--- Vlad GALU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/3/06, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > --- Matthew Dillon > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > I couldn't have put it better myself. > > > > > > Vis-a-vie network performance, my goal > for > > > DragonFly is to have 'good' > > > performance. But I think it is a > complete > > > waste of time to try to > > > squeeze every last erg out of the > network > > > subsystem like FreeBSD has. > > > We aren't trying to compete with Cisco, > and > > > nobody in their right mind > > > would take a turnkey BSD or linux-based > > > system over a Cisco (or other > > > piece of high-end networking gear) to > route > > > multi-gigabits/sec of > > > traffic. I still think we can get > close > > > to FreeBSD's rated performance, > > > eventually, but I am not willing to > create > > > a mess of hacks and crazy > > > configuration options to turn DragonFly > > > into the ultimate ether switch > > > when I can purchase one off the shelf > for a > > > few hundred bucks. > > > > > > I think the last time I tried to use a > > > general purpose UNIX OS as an > > > actual 'router' was in 1994. We used > two > > > BSDi boxes (and later FreeBSD > > > boxes) to route the two T1's that BEST > > > Internet had when we had just > > > started up. It was a horror, frankly. > > > Hardware bugs in the ethernet > > > cards and even in the T1 card required > a > > > lot of hacking to work around, > > > and trying to run BGP with gated was > even > > > worse. > > > > > > Back then 'real' networking hardware > was > > > bulky and expensive. Today, > > > though, there is no excuse. It's cheap > > > (and even cheaper on E-Bay), > > > and far more reliable then a general > > > purpose PC. > > > > > > If someone is trying to route > > > multi-gigabits worth of traffic then > > > the infrastructure is clearly important > > > enough to warrent purchasing > > > dedicated networking gear. If someone > > > isn't trying to go all out, > > > then a general purpose OS might be > > > adequate, if still not as reliable. > > > > > > So all I can say to Mr Thom in that > regard > > > is: Stop trying to fit a > > > square peg into a round hole and just > buy > > > the appropriate gear for your > > > network infrastructure needs. > > > > > > > -Matt > > > > > > > > > > Your caveman-like views are as troubling as > they > > are entertaining. You seem to have no grasp > of > > the modern world and no understanding of > 'BSDs > > niche. Everything was buggy in '94, but with > you > > and clowns like Paul Borman trying to do > > networking, what the hell would you expect no > > matter what you had to work with? :))) > > > > Many, many large network appliances (load > > balancers, bandwidth managers, firewalls, > > security filters) are based on linux or BSD. > The > > reason is that CISCOs and "mega-gigabit > routers" > > have no extra CPU power to do things like > > filtering and shaping at a very high level. > I've > > made myself many millons of $$ selling a few > > thousand network devices, which is more than > > you'll ever make having a really cool desktop > OS, > > even if its better than anything else out > there. > > Designing a product for fun is one thing, but > if > > you want to get funding you have to produce > > something that's useful for the corporate > world, > > not for a bunch of pimply-faced college kids. > The > > reality of the corporate world is that even > if > > DFLY is the best damned OS ever written, they > > will use windows or linux, because you can't > > staff a support center with DFLY experts. Its > > simply never going to happen. You can however > get > > in as a server platform, because only a > couple of > > guys have to know what they're doing. > > > > Unix as a desktop box is not even an > > afterthought. 'BSDs niche is as a network > server. > > Period. > > > > You might think its a waste of time to > optimize > > networking, but it seems to me you're wasting > > your time entirely if your goal is to be a > little > > faster than LINUX as a desktop box. Who > cares? > > FreeBSD with 1 processor is faster than linux > > with 2, but no-one used FreeBSD anyway. > Nobody > > wants to use 'BSD as a desktop machine, > except > > for a handful of people with a lot more time > on > > their hands than the rest of us. People want > to > > use 'BSD as network servers. People in the > real > > world that is. Maybe thats why your not with > > FreeBSD anymore; your refusal to modernize > your > > ideas to what's going on in the real world, > and > > your complete lack of understanding where the > > dollars are to fund your efforts? > > > > > > I should probably be moving on the same > trend the other subscribers > follow and give you a very diplomatic pat on > the shoulder, but your > bluntness simply calls for more. > Shouldn't you be out, making some millions ? > You seem to be better > at it than at implanting your ideas into other > people's minds. > Everything they do, and especially Matt, is > pro-bono. For fun. While > their idea of having fun consists of spending a > considerable amount of > hours each day writing code, yours seem to be > polishing your typing > skills. Do all of us and especially yourself a > favor and reconsider > your schedule. > > > DT > I don't see that you have any credibility at all, so why doesn a nobody like you even feel the need to talk at all? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
