is THIS why the 6.2 release seems stalled ?

[Jeff Mohler]

Fbsd needs SAN support before it can cope with
virtualization..virtualization requires a lot of disk..spindles..and
FCP/iSCSI is a great way to drive this condensation.

I mean..when you have to read this list, and see people wonder which
end of a SAN connection owns the responsibility for fsck'ing a SAN
filesystem, I wonder how quickly I can bone up on Linux.

In ten years at Network Appliance..wanna know exactly how many FreeBSD
host installs ive seen besides Yahoo?

2.

How many -non- Linux SAN configurations?  Probly 80% of all SAN I see
and work with are Linux based.

Fbsd NFS client performance is 1/3'd that of a tuned linux box, can
you say ../..?  If you can, you know what its like to never have a
valid directory attr cache on your mounts.  (ick)  Automount...dont
even go there.

Im in this for the long haul..I like Fbsd, and as long s lynx and
apache still work on it, im happy.  As for the future..I just dont see
much serious future there unless it grows up.

Rememer when Linux couldnt do _crap_ and Fbsd 2.5 was the bomb?  I
do...I want like to see that again.



On 1/9/07, Nikolas Britton <nikolas.britton at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/9/07, Garrett Cooper <youshi10 at u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> > Don't know about some of the items, but...
> >     -Flash support with Mozilla products is being done through Mozilla's
> > ActionScript Engine:
> > <http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200611/110706Mozilla.html>.
> > So, I expect the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player to be supported
> > on all Unix platforms to some extent in the future. Sound support will
> > be interesting though.
>
> But I use Opera?? And It needs to work with youtube, without crashing
> and without install headaches. 'cd /usr/ports/www/flash; make install
> clean; exit;' then open browser to youtube.com and go. No library
> shuffle or libmap configuring.
>
> >     -Isn't Xen handled by the Xen project and not FreeBSD?
>
> Yes, and they have done their part. Now it's FreeBSD's turn to
> integrate the changes needed to the kernel into the kernel to make
> Dom0 support work. Linux has it, Solaris has it. NetBSD has it. Mac
> has it? FreeBSD does not have it. Server virtualization is the next
> big thing and FreeBSD has nothing going for it in this respect... Not
> even VMware or any of the other big players works with FreeBSD as a
> host OS.
>
> >     Seems like your comment (was related) but off-topic.
>
> It is off-topic... don't really care at this point.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>