Re: Does FreeBSD support Intel E7210 Chipsets
In a message dated 1/18/05 7:35:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do not know if you are aware, but somebody else has already had this idea. The website is www.dragonflybsd.org. But please, learn how to be calm in the face of adversity, and not resort to name calling (just try to generally be civil) before contributing to their cause. I'm sure that the DragonFly BSD group would appreciate it. -- Actually, this is the first truly useful bit of info that I've seen on this list. Matt Dillon was a key loss (among many others) from the original FreeBSD team. It seems from DragonFly's mission statement that they have a much clearer understanding of what's needed by high-end users. I'll have my tech fire it up and see what sizzles. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD I LOVE YOU
In a message dated 1/19/05 2:27:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If I had to install a dozen more servers today, they would all get FreeBSD. It makes extremely good use of whatever hardware you care to give it. Indeed, FreeBSD can turn even junky old PCs into productive systems I think the junky old PC market is just what the current FreeBSD team is targeting. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does FreeBSD support Intel E7210 Chipsets
too bad, because I know the answer. Cheers. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mrs. Butterworth vs Vermont Maid
In a message dated 1/18/05 4:41:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gary, Maybe if you offered solutions instead of whining and bashing all the time people would be interested in what you have to say. All we've ever seen you do is throw out insults and complain. If FreeBSD is so bad, use another OS. I'm sure Microsoft would be more than happy to have you shell out the money for their products, and you'd get the sort of support you want -er, well, sort of. That's all I'm going to say on the matter. Thad And this coming from a guy who thinks he's so smart that hes spamming some poor tax attorney who likely never has heard of FreeBSD? What a turd you are Mrs. Butterworth. But I find your confidence in your stupidity quite entertaining! Actually, Thad, I've stated my case, and got the president of the FreeBSD foundation to publically admit that I'm right about 5.x performance. I've only insulted people who insulted me or my claims first. I'm sure that a lot of people considering 5.x won't waste their time with it now, which is much more of a service than you have ever provided. What you list jockeys don't get is that just because you don't care about an issue doesn't mean that its not an important issue to a lot of other people; people who don't spend their time flaming people about issues they don't know the first thing about just for the sake of doing it. And from where do you get that I think FreeBSD is bad? FreeBSD 4.x is great. I just wish they'd support it instead of calling 5.x a production release before its even close to 4.x performance standards. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: different behaviour between 4.x and 5.x (ping response/disk io) [was Re: ...
In a message dated 1/16/05 7:43:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now i am really puzzled because i cannot understand why 4.x behaves relatively good compared to 5.x on this specific issue. Is there a good explanation or does one have to investigate this further? Also, as you saw yourself, using an SMP kernel in FBSD 5.3 doesn't cause a performance hit in networking but it does in NBSD 2.0. So your choices seem to be use 4.11RC2 (full release due shortly) to get the best network response, 5.3 to get as good performance as NBSD 2.0 but with SMP, or use NBSD 2.0 to get as good perfomance as 5.3 but without SMP. Of course, you can wait until NBSD (your prefered OS) performs as well as FBSD, but that may be a lnng time.:) Of course you won't be able to run 4.x on the latest hardware, because they've stopped supporting such things. What puzzles me is that they call 5.x the production version, even though they seem to know its not there yet. So (sadly), you can't run the fastest version on the fastest hardware. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: different behaviour between 4.x and 5.x (ping response/disk io) [was Re: ...
In a message dated 1/16/05 7:43:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: stheg P.S. (to the list in general) Why do all of the questions about FBSD performance, especially 4.x vs 5.x, come from people posting from Windows boxes? Theories? Because performance is a server issue and what you use for a server has little to do with what you use on your desktop. Most people that don't have a religious repulsion with Microsoft use Windows on the desktop. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Kris' World
On Jan 14, 2005, at 11:05 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote: Welcome back to my killfile (although I doubt you'll stay there long because of your desperate need to hear your own voice). Kris Now, I understand his/her/it's words are harsh, but is killing them really a fair alternative? Well, I guess I can see your point. :grabs pitchfork:: Kris is a loser. He ridicules and blocks people because he doesn't have the technical knowledge to address the questions. Im sure he doesn't understand anyway, so who cares if he reads my messages or not? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thank you!
