In message: <20040823134827.A0D6A43D3F_at_mx1.FreeBSD.org> Danny Braniss <danny_at_cs.huji.ac.il> writes: : > On 2004-08-23 16:21, Danny Braniss <danny_at_cs.huji.ac.il> wrote: : > > > On 2004-08-23 10:46, Danny Braniss <danny_at_cs.huji.ac.il> wrote: : > > > > shouldn't : > > > > NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT FreeBSD 5.x IS SLOW: : > > > > now be 6.x ... : > > > : > > > Would something like this seem ok to you? It only mentions FreeBSD-CURRENT : > > > instead of a specific version, so it will also work for FreeBSD 7.X when : > > > that comes along. : > > : > > fine, but what if FreeBSD 7.X is actually faster ... :-) : > : > The word "slower" refers to the reduced speed of a system that runs with : > a lot of debugging/test options enabled. The relative speed of the : > release to the previous is (probably) of lesser importance for this : > particular quote. : > : : i agree, it's that once you take out the 'milestone', it might just become : superflous, on the other hand 5.x is bad, so just current is fine - one less : thing to check for. I believe that we won't have the debugging kernel options turned on by default over the long haul. Once we're happy with the locking, they will likely be turned off in GENERIC. WarnerReceived on Mon Aug 23 2004 - 16:58:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:08 UTC