Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 11:42:59 -0500 From: Bill Vermillion <bv@wjv.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Possibility for FreeBSD 4.11 Extended Support Message-ID: <20061223164259.GD7120@wjv.com> In-Reply-To: <20061223120050.0A18316A58F@hub.freebsd.org> References: <20061223120050.0A18316A58F@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 <petefrench@ticketswitch.com> > Subject: Re: Possibility for FreeBSD 4.11 Extended Support > To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, lofi@freebsd.org > Message-ID: <E1Gxkgk-0009V0-0j@dilbert.ticketswitch.com> > > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061223164259.GD7120>