On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:04:24 +0200
Bernd Ernesti <netbsd@lists.veego.de> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 10:42:08PM -0700, Darren Reed wrote:
> > Andrew Doran wrote:
> > >On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 02:40:28PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > >
> > >> It would be interesting if you could include x86 Solaris in
> > >> future benchmarks.
> > >
> > >It would be a brighter place if you stopped pushing people around
> > >and weren't such a deadweight. How about you benchmark it?
> > >  
> > 
> > Andrew, there's a lot of merit in including Solaris10/OpenSolaris 
> > benchmarks in the result as that's where a lot of big databases run
> > today...numbers from [Open]Solaris are much more relevant in this
> > type of measure than OpenBSD - they're only relevant
> > if we want to see want NetBSD 2.0 or older was like.
> 
> Darren, thats maybe a reason for a benchmark and not how Perry did ask
> in his usual way (I can understand Andrews response).

I saw nothing wrong in how Perry asked.  Look at the text above -- he
simply remarked that it would be interesting.  It also isn't reasonable
to say "you do it" when the goal is to get comparable numbers -- you
want the same test setup, which Andrew has.

I took the remark to be more a reaction to past interactions with Perry.
> 
> Andrew, thank you very much for all the work you are doing here.
> 
Indeed, on this and other matters.  My thanks, too. 



		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb