Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:42:10 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Danial Thom <danial_thom@yahoo.com> Cc: performance@FreeBSD.org, "Derrick T. Woolworth" <dwoolworth@gmail.com>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x Message-ID: <20061013204210.GA3147@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20061013203436.46152.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20061012222508.GA63618@xor.obsecurity.org> <20061013203436.46152.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:34:36PM -0700, Danial Thom wrote: > Yeah, bury your head in the sand as always. =20 >=20 > Its been proven over and over. Robert Watson has > admitted many times that 6.x is not as fast as > 4.x uniprocessor FOR CERTAIN TASKS. Your (misquoted) claim is demonstrably false in generality, which is what makes 6.x so useful to many people. If you can one day get this through your head and stop posting false claims, people may eventually stop calling you a troll. I hope so, because you might actually have something to contribute if only you can learn to properly qualify your statements. Kris --2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFL/oiWry0BWjoQKURAsELAKCUebVEv+2lPh1JYjWSy1qZP36acACg9oHj IMpNb8g/TALBzYAH+xnpVlQ= =d8Z+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061013204210.GA3147>