Quoting Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:00:54 +0100):
On 16/10/06, Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
He might have got further by volunteering to create and supply profiles
for those specific workloads that were faster in 4.x than 6.x on UP
machinery etc... i.e. hel
Just an interesting thing to note ...
Danial Thom is accusing the FreeBSD team of "lying" and
being "dishonest". He's saying that FreeBSD is going to
die and DragonFly BSD will take its place in one year,
and that Matt Dillon had more IQ than the whole FreeBSD
team together.
Not very long ago, t
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do I need to start a project? Matt Dillon is
> already doing it.
>
> One thing that Matt has proved is that IQ isn't
> cumulative. Because hes doing on his own what an
> entire team of FreeBSD "engineers" can't
If you see/grep Danial Thom in FreeBSD related, consider this:
http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/88q1/13785.8.html
http://amasci.com/weird/flamer.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war
My personal fav' is the first link...
How do we know that 'DT' even exists? Hmmm.
DT - S, go awa
--- Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:01:08PM -0400,
> Michael Butler wrote:
> > For everyone's benefit then, please feel free
> to submit your patches
> > along with your technical analysis.
>
> I think his best bet is a fork, instead. Then
> he can tell all
On 16/10/06, Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:01:08PM -0400, Michael Butler wrote:
>> For everyone's benefit then, please feel free to submit your patches
>> along with your technical analysis.
>
> I think his best bet is a fork, instead.
Mark Linimon wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:01:08PM -0400, Michael Butler wrote:
For everyone's benefit then, please feel free to submit your patches
along with your technical analysis.
I think his best bet is a fork, instead. Then he can tell all the people
that volunteer to work on _his_
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:01:08PM -0400, Michael Butler wrote:
> For everyone's benefit then, please feel free to submit your patches
> along with your technical analysis.
I think his best bet is a fork, instead. Then he can tell all the people
that volunteer to work on _his_ project exactly wha
Danial Thom wrote:
--- Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:57:32AM -0700,
Danial Thom wrote:
Stating facts is not trolling.
true, but ...
The fact that you may not want to hear it is
your own problem [...]
You can't keep promoting this junk they're
putting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Danial Thom wrote:
> There isn't one person on that team that knows how to fix what's
> wrong ..
For everyone's benefit then, please feel free to submit your patches
along with your technical analysis,
Michael
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Ver
--- Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:57:32AM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > Stating facts is not trolling.
>
> true, but ...
>
> > The fact that you may not want to hear it is
> your own problem [...]
> > You can't keep promoting this junk they're
> putting
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:57:32AM -0700, Danial Thom wrote:
> Stating facts is not trolling.
true, but ...
> The fact that you may not want to hear it is your own problem [...]
> You can't keep promoting this junk they're putting out. You can't just
> keep kicking the Matt Dillons out of the cam
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:57:32AM -0700, Danial Thom wrote:
> Hi Kip,
>
> Where you a troll when you outlined how your port
> of FreeBSD 6 to Solaris was so bad that it was
> virtually unusable? Stating facts is not
> trolling.
And you crossposted this to performance...why?
Kip might be right,
Hi Kip,
Where you a troll when you outlined how your port
of FreeBSD 6 to Solaris was so bad that it was
virtually unusable? Stating facts is not
trolling. The fact that you may not want to hear
it is your own problem. I'm fairly certain that
you know that every single thing I'm saying is
true, bu
--- Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > The right thing to do is to port the SATA
> support
> > and new NIC support back to 4.x and support
> both.
> > 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system
> and
> > FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away
> from
> > ever being
Please do not feed the trolls.
-Kip
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Danial Thom wrote:
>
>
> --- Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Quoting Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 12
> > Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200):
> >
> > [moved from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe its just time for the entire FreeBSD team
> to come out of its world of delusion and come to
> terms with what every real-life user of FreeBSD
> knows: In how ever many years of development,
> there is still no
On 10/12/06, Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
> The right thing to do is to port the SATA support
> and new NIC support back to 4.x and support both.
> 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system and
> FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away from
> ever being any good at
Danial Thom wrote:
The right thing to do is to port the SATA support
and new NIC support back to 4.x and support both.
4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system and
FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away from
ever being any good at MP. Come to terms with it,
PLEASE, because it is the case a
On Thu 12 Oct 07:19, Danial Thom wrote:
>
[...]
> Maybe its just time for the entire FreeBSD team
> to come out of its world of delusion and come to
> terms with what every real-life user of FreeBSD
> knows: In how ever many years of development,
> there is still no good reason to use anything
> o
--- Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Quoting Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 12
> Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200):
>
> [moved from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > The main problem is - 6.x is still not
> competitive replacement for
> > 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old
Quoting Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200):
[moved from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The main problem is - 6.x is still not competitive replacement for
4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported hardware - I speaked about
performance in some situatio
22 matches
Mail list logo
