Thank you!

[Freebsd0101 at aol.com]

In a message dated 1/14/05 7:07:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
norgaard at locolomo.org writes:
Freebsd0101 at aol.com wrote:

>> Why doesn't someone just answer the question? When Watson finally 
>> admitted publically that 5.x  has networking issues it ended the last
>> discussion. Just answer the question.
>
>Focusing on one cludge is meaningless - who cares if your network is a 
>little slow, or just slower than 4.x if disk or server apps can't keep 
>up with it anyway? 4.x, 5.0-2 and DragonFlyBSD all suffer from the GIANT 
>cludge. PHK has done a lot of work to resolve this cludge, all results 
>may not be in 5.3.
>
>> Why are you abandoning support for new hardware in 4.x
>> when you admit that 5.x is not ready? It makes no sense at all.
>
>This is very obvious: There are limited resources: The time of the 
>developers is precious. Keeping an old system updated costs time and 
>takes away resources to address the remaining issues with the new version.
-----
I'd question your categorization of 4.10 as an "old system". Its the current
system that works optimally. Its only "old" because you've purposely
antiquated it.

If you read Mr Watson's explanation you'd know that its not a "kludge". 
There are fundamental algorithms in the O/S proper that are being redone.
"networking performance" is not a kludge. Its fundamental to usability
of the O/S as a server.

I understand that resources are scarce, but you are risking losing a 
significant and important part of your user base for reasons that 
seem questionable. Linux is light years ahead in SMP and now you're
risking your advantage in uniprocessor performance. You're risking 
disappearing from the map altogether, IMO.

Thanks for answering the question.