Perry E. Metzger said:
>
> Actually, you never qualified it as such.
> 
If that is true, that I was in the wrong, however if I am
right, then I'll demand yet another apology.


> 
> You compile a DIFFERENT CODE BASE, ON A DIFFERENT MACHINE, THREE TIMES 
> FASTER.
>
Nope, I compile exactly the same code, for the same target NetBSD
platform, the only difference is running freebsd emulation of
NetBSD for compiling the platform.  The compile times compiling
EXACTLY the same code, in EXACTLY the same circumstance, on 
EXACTLY the same hardware, for EXACTLY the same NetBSD client.

We are either cross-compiling the target code under NetBSD, or
cross compiling the target code under FreeBSD.  Absolutely
no differences in the code being compiled.

> 
> This is a benchmark?
> 
Not exactly, but forced us to swtch for performance and
time-saving  reasons.


>
> You can't possibly mean that.
> 
Yep.

> 
> Comparing builds of two different code bases on possibly different
> machines isn't a benchmark. Its stupidity. I don't even know if you're 
> running the same optimization level, ferchrissake, let alone what the
> hardware is like.
> 
> So far as I can tell, we compile identical code bases pretty much with
> identical speed. That means, to me, "the operating systems are pretty
> much the same speed".
> 
I agree, but that isn't what I have been saying.  Controlling the
build process NetBSD is much slower, under identical circumstances.

All this means is that NetBSD hasn't addressed some issues that we
have.  It doesn't mean that NetBSD isn't lame, but it does mean
that being arrogant about your OS isn't always a smart thing, and
can make you look very very stupid, and owe people apologies.


-- 
John                  | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
dyson@freebsd.org     | it just makes you look stupid,
jdyson@nc.com         | and it irritates the pig.