Orlando Andico wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Edwin Linux Fan wrote:
> ..
> > Performance:
> > - Server: Faster than Linux (PHP,MySQL,Apache)
> > - KDE: Faster than Linux
> > - Disc access: Faster than Linux
> > built in Journaling File System
>
> Where did you get these gems? by my own measurements, FreeBSD is SLOWER
> overall than Linux, although more stable.
try to tweak its runtime parameters and tune its kernel and you will see the
difference. linux cant outperform freebsd in all aspect in terms of performance.
> And the FS is NOT journaling --
> it's a standard UFS with synchronous metadata (same effect as journaling,
> but not as fast).
maybe he enabled softupdates which acting like a jfs but pretty much faster than
jfs. its a new technology, even on the latest cache bake-off , squid uses
softupdates.
> Saying that KDE is faster on FreeBSD is very iffy. It's hard to quantify
> GUI performance.
KDE on different OS is still the same code but its on top of that OS. so meaning
its up to the OS how its kernel, memory management, threading, etc performs very
well. that is why he feel that KDE on freebsd is much faster than linux.
> Disk access: how did you measure? bonnie? iozone? give us some figures,
> otherwise your claims are baseless (I *had* some figures showing that
> Linux is faster).
by default linux fs is asynchronous while freebsd is synchronous. try to async
freebsd fs and you will see the difference. actually the real score in disk
performance is on disk buffering (assuming the same hardware). as you know also
that memory management of freebsd is far superior than linux for the purpose of
handling memory on disk buffering.
> > Compatibility:
> > - Netscape 4.76 Flawless
> > - VNC Viewer runs
> > - StarOffice 5.2 runs
>
> Yeah, but I'd bet you wouldn't want to trust your business running Oracle
> 8iR3-EE under Linux emulation, would you?
yes of course. as of the presstime, no words from oracle running under freebsd OS.
maybe or sooner.
that is why to my previous post, every OS has its own functions. why run MS Echange
under linux, right? :->
> > My Conclusion:
> > - Server, da best!
> > - Security, da best!
>
> The OpenBSD people would take major issue with that claim..
unfortunately, openbsd is only good for firewalls and not for servers.
> > - Desktop, if the BSD people put their minds to it,
> > and since KDE and Gnome is generic to unix,
> > Desktop could be on par with the best of Linux.
>
> No. Important to the desktop is the presence of DRIVERS. Why do you think
> I'm NOT using FreeBSD? (aside from the convenience of Red Hat init scripts
> -- have you seen the BSD init setup? yeah it's simple, but it lacks
> flexibility).
actually freebsd goal is simplicity and centralization and the same time its offer
flexibility. id rather to edit only one file where all the configurations are there
instead of editing scattered configuration files under redhat.
> It's because there are no drivers for a lot of things:
> The 3dfx Voodoo3 won't do DRI on FreeBSD, because FreeBSD doesn't have the
> Direct Rendering Manager kernel module. The Aureal Vortex2 only supports 8
> audio channels for playback and 1 for record on FreeBSD (using the Linux
> binary-only driver in a hackish emulation mode) whil Linux supports 96
> devices, mix and match playback and recording.
care to email freebsd the one who maintains this driver?
> I could go on and on.. but the bottom line is, for the DESKTOP Linux beats
> all the other PC UNIXes due to the drivers. And for the server.. he he. I
> haven't seen FreeBSD for ia64 or S/390.
IA64 is still under development. just wait and see.
as of the moment, freebsd only supports, intel, dec alpha and pc-98
fooler.
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
