Hi Robert,
the benchmark you cited is for uniprocessor systems only.
It says nothing about multiprocessor performance, which is what FreeBSD is aiming for.
It's comparing apples with oranges.
Cheers, Gerald
Robert Ryan wrote:
Fellow FreeBSD developers,
I hate to say I told you but it was inevitable.
Check this out: http://www.feyrer.de/NetBSD/gmcgarry/
As I predicted more than a year ago FreeBSD 5.3 has finally lost its only advantage: performance. NetBSD 2.0 shows that when you write code the right way and end up with SOLUTIONS AND NOT HACKS you have a system that works, and works well on all platforms.
This is the consequence of a series of mistakes made by the FreeBSD developers, the most important being too arrogant and selfish to listen to Matt Dillon, the man that warned you all about this. What did he get in return? An expulsion from your gentlemen club.
Poul-Henning Kamp has been using FreeBSD to push his
personal agenda, with completely useless features such
as GEOM and devfs, instead of concentrating on the
real problem. The fact that your heavily mutexed system
doesn't work and never will.
Jeff Roberson's ULE is still broken but don't worry, Matt Dillon will be hacking a much better scheduler for DragonFly that you can later borrow.
Mike Smith warned you about committee-designed code
years ago, why don't you listen? Why do you insist on
this arrogant pose and on treating potential contributors like pariahs?
Why do you tolerate assholes like Dag-Erling and Poul-Henning?
I hope you can learn something from the NetBSD people before it's too late for FreeBSD. They managed to do much more with less resources. You should feel ashamed of yourselves.
Sincerely, Robert
PS: if I've offended anyone (yeah, I singled a few
out)
, prove me wrong, but spare me your insultedness. It's become a pathetic hobby in -core.
_______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
