From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 1 18:20:30 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9BDA16A4CE for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:20:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (CPE0050040655c8-CM00111ae02aac.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [69.194.102.143]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8BA243D4C for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:20:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1B1C05150E; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:22:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:22:20 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway To: TM4525@aol.com Message-ID: <20041101182220.GA75549@xor.obsecurity.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Compatible NIC X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:20:31 -0000 --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Oct 31, 2004 at 11:54:22AM -0500, TM4525@aol.com wrote: > I know who Kris is. I respect and appreciate his contributions. I don't= =20 > respect=20 > being lied to. And I don't respect the unconditional rejection of critici= sm=20 > by the > "team". And I haven't seen any evidence that anyone really has a clue as = to > how to measure the performance of the product they're developing. I was= =20 > ridiculed for tearing apart the only "test" results posted, yet no credib= le=20 > ones > were offered. You don't like the benchmarks? Fine, run your own and post the results. You've been asked repeatedly to do this, but instead you choose to continue to throw around unsupported assertions of terrible performance. That's why a number of us are annoyed with your emails. Hey, maybe you're right [1]! That would at least be the basis for directing further optimization work. So, how about it? Where are *your* numbers and testing methodology? Kris [1] In fact it would be surprising if 5.x performs better than 4.x across the board; we know there is work remaining to be done, and performance is expected to improve along the life of the 5.x branch beginning with 5.3. --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBhn7cWry0BWjoQKURAunhAKCXNOJ3ikJ7j+jwfPI6ohem8bDeBQCgxWw4 /UQAD6CYQ63WdLC89bN6DwU= =eNbn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq--