On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:53:09 +0200 Ektor WetterstrC6m <ektw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > What are the unsurpassable real world weaknesses in OpenBSD, that you > > know of? > > Lack of proper SMP support, inefficient threading (old userland-only > thread library), no support for modern filesystems (not even FFS2!), > suboptimal NFS performances... > Threading support was quite predictable and I was hoping for something new (multiple cores was a trade of correctness for heat reduction anyway). Would you run X on your linux server, because it's easier. I wouldn't trade PF for better threading any day and you can always use multiple systems, whilst wasting very little power these days, if you try. It's far far easier to trounce Linux in ways OpenBSD is better, but we'd be here all day and there are loads of pdfs that will tell you the same and which led me to OpenBSD in the first place. OpenBSD pleases me every day, Linux annoys me half the time. Let me know when you've found an unsurpassable real world weakness in OpenBSD and try adding pax to the latest Linux kernel, without spending any time on it, when you've added all the protections OpenBSD has, rerun those pointless tests. By then we may be using biological computers which have gone back to single core because it's the PROPER way of doing things and you will have missed 5000 new kernel versions. Every time you plug a usb into most linux distros it takes longer to register too and tells you it's finished writing data when it hasn't. It can also take forever to find where something is initialising from, now they are real world annoyances and wastes of USERS time. Maybe we should launch ffs3 (ext4) now and risk data loss to find the bugs.
