organization

[David Leimbach]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:30:47 -0800, mohamed aslan <maslanbsd at gmail.com> wrote:
> i cann't reply to all of ur comments
> but , that is what makes u break off , as DragonFly split of u

So you're going to fork FreeBSD because we didn't think your comments
were constructive and that you don't like the organization of FreeBSD's sources?

Ok, have fun :).

> 
> u took my opinion as an attack,
> u just wanna flaming,
> u also got off topic "CVS and SVN",
> 

You have to keep in mind that what you intended may not come through with
the way your email reads.  Popping into a forum and saying "this sucks" is a 
sure fire way to get flamed ANYWHERE.

You should have provided some reasoning why you believed FreeBSD's source
layout was not as good as Linux's from whatever perspective you were looking 
at it. 



> my words were really facts Mr Scott , Linux layout is better than
> FreeBSD layout , FreeBSD performance it better than Linux one , and
> thnx for silly reply.

"FreeBSD performance is better than Linux."  That's yet another interesting
claim.  For the applications I run no one would touch FreeBSD as it doesn't
do as well as Linux so that's a very general and very vague claim.



> 
> that's why i hate forums and maillists and i should mail this directly
> to the core members.

So stop posting to them.

> 
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:46:04 -0600, Craig Boston <craig at tobuj.gank.org> wrote:
> > At the risk of going further and further off-topic from
> > freebsd-hackers...
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 02:29:13PM -0800, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> > > Sounds like a bad situation there.  On our server we use svn+ssh, except
> > > for a few Windows clients that use https.  (BTW our server is running
> > > 4-STABLE and it's wonderful.)
> >
> > Hmmm, I initially didn't want to use that because I read that it suffers
> > from the same security issues as CVS.  The appeal of being able to
> > fine-tune permissions and grant subversion access without shell access
> > is quite luring.
> >
> > HTTP timeouts during long operations, on the other hand, suck.  ( my
> > server is woefully underpowered :-D ).
> >
> > Note to davsvn users with slow servers: http-timeout = 3600 is your
> > friend.
> >
> > > Heh.  :-)  1.1.3 is current now, but one can find mentions of a 1.1.4
> > > bugfix release being planned, as well as the (farther out) 1.2 release
> > > with locking.
> >
> > Oh, I've been running 1.1.3 on both client and server since it went into
> > ports (many dump/loads later).  Just haven't taken the time to see
> > what's new and compare to older versions. :)
> >
> > Craig
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> >
> 
> --
> I'm Searching For Perfection,
> So Even If U Need Portability U've To Use Assembly ;-)
> http://www.maslanlab.org
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>