Felipe Scarel wrote:
Aside from all (somewhat funny, especially the java one) jokes, what are the
plans regarding SMP?
Same as always.
Wait for someone to show REAL CODE.
Evaluate the merits of that code.
If it is up to OpenBSD standards, commit the code.
Note that the real code comes first. Academic discussions are for
people who don't produce.
We don't talk about things that aren't ready for use, for the simple
fact that if it doesn't exist, IT DOESN'T EXIST. You can't (er..
shouldn't!) make your decisions based on products that don't exist, so
what's the point in idle talk?
Recently I had to install FreeBSD on a dual-Xeon server because it's SMP
support
is kinda better than OpenBSD's, but that did not please me at all, so that
is indeed
a good question.
That's...interesting.
Long ago, when I started in the computer business, the rule was, "let
the application pick the hardware". Apparently, that is obsolete (ok,
to be fair, people rarely followed it twenty five years ago)
What you are saying is using that preferred the box over the OS and
application, that using that machine defined a "good job" more than
using OpenBSD. Of course, that's fine if that's what your priorities are.
A couple years ago, I was giving an Internet Safety Training talk to a
group of high school students. These were mostly refugees from the
local failed public school district -- these kids didn't have much
opportunity to become rocket scientists. One of the kids asked me why
his computer at home crashed a lot, and I answered that it was basically
because he and most of the rest of the world pick flash over quality. I
digressed a bit (I'm sure that surprises everyone here that I'd do
that), and told them about my involvement in the OpenBSD project, a
group that puts quality and security at Task #1 in reality, not just in
slogan. I told them we regularly get people that say things like, "I'd
really like to run OpenBSD for the security, but I want to run ProductX,
and that doesn't run with/on OpenBSD". That was the biggest laugh line
of the day! I think these kids actually understood my point -- saying
security is most important doesn't mean a thing if you aren't willing to
compromise anything else in order to get it.
While many people will say, "Security and quality is important", what
they are saying by their actions is, "Security and quality is the LEAST
IMPORTANT CRITERIA to me, but I'll happily accept it if it doesn't
conflict with my real priorities.".
Again...talk is cheap.
Nick.
