:
: :I supported the decision because:
: :
: :1. It has been requested for years
: :2. It benefits PAM and NSS.
: :3. It is easy to revert.
:
: Easy to revert? You are talking about depending on mechanisms for
: authentication and other things that WILL NOT WORK with static binaries
:
:I think that you forgot to attach the patches that demonstrate all of
:this.
:
:Also, I'm really starting to resent you using the FreeBSD mailing lists as
:an advocacy channel for DragonFly. I fail to see how FreeBSD 4.x and
:DFBSD relate to FreeBSD 5-current, which is the overall topic of this
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Gallatin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: 1) Microbenchmark:40% worse
: 2) Bootstone(*): 25% worse
: 3) Ports: 16% worse
Thanks for the real numbers.
Warner
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:I think that you forgot to attach the patches that demonstrate all of
:this.
:
:Also, I'm really starting to resent you using the FreeBSD mailing lists as
:an advocacy channel for DragonFly. I fail to see how FreeBSD 4.x and
:DFBSD relate to
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 12:20, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
OK my bad, it will probably slow down the ports building.
I'll bet a larger percentage of our users build ports than need nss or
ldap.
Err, yes..
Of course you are claiming it should be either/or, which is not very
reasonable.
What
PW Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:56:21 -0800
PW From: Peter Wemm
PW We need nsswitch type functionality in /bin/sh. To the
PW people who want to make it static, lets see some static
PW binary dlopen() support or a nsswitch proxy system.
I started a new thread inquiring about the challenges
On Monday 24 November 2003 07:06 pm, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
M. Warner Losh writes:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm just saying that most of the developers I'm talking to on IRC say
this tread is insane, has no content and they are blowing it off
because of that. A concrete, real
And I just did a make clean run in /usr/ports/archivers (by manually
mv'ing a static and dynamic sh to /bin in turn):
static: 96.63 real53.45 user39.27 sys
dynamic: 112.42 real55.51 user51.62 sys
The wall clock is bad (16% worse) and the system time
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 08:55:31PM -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
Daniel O'Connor writes:
Why didn't you pipe up when this was discussed _long_ ago?
In the orginal thread, there was an agreement that the performance
would be measured BEFORE the default was changed, and the default
101 - 109 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
