On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 10:35:31PM +0000, Alan Post wrote:
> In article <20031021221603.GA16254@mail>, David Maxwell wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 08:01:42PM +0000, Alan Post wrote:
> >> 
> >> Yeah, but don't get too excited:  FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux 2.6
> >> were all unstable versions.  I'll leave the Linux 2.4 flames for
> >> other people.  :)
> > You failed to note that he updated to FreeBSD-current because
> > FreeBSD stable crashed on him
> Both on the 5.X tree, which is confusingly labelled and entirely
> unstable.
> > OpenBSD current because the OpenBSD release had significant
> > performance issues.
> I thought we were discussing stability?  :)

You said "... don't get too excitied: " (about his comments that NetBSD
was the most stable) "... were all unstable versions."

I commented _why_ he decided to run unstable versions.

Mike Cheponis wrote:
> Be sure to see http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability  today, as new benchmarks
> were done on 20 Oct 2003.  Scroll down to "New Measurements".
> 
> Looks like some serious things are still broken in -CURRENT.

Developers have already analyzed the work involved to improve several of
the test cases, as well as discussing how to create infrastructure to
prevent regressions.

-- 
David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net -->
If you don't spend energy getting what you want,
	You'll have to spend it dealing with what you get.
					      - Unknown