On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Ektor WetterstrC6m <ektw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Nick Holland > <n...@holland-consulting.net> wrote: >> On 06/23/10 06:36, Ektor Wetterstrvm wrote: >>> I know http://bullshit.fefe.de/ is wrong / outdated / >>> non-scientific / whatever... But what about this? Phoronix has more >>> credibility imho... >>> >>> [benchmarks] >> >> facinating number of posts like this recently, all from gmail users >> we've never seen before... >> >> What I want to see is a comparison of critical bug and security >> problems, or percentage of subsystems that Just Work, or man page >> accuracy. B (or maybe packet filtering rates) > > I agree, but you should admit that OpenBSD is clearly a looser in > regard to "pure performances" (e.g. I/O, compression, encryption, > etc.)
Says who? Can't see difference during work with Ubuntu 10.04 or OpenBSD 4.7 on desktop. Everything has same speed either GUI or eg. copy of files to/from USB flash disk. For better I/O you need to buy better disk, components and so on and not those cheap horrors. Compression or decompression...... if it's something small then I can't see difference if it's something big I'm running it in background so I can do another job. I don't need to take a look at list of compressed files scrolling in terminal. Where they tested practical use of encryption, its implementation, cost, documentation and so on in those tests????? And how better pure performance can save eg. some private data if it's available on buggy platform where anyone can stole them? Yes, he can stole them quicker :D > >> Nick. > > Bye, > Ektor > > -- b If youbre good at something, never do it for free.b B bThe Joker
