--- MikeM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/22/2005 at 9:10 PM Nick Holland wrote:
>
> | There is just *no* way to explain just how wacked Linux looks to
> | someone who is having to go from OpenBSD to Linux for some stuff
> | at work. Wow.
> | You'd swear it was written by an unorganized mob
On 7/22/2005 at 9:10 PM Nick Holland wrote:
| There is just *no* way to explain just how wacked Linux looks to
| someone who is having to go from OpenBSD to Linux for some stuff
| at work. Wow.
| You'd swear it was written by an unorganized mob with no central
| control or plan at all. Oh, wai
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 01:08:04 -0400, Brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 09:43:29PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:10:53 -0400, Nick Holland
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >There is just *no* way to explain just how wacked Linux looks to someone
>> >
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 09:43:29PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:10:53 -0400, Nick Holland
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >There is just *no* way to explain just how wacked Linux looks to someone
> >who is having to go from OpenBSD to Linux for some stuff at work. Wow.
> >
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:10:53 -0400, Nick Holland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There is just *no* way to explain just how wacked Linux looks to someone
>who is having to go from OpenBSD to Linux for some stuff at work. Wow.
> You'd swear it was written by an unorganized mob with no central
>contro
Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote:
> From: Joe . [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
>> I agree with you completely and in a sane and rational world it would
>> happen just like that. Unfortunately I highly doubt we'll see any such
>> disclaimers though. I bet there are lots of people eager to defect and
>> it
From: Joe . [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I think, quite the opposite, that it's fine the way it is. It's not
> > openbsd's fault that people fall prey to the stupid
> knob-tuning game and
> > quite dumbly follow that line of thought. I think instead
> that the other
> > OSes should be responsibl
On Friday 22 July 2005 01:23 pm, Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote:
> From: Joe . [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > are used to dealing with complex or unoptimized piles of crap. Part of
> > encouraging people to switch should at the very least be communicating
> > that there are no hidden options or that
On 7/22/05, Spruell, Darren-Perot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think, quite the opposite, that it's fine the way it is. It's not
> openbsd's fault that people fall prey to the stupid knob-tuning game and
> quite dumbly follow that line of thought. I think instead that the other
> OSes should b
From: Joe . [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> are used to dealing with complex or unoptimized piles of crap. Part of
> encouraging people to switch should at the very least be communicating
> that there are no hidden options or that straightaway things are going
> to work as best as possible.
I think, q
On 7/22/05, Nick Holland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> uh, no.
> I think you missed the point of Henning's comment.
guilty as charged
> This is something for developers to work on, not magic knobs for you to
> twist. If there was something worthy of putting in the FAQ about this,
> it would be i
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 08:48:11AM -0400, Joe . wrote:
> On 7/22/05, Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 100Kpps should be reachable with the right hardware right now.
> >
> > there is room for optimization in OpenBSD to reach way higher
> > forwarding rates.
> >
>
> Part of the pr
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 02:31:23 -0500 Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fine, so you don't like Cisco. Substitute Raptor or Juniper or some
> other product that can do basic Inter-VLAN routing at 100,000 packets/
> second in even their low end products, That doesn't change the
> facts, just the br
On 7/22/05, Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Regardless of whether you use the walks-on-water SysKonnect cards or
> > "crappy" $470 Intel quad-EM cards, OpenBSD on i386 barely approaches
> > half that rate, when doing nothing more than routing packets from one
> > interface to another
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 02:31:23 -0500
Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fine, so you don't like Cisco.
No sane person *likes* Cisco gear.
> Substitute Raptor or Juniper or some other
> product that can do basic Inter-VLAN routing at 100,000 packets/second
> in even their low end products,
Dude,
* Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-22 09:53]:
> On 7/21/05, Lars Hansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:35:27 -0500
> > Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > To be blunt, because when an enterprise just needs pure unfiltered
> > > inter-VLAN routing, Cisco has CEF products
16 matches
Mail list logo