In a message dated 1/13/05 11:27:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BS Oh, but I do understand! FreeBSD is not good choice for companies BS that need support for the latest hardware. It's not a question of latest, it's a question of which hardware. FreeBSD, like all operating systems, targets a broad but not universal user base, and so the mix of hardware that it supports doesn't cover every conceivable device, although it will naturally overlap for the most part with any other OS. For example, given the predominance of FreeBSD as a heavy-duty server -- You clearly haven't been paying attention The entire point of this extended discussion, for those who have paid attention, is that FreeBSD 4.x, which is admittedly the fastest version available, DOES NOT work with intel's fastest CPUs because it doesnt support the necessary chipsets, AND, that freebsd people would rather ridicule people that ask why than fix things. So your claim that its a heavy-duty server platform is tainted by the fact that in order to use the fastest server Mobos, you have to use the slower, still-under-development 5.x. Which seems counterproductive for an O/S that is trying to establish itself as a choice as a server platform. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thank you!
In a message dated 1/14/05 1:07:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: still-under-development 5.x. Which seems counterproductive for an O/S that is trying to establish itself as a choice as a server platform. Not necessarily. The interesting question hasn't been addressed yet. Is 5.3 on its fastest supported chipset faster or slower than 4.10 on its fastest supported chipset? Thats a sad commentary, if the new version of FreeBSD is 5% faster on a hardware platform that should be 30% faster. Is that the goal you seek? so you have to pay 50% more to get the same performance on 5.3. Thats quite a selling point! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thank you!
In a message dated 1/14/05 8:12:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: People on the FreeBSD and Debian GNU/Linux mailing lists are very kind and help you in any case, if you ask questions politely and you have searched and read tha manuals first. So, why do we start always the war? The real war should be against the Bill Gates OSes, instead of fighting among us. I have never heard The war is not against anyone, particularly against commercial O/Ss. The truth is that FreeBSD has lost their way. They started out with a focus on Intel platforms and a solid and dedicated development team. Now they have lost some of their top talent in development, and they are trying to support too many platforms with a skeleton force. They simply are not in position to compete in a war of any kind. The war should be to do what you do better than anyone else, however small the niche. FreeBSD has lost sight of what it wants to be, through a lack of focus and conviction, by spreading themselves too thin over too many platforms. Once FreeBSD was THE choice on an i386 platform. Its now in danger of becoming just another cool O/S, which is a darned shame. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thank you!
In a message dated 1/13/05 9:05:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Someone who begins with their first post on the questions list with invective and insults instead of asking a question will, not surprisingly, not receive much positive response. People here are interested in getting questions answered and problems solved. They are not interested in responding to juvenile attacks -- You really don't know what you're talking about Jerry (as usual), so why make comments when you never seem to understand the context? He asked a question and the response was why dont you donate your hardware to a freebsd developer. What's juvenile is that all of you guys would rather spend your time insulting people than finding solutions to problems. Thats what kids do. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thank you!
In a message dated 1/14/05 1:46:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Jan 14, 2005, at 12:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The entire point of this extended discussion, for those who have paid attention, is that FreeBSD 4.x, which is admittedly the fastest version available, DOES NOT work with intel's fastest CPUs because it doesnt support the necessary chipsets, Let's pretend for a second that what you've claimed here is completely accurate rather than exaggerated for rhetorical purposes. What are you doing to help, [EMAIL PROTECTED], or whatever your new handle for today is? --- We don't have to pretend, because Robert Watson, has outlined the issues with 5.x networking on this list, and he is in a position to know. The continued what are you doing is part of the problem. Its not reasonable to expect end users to support the OS as the chipset level. Thats why there is a core team. Tasks involving the inner guts of the O/S are beyond the capabilities of even the most talented of programmers without a significant learning curve. Its the kind of answer given by people with no answers. FreeBSD often uses its centralized decision making structure as the reason that they are superior. Yet when something doesn't work its someone else's problem. That, in a nutshell, is the problem. They beat their chests when applauded and point fingers when criticized. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thank you!
