From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 22 01:46:08 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 9AB2216A403 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 01:46:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhs@flat.berklix.net) Received: from thin.berklix.org (thin.berklix.org [194.246.123.68]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C49413C434 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 01:46:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhs@flat.berklix.net) Received: from js.berklix.net (p549A7C5F.dip.t-dialin.net [84.154.124.95]) (authenticated bits=128) by thin.berklix.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kBM1QBNP081147 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:26:12 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from jhs@flat.berklix.net) Received: from fire.jhs.private (fire.jhs.private [192.168.91.41]) by js.berklix.net (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kBM1QA7x014442 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:26:10 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from jhs@flat.berklix.net) Received: from fire.jhs.private (localhost.jhs.private [127.0.0.1]) by fire.jhs.private (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kBM1QAYF083759 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:26:10 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from jhs@fire.jhs.private) Message-Id: <200612220126.kBM1QAYF083759@fire.jhs.private> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org In-reply-to: References: <000801c723bb$efc2b540$260ba8c0@wii.wintecind.com> <458A2B14.5070009@freebsd.org> <458A97BF.1090503@ant.uni-bremen.de> <20061221095811.886d9850.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> Comments: In-reply-to Charles Sprickman message dated "Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:14:25 -0500." Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:26:10 +0100 From: "Julian H. Stacey" Subject: Re: Possibility for FreeBSD 4.11 Extended Support X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 01:46:08 -0000 Charles Sprickman made many good point IMO, but one aluded to in Chris's follow up concerns me: > there is also uneeded cost involved in piurchasing hardware capable of > running 6.x Performance on old boxes & stability interest me, eg the 486s in scanners ( http://berklix.com/scanjet/ & http://madole.net/scanjet/ ) that have become servers, some of which may also be last islands of secret BSD server sanity in companies that have fallen to the Suits edict of "Only boxes blessed by Mickey$oft" ;-) Sure, I can & do cross compile ('cos local make world is Slow), but when shipped & if supporting other server loads, 6.x Might be a problem on eg Am486DX2 66 MHz 16M Ram ? (I got the impression 4.11 to 6.x will slow by about 1.2 ?) Maybe most people are running (like me on ~ 20 boxes) mostly 4.11 & 6.1, so perhaps that suggestion to drop 5.x rather than 4.x makes numeric sense ? Julian -- Julian Stacey. BSD Unix C Net Consultancy, Munich/Muenchen http://berklix.com Mail Ascii, not HTML. Ihr Rauch = mein allergischer Kopfschmerz. http://berklix.org/free-software