Perry E. Metzger said:
> 
> "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.
>
Well, you cannot admit to your mistakes.  Since you continue
with your lies, it makes you very unethical, and very undesirable.


> 
> > > "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!"
>
I love this:  It is impossible for this to be true :-).  I hope
you conintue in your cluelessness.

> >
> > 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.
>
I didn't say that, where did you get that from?

> 
> 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.
>
When there are only a few latent NetBSD files, then I guess that
it is in the same league as NetBSD and Net/2, right?  Of course,
NetBSD is Free, and Net/2 is encumbered :-).

> >
> > 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 have a high regard for existant work and functionality.  The claims
that there is little difference between FreeBSD and NetBSD are specious,
and I only agree to them to keep from flamage.  I have low regard
for those who claim incorrectly by lieing.

>
> 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.
> 
NT is the same way.  Are you aspiring to being as good as NT?  Performance
and behavior is relative.  If you are careful, you can keep from booting NT
if you really know what you are doing.


> > > 
> > > 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.
> 
If you apologize for your intentional misquotes (lies), I can probably
give you one example of a VM problem, maybe not fixed in your
UVM also.  It isn't that big a deal, other than costing one of my
coworkers about 1/2 day of work TODAY.  (This isn't exceptional,
and we mostly fix our local NetBSD tree privately, or work around
the bugs.)

You really do need to apologize for you unethical misrepresentations
of me.  I'll take it in trade :-).  You need to admit to your
unethical and misleading lies, and I'll very happily give you an
example of a kernel problem -- it just came up today :-).

-- 
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.