On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, fooler wrote:
..
> > 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.
Yes. The converse can also be said.
> > 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.
I believe the FreeBSD docs say it's dangerous or experimental or
something..
> 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.
Well, maybe memory management. After all, Linux 2.5 will be using the
FreeBSD VM.
> 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.
> > The OpenBSD people would take major issue with that claim..
>
> unfortunately, openbsd is only good for firewalls and not for servers.
it's blanket statements like this that get my goat. Have you actually USED
openbsd extensively enough to make that claim? I've used both, albeit not
very extensively (Linux still is good, and it has WAY better SMP scaling
than FreeBSD, even jkh owns up to that) and, from a Linux-centric point of
view, they (Open- and Free-) look remarkably similar.
Not that I'm Linux-exclusive. I cut my teeth on Sun Solaris and SunOS 4,
which in the latter case is basically BSD 4.4.
..
> > 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 believe FreeBSD developers are after the server. No one cares for the
desktop. And with the way they do development (too elitist, etc) Linux
will always have public sympathy. It may have Alan Cox and Linus Torvalds
on top, but ANYONE can submit something and have a chance of it being
included.
> > 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.
Did you know that Oracle 8i runs native on IA64 Linux (TurboLinux 7.0)? as
far as I'm concerned, between FreeBSD and Linux, I'd go where the apps
are. They're not far apart in technical excellence (unlike say NT and
UNIX). And Linux will always develop faster thanks to the more populist
dev