Date: Sun, 07 Jan 1996 10:09:50 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com> To: =?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= (aka Andrey A. Chernov, Black Mage) <ache@astral.msk.su> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" <kaleb@x.org>, hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: Demand loading (Re: FreeBSD, Zappa & PCI) Message-ID: <5545.821005790@critter.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 07 Jan 1996 03:08:51 %2B0300." <iCJymxmOH1@ache.dialup.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> In message <199601062312.XAA18349@exalt.x.org> Kaleb S. KEITHLEY > writes: > > >I did however sense another episode of "we, the hackers, will decide > >what's good for the masses." I got it from Andre about a cleaner 8-bit > >clean libc, I got it from Poul when I wanted agressive sbrking memory > >back to the OS, and Joerg about the usefulness of ld.so.cache. Three > >times I've said "it would be better if..." Three times I've had someone > >from -hackers come back with "no, you don't want that". Well, yes, I do > >want those things, to the extent that they don't break standards > >conformance. (See, I did compromise on the 8-bit clean libc stuff. Did > >I get the rest of what I wanted though?) Is it not surprising that I > >think I see a pattern emerging? > > Speaking about me, as you can notice _all_ your proposed > localization changes commited into -current as result of some > kinda discussion happens. Speaking about Poul I saw his commit > of your proposed malloc change even without any discussion. > > So, I don't understand, what makes your > uncomfortable here. Do you mean that customer demands must be > accepted immediately even without comparation with global project > strategy? Even they are accepted it not generally means > that someone from the FreeBSD team forced to work on them... > (well, nobody pay me for localization f.e. :-) I'd like to second Andrey here. Kaleb, you must remember that you are not the only user, and your concerns, although very important to us, are not our only concerns. In particular I have a family, a job and a house to take care of. I think that you will see that phkmalloc sbrks(2) even more aggresively backwards now, if you look carefully. I will also remind you that I have now a couple of times pointed your attention to the right column in the ps output for judging the issue at hand. I don't care much about the total process size, I care about the number of active pages. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. whois: [PHK] | phk@ref.tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5545.821005790>