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 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 m
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 th
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 c
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.
Th
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:
> > >>
> > >> Aggre
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:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >> Everything is much slower than existing Linux system. For
> > >> example, Firefox takes 3-5 seconds to start on Lin
>> > 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
>>
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, Kar
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
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 ye
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
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
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 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 sc
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 s
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:15:16AM -0400, Jason Beaudoin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> 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 t
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 unne
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
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 develo
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,
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.
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 use
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 existin
> 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!
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 i
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 a
>
>
> > 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 prelin
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
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,
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 existing Linux sy
* 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 a
> > 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
> > abou
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,
Fir
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 y
> 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 applicat
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 ( http://en.wikiped
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
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
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 L
> 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 grat
On 2/18/07 12:05 AM, Greg Thomas wrote:
Personally my attitude is he can stick with Linux, not because he's
looking for a similar experience on OpenBSD but because he doesn't
seem to be able to formulate a reasonable request for help.
That's negative. The call itself is positive and you can he
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 h
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
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 PROTE
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 ha
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 existing Linux sy
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
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,
Fir
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 se
50 matches
Mail list logo