In a message dated 1/14/05 1:54:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So your claim that its a heavy-duty server platform is tainted by the fact that in order to use the fastest server Mobos, you have to use the slower, still-under-development 5.x. Which seems counterproductive for an O/S that is trying to establish itself as a choice as a server platform. As was pretty clearly explained in previous threads, FreeBSD 5.x is slower than 4.x *at certain tasks under certain conditions* because it is rather considerably more featureful and complex than 4.x Unfortunately, one of those tasks is networking, which is required by every server that I know of. As Mr. Watson pointed out, 5.x has significant per-packet inefficiencies. Servers are judged by their capacity, which is a per-packet issue. Which means that, as a server, 5.x is 25-30% less efficient than 4.x. Inefficient, for you high-schoolers, means slower in this context. It helps if you understand the big picture. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thank you!
In a message dated 1/14/05 2:05:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's too bad he's now choosing to be even more antisocial by changing his email address to avoid the procmail filters of those for whom his rantings have lost their amusementKris No, I've changed my address because the faggot at catwhisker.org keeps removing me from the list. Why doesn't someone just answer the question? When Watson finally admitted publically that 5.x has networking issues it ended the last discussion. Just answer the question. Why are you abandoning support for new hardware in 4.x when you admit that 5.x is not ready? It makes no sense at all. Is there some payday down the road for someone? Volunteers or not, there is some agenda beyond whats being stated. FreeBSD team doesnt seem to give a rats butt about the user base. Their motivations are not to the users, it clearly to some corporate sponsor agenda that has nothing to do with end users. It USED to be to the user base. Now the user base is just a bunch of guinea pigs to test the new os which is still 2 years away. If you want to engage in a 3 year project to fix SMP, you dont subject the user base to 2 years of using a hacked up O/S in the process while abandoning the one that works. All of the hackers lists have gone private, there is no discussion of what issues are important with the customer base. And all of you bubbleheads are just pleased as punch that your USB printer works. Its really quite unbelievable. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Kris' World
In a message dated 1/14/05 5:56:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why are you abandoning support for new hardware in 4.x when you admit that 5.x is not ready? It makes no sense at all. Jamie, you have a fundamental lack of understanding about how the FreeBSD community works. Unfortunately, this isn't something that can be explained to someone like you, because you have your own fixed ideas about how you think the world works and are not willing to listen to any explanations of how reality differs. - I know how linux, windows, openbsd and every other major open source project works, and I know how FreeBSD used to work. I don't know of any other open source project that abandons its best version to spend 2 years working on a re-write. I dont know of any other project that works like that. How about a list of projects with an installed base similar to FreeBSD that works like that? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Kris' World
In a message dated 1/14/05 6:47:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I know how linux, windows, openbsd and every other major open source project works, and I know how FreeBSD used to work. I don't know of any other open source project that abandons its best version to spend 2 years working on a re-write. Me either, including FreeBSD. - Ah, so if you are in complete and total denial of reality, how can you claim that other don't understand it? All of the above has been proven, so why don't you think it applies to FreeBSD? Speak. You seem like one of these guys who claims to understand the world but has no ability to verbalize it. Saying you can't explain because I wouldn't understand is is a cop out, worthy of the fraud you are. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thank you!
In a message dated 1/14/05 7:07:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why doesn't someone just answer the question? When Watson finally admitted publically that 5.x has networking issues it ended the last discussion. Just answer the question. Focusing on one cludge is meaningless - who cares if your network is a little slow, or just slower than 4.x if disk or server apps can't keep up with it anyway? 4.x, 5.0-2 and DragonFlyBSD all suffer from the GIANT cludge. PHK has done a lot of work to resolve this cludge, all results may not be in 5.3. Why are you abandoning support for new hardware in 4.x when you admit that 5.x is not ready? It makes no sense at all. This is very obvious: There are limited resources: The time of the developers is precious. Keeping an old system updated costs time and takes away resources to address the remaining issues with the new version. - I'd question your categorization of 4.10 as an old system. Its the current system that works optimally. Its only old because you've purposely antiquated it. If you read Mr Watson's explanation you'd know that its not a kludge. There are fundamental algorithms in the O/S proper that are being redone. networking performance is not a kludge. Its fundamental to usability of the O/S as a server. I understand that resources are scarce, but you are risking losing a significant and important part of your user base for reasons that seem questionable. Linux is light years ahead in SMP and now you're risking your advantage in uniprocessor performance. You're risking disappearing from the map altogether, IMO. Thanks for answering the question. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
