HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon

Vadim Goncharov vadim_nuclight at mail.ru
Wed Sep 8 03:18:36 UTC 2010

07.09.10 @ 18:53 Andriy Gapon wrote:

> on 07/09/2010 13:38 Vadim Goncharov said the following:
>>> Just to clarify things a little for those following it:
>>> the original I4B code was removed
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (1)
>>> for entirely practical reasons: it couldn't run without the Giant
>>> lock, and support for the Giant lock over the network stack was  
>>> removed.
>> But if it was used, removing a component just because of Giant lock is  
>> not
>> practical and is purely ideologic, isn't it?
> Which part of "support for the Giant lock *over the network stack* was  
> removed"
> [emphasis mine] do you not understand?

No, component removed was (1), I've underlined.

> The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology.

For a practical reasons, "it works but slow" is better than
"doesn't work at all (due to absence of code in the src tree)".

"Make it work. Make it right. Make it fast. In that order", know this?
Sacrificing "work" for "fast"?.. Hmm, if it is not ideology, then what is  

> BTW, there were advanced notices for users, request for volunteers, etc.
> So, if you didn't speak up at that time please keep silence now :-)

You do not understand the problem. It is not in notices & volunteers, but  
rather in the Project's policy - delete something which could still work.  
Personally, I don't use ISDN, so didn't said anything that time, but now,  
there are more precedents of removing components from FreeBSD - so, for  
now, I must say that this policy is harmful. Though I doubt that one man's  
opinion could change Project's policy until it's too late...

WBR, Vadim Goncharov

More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list