Gang,
I suspect that my position has been expressed
adequately.
Further discussion might become divisive, but
a decision that incurs the overhead of performance
or a rebuild on the default user base seems
wrong (JUST MY OPINION.) It took ALOT of WORK
(person years) to make FreeBSD perform as well
as it does.
BOTH the add-on crew and the general user base can
have the performance and feature set without
rebuilding, but the decision was apparently made
to impose the cost of performance or rebuild and
binary maintenance on the default user base.
It makes more sense to have appropriately
upgraded the system (by the NSS project) to avoid
the performance hit by others and also provide
the feature set. Apparently (I haven't fully
analysed this) implementing the dlopen stuff for
non-dynamic programs would have helped to mitigate
this issue. (It might have put more burden on the
NSS/PAM/whatever addon projects, but those are
indeed addons that shouldn't take ANYTHING away
from the rest of the project.)
I am suggesting that the NSS crew and those who
are concerned about performance can BOTH have
the results that they wish for.
'All or nothing' creates divisiveness, and in these
discussions it is TOO EASY to fall into that trap.
I am not suggesting the loss of the new NSS stuff,
but also suggest that ANY loss of performance when
it can be avoided, is unwise.
My opinion is known, and hopefully the loss of
hard earned performance with person-years of work
won't happen as time goes on. A little loss isn't
that bad, but how much loss is too much loss (esp when
not necessary?)
<EOT>
John
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
