Perry E. Metzger said:
> >
> > How are you measuring it?  Probably with unloaded system or LL benchmarks.
> 
> No. I was doing real work. Doing things like trying to compile TeX and 
> such. I couldn't find any significant difference -- maybe a couple
> percent at best, and not always in your favor, either.
>
That doesn't discount our results.  Of course, there are real reaons
for differences, and you'll figure it out.

> 
> > You can do it.  It is pretty obvious if you actually try it.  Our
> > people are happy about the change in compile times (it is massive.)
> 
> It is, in fact, nonexistant from what I can tell.
>
As it is 2-3X.

> 
> "Huh"???
> 
> Give us the numbers. Numbers beat words.
> 
You know, you can continue on with your infereor to bothe
FreeBSD and Linux performance.  You can work to fix the problem,
or continue to badger about me helping you.

> 
> No, we never booted or distributed SunOS or Solaris kernels claiming
> they were NetBSD kernels, and never used SunOS or Solaris kernels with
> NetBSD Userlands saying this was "NetBSD/Sparc". We never put SunOS or
> Solaris kernels into our source tree as "NetBSD/Sparc".
>
Your CVS tree is encumbered, right?  How would I ever know it anyway?

> 
> It is true that we have used other operating systems during bootstrap, 
> but we haven't called them our own, no.
> 
OS != kernel, but you don't know that, right?


> > >
> > I am going to frame your first sentence, simply because it is
> > seldom heard from a NetBSD person.  A FreeBSD kernel is soon to run
> > on an Alpha,
> 
> "Soon"?
> 
> When a kernel that isn't a NetBSD kernel is running, and your port is
> finished enough for users (that is, its something people would care to 
> use day to day), then you will have finished doing the work. Right
> now, you've yet to boot a FreeBSD/Alpha kernel that you actually wrote.
>
The really cool thing is *I DON"T CARE AS MUCH AS YOU DO* :-).

> 
> > but why should you care, since FreeBSD is so inferior, right?
> 
> As it doesn't exist, how can one comment on its merits?
> 
FreeBSD does exist.  Bzzzt.

> 
> So you are claiming we have no functioning ports?
> 
IMO, the two that I have messed with do not meet the standards
of what I would consider to be FreeBSD.

>
> I don't know what your "standards" are. I currently have a firewall in
> production at a Big New York Company that's been running for over a
> year without rebooting or having any observable performance issues.
>
I don't care, because Linux can do the same thing.  Linux has
some problems also, but that doesn't meant that it cant be used.

> 
> Say what you mean.
> 
I have been.

> 
> Embarassed? By what, exactly? What in our code base is "embarassing"?
> 
> Or is this like your benchmarks?
> 
Doesn't work right, unless used precisely correctly.  I  guess
the term is "fragile."


-- 
John                  | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
dyson@freebsd.org     | it just makes you look stupid,
jdyson@nc.com         | and it irritates the pig.