--- Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:34:36PM -0700, > Danial Thom wrote: > > Yeah, bury your head in the sand as always. > > > > Its been proven over and over. Robert Watson > has > > admitted many times that 6.x is not as fast > as > > 4.x uniprocessor > > FOR CERTAIN TASKS. Your (misquoted) claim is > demonstrably false in > generality, which is what makes 6.x so useful > to many people. Bicycles are useful to many people, but that doesn't make a case against discontinuing building automobiles. Unfortunately, the "certain tasks" that Freebsd 4.x is better at are squid, apache and networking applications, which are the only viable reasons to use the OS commercially. I've yet to hear 1 (thats *one*) commercial vendor who built a product on 4.x claim to move to 5 or 6 because of its superior performance. The only ones I know that have switched did so because of some device they needed or SATA support. I continue to be baffled by the following after 4 years of complete failure to make MP perform. Its almost like the entire user base is drugged or something. Linux 2.6 is not suitable for uniprocessor, nor is FreeBSD 6. The difference is that Linux scales with MP, and FreeBSD doesn't. So the case to keep 4.x as an option is an easy one to make. DT > > If you can one day get this through your head > and stop posting false > claims, people may eventually stop calling you > a troll. I hope so, > because you might actually have something to > contribute if only you > can learn to properly qualify your statements. > > Kris > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
