"John S. Dyson" writes:
> > > 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.

I thought you just got through calling me a liar for saying you
asserted a factor of three performance difference.

> > "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.

"I've got a miracle drug which cures cancer! It's called
Impossilobium!"

"Prove it!"

"Obviously, you don't want your cancer cured, or you'd just believe me 
without proof! I suppose you'll have to go on suffering."

> > 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?

Obviously I must be lying. We must have committed the SunOS kernel at
some point.

> > 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?

If you think that cross compiling on Digital Unix is morally
equivalent to committing our kernel to your tree and calling it
"FreeBSD/Alpha", go right ahead -- but don't expect people not to hear 
about it.

> > As it doesn't exist, how can one comment on its merits?
> > 
> FreeBSD does exist.  Bzzzt.

FreeBSD/Alpha doesn't exist, or wasn't that what we were talking about?

> > 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.

Indeed, Linux *could* probably do the same thing.

I don't spend my time slandering Linux or FreeBSD, but apparently you
don't have as high a regard for other people's work. I don't consider
FreeBSD or Linux "unusable" -- both are just fine from a user's
perspective. You constantly make these assertions, though, that real
users are having some sort of trouble with NetBSD that FreeBSD
magically cures.

> > 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."

In what way? Or are you simply going to continue the innuendo game forever.

Perry