6:36 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> >I think the most likely path of success is, as you say, to make the
> >4.x
> >userland more like 6.x.
>
> For anyone who really wishes to stick to freebsd 4.x for performance,
Hi,
ML> We are currently trying to support 4 major CVS branches.
EBD> Perhaps work on 7 should have been delayed until 5 and 6 were able to
EBD> woo people away from 4 -- or at least not leave valid reasons for
RBD> people
Eeehm, afaik 5 is an interim for 6, so 5 should be stopped. I know plen
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
KK> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:46:54 -0400
KK> From: Kris Kennaway
KK> The 4.x support policy was announced some time ago and may be found
KK> here:
"policy" != justification
Eddy
--
Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/
B
ML> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 06:41:10 -0500
ML> From: Mark Linimon
ML> We are currently trying to support 4 major CVS branches.
Ughh.
Perhaps work on 7 should have been delayed until 5 and 6 were able to
woo people away from 4 -- or at least not leave valid reasons for people
wanting to stay beh
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe its just time for the entire FreeBSD team
> to come out of its world of delusion and come to
> terms with what every real-life user of FreeBSD
> knows: In how ever many years of development,
> there is still no
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
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 MP. Come to terms with it,
PLEASE, because it is the case a
On Thu 12 Oct 07:19, Danial Thom wrote:
>
[...]
> Maybe its just time for the entire FreeBSD team
> to come out of its world of delusion and come to
> terms with what every real-life user of FreeBSD
> knows: In how ever many years of development,
> there is still no good reason to use anything
> o
--- 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
On Oct 11, 2006, at 6:42 PM, Dan Lukes wrote:
5.x has significant performance hit, so we can't count it as
competitive replacement for 4.x. 6.1 is second release in 6.x tree.
6.0 has stability problem. The 6.1 is sufficiently stable on
average use, but it still has problems in edge situat
On Oct 11, 2006, at 6:36 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
I think the most likely path of success is, as you say, to make the
4.x
userland more like 6.x.
For anyone who really wishes to stick to freebsd 4.x for performance,
we should refer them to dragonflybsd, which seems to be taking this
approa
Quoting Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:40:48 +0200):
I'm using 6-STABLE (and 5-STABLE previously) on some unimportant
computers and I'm reposting observered problems (mostly with offer of
patch).
The trick is to make some noise and get the attention of a commit
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
Just a lurker, and FreeBSD users since late 3.0...
> Problem is performance and trust in stability. It's
> money and hardware independent problem.
>
> 5.x has significant performance hit, so we can't count
> it as competitive replacement for 4.x. 6.1 is second release
> in 6.x tre
Doug Barton wrote:
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 situation and believe in it's stability.
I think saying that it's a worse replacement is a bit too broad.
Hi list,
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 03:15:25PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> In order to facilitate this effort, I'd like to suggest that a new
> mailing list be created, freebsd-releng4. That would allow the
> interested folks to get together, pool resources, and decide what is
> possible.
I am al
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Dan Lukes wrote:
But, maybe for my poor knowledge of english, you misunderstand the
point of my think.
Your English is quite good, actually. :)
The main problem is - 6.x is still not competitive replacement for
4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported hardware - I s
On 2006.10.12 10:59:18 +0300, Patrick Okui wrote:
> One of my servers is colocated in a place on a different continent - which is
> why I haven't been able to upgrade it beyond RELENG_4. Google turns up a
> binary upgrade as the only way I can get to RELENG_6. Is this still the case
> (because t
One of my servers is colocated in a place on a different continent - which is
why I haven't been able to upgrade it beyond RELENG_4. Google turns up a
binary upgrade as the only way I can get to RELENG_6. Is this still the case
(because the logistics on arranging that are ... interesting) or is
Garance A Drosihn napsal/wrote, On 10/12/06 04:09:
Your 4.x system is not doing to die when we EOL 4.x. We're only
This is an open-source project. If it really is as easy to support
4.x with security fixes as you think it is, then "you" (all of you
Yes, I'm ready to self-support the 4.x f
> - Original Message -
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:20:18 +0200 (CEST)
>
>
> > I realize that resources to keep chasing this stuff are in
At 12:42 AM +0200 10/12/06, Dan Lukes wrote:
As I'm not commiter, I'm allowed to submit PR and speak.
I'm trying both. This letter is "speak" part.
Understood.
But this has been announced for awhile. If the people who actually
depend on 4.x can find the resources to support it, I am
Lots of knashing of the teeth on this one but lets face it, it had to
die sometime. For all the 4.x users still out there (and plenty of
them have deep pockets) no reason you can't just hire third party
support (possibly even a current developer); hell get together and
maybe pool your resources.
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 03:36:10PM -0700, Paul Allen wrote:
> Well, I suspect that most people with the resources to do what you ask
> have already moved on precisely because the EoL has been published.
> i.e., faced with that limited commitment, we had no choice but to
> (grudgingly and at the las
Garance A Drosihn napsal/wrote, On 10/11/06 21:33:
Even if no new ports will be compilable on 4.x, even if the
old ports will not be updated with exception of update caused by
security bug, I vote for delaying EOL of 4.11
That's easy to say.
I understand that it's much more work than jus
Well, I suspect that most people with the resources to do what you ask
have already moved on precisely because the EoL has been published.
i.e., faced with that limited commitment, we had no choice but to
(grudgingly and at the last minute) move on.
I think the most likely path of success is, as y
Jason Stone wrote:
I realize that resources to keep chasing this stuff are in limited
supply,
You just hit the nail on the head. The vast majority of FreeBSD
developers (including but not limited to the committer community) have
moved on. If you (meaning the people that want continued suppor
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
...
Is it envisageable to extend the RELENG_4's and RELENG_4_11's EoL once
more ?
Yes, I'm also voting for it. This support may be limited to
remote-exploitable vulnerabilities only, but I'm sure the
At 8:42 AM -0700 10/11/06, Jason Stone wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Though I admit RELENG_4 is getting dusty, it is not rusty. I believe it
is still used in many places because of its stability and performance.
[...]
Is it envisageable to extend the RELENG_4's and RELEN
Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 12:30:22AM -0700, FreeBSD Security Officer wrote:
Users of FreeBSD 4.11 systems are also reminded that that FreeBSD 4.11
will reach its End of Life at the end of January 2007 and that they
should be making plans to upgrade or replace such sys
On 10/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I realize that resources to keep chasing this stuff are in limited
supply,
> but if you solicit the opinion of the community, I'd bet that more
people
> would rather see 4.x support continue than 5.x support.
>
> I know that it would be
> I realize that resources to keep chasing this stuff are in limited supply,
> but if you solicit the opinion of the community, I'd bet that more people
> would rather see 4.x support continue than 5.x support.
>
> I know that it would be a violation of the stated policy, but I think that
> sup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Though I admit RELENG_4 is getting dusty, it is not rusty. I believe it
is still used in many places because of its stability and performance.
[...]
Is it envisageable to extend the RELENG_4's and RELENG_4_11's EoL once
more ?
Yes, I'm also vot
Mark Linimon wrote:
From a ports standpoint: absolutely not.
We are currently trying to support 4 major CVS branches. Although we still
have some dedicated committers who are trying to keep the Ports Collection
running on 4.X, they are falling further and further behind, especially as
the rate
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 12:21:06PM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 12:30:22AM -0700, FreeBSD Security Officer wrote:
> > Users of FreeBSD 4.11 systems are also reminded that that FreeBSD 4.11
> > will reach its End of Life at the end of January 2007 and that the
Hello!
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
Though I admit RELENG_4 is getting dusty, it is not rusty. I believe it
is still used in many places because of its stability and performance.
For instance, according to Julian Elischer's posts, it seems he is still
working on it.
Is it envis
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 12:21:06PM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> Is it envisageable to extend the RELENG_4's and RELENG_4_11's EoL once
> more ?
>From a ports standpoint: absolutely not.
We are currently trying to support 4 major CVS branches. Although we still
have some dedicated committers wh
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 12:30:22AM -0700, FreeBSD Security Officer wrote:
> Users of FreeBSD 4.11 systems are also reminded that that FreeBSD 4.11
> will reach its End of Life at the end of January 2007 and that they
> should be making plans to upgrade or replace such systems.
Though I admit
60 matches
Mail list logo
