From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 23 17:11:53 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D3616A40F for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2006 17:11:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bv@bilver.wjv.com) Received: from wjv.com (fl-65-40-24-38.sta.embarqhsd.net [65.40.24.38]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8790513C45E for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2006 17:11:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bv@bilver.wjv.com) Received: from bilver.wjv.com (localhost.wjv.com [127.0.0.1]) by wjv.com (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id kBNGh4nU007506 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2006 11:43:05 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bv@bilver.wjv.com) Received: (from bv@localhost) by bilver.wjv.com (8.13.8/8.13.1/Submit) id kBNGgxWI007505 for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2006 11:42:59 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bv) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 11:42:59 -0500 From: Bill Vermillion To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20061223164259.GD7120@wjv.com> References: <20061223120050.0A18316A58F@hub.freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061223120050.0A18316A58F@hub.freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Organization: W.J.Vermillion / Orlando - Winter Park ReplyTo: bv@wjv.com X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on bilver.wjv.com Subject: Re: Possibility for FreeBSD 4.11 Extended Support X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: bv@wjv.com List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 17:11:53 -0000 It's Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 12:00 . I'm in a small dim room with doors labeled "Dungeon" and "Forbidden". There is noise, the door marked Dungeon flies open and freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org SHOUTS: > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 13:43:54 +0000 > From: Pete French > Subject: Re: Possibility for FreeBSD 4.11 Extended Support > To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, lofi@freebsd.org > Message-ID: > > Because everybody knows that odd numbered releases aren't stable. > I've been 20 years in electronics & comouting and thats the first > time I have ever heard anyone say that! Steer clear of '.0' releases > is well known, but suspecting something just because of the odd or > evenness of it's numbering scheme seems like pure superstition. > Especually since we are Unix people, and the two of the > 'biggies' in history are Version 7, System 5 ;-) And as system V progressed it got funkier and I moved the servers at an ISP I was part of back in the mid-90s from a 1/2 dozen or so SGI machine to FreeBSD and I felt I was back home again - as it was so similar to the System III based/derived systems I learned on. My first pass at Sys V was on and AT&T 3B2-310, and so many things were far slower than what came before, and some of their programs were so poor in execution it was a pain. I once did a simple benchmark and on an old Z80 based system I was getting times in under 10 seconds in the C test and under 1 minute in the BASIC version. On the 3B2 the program seemed to hang in BASIC. I ran it again and then broke out and looked at the variables. I was aghast when I mentally computed that the program would take an hour to run. The C version ran in a bit under 5 minutes. I will say that the 5.3 things got a bit better but not long after that most of the smaller and the ones that seemed to have decent support disappeared and left us with only a handful of SysV companies. And then there is the classic 1.0 release of NeXTStep. It was pretty stable, considerning the last release before 1.0 was 0.99. Jobs got a lot of press on that one :-) > -pete. Bill -- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com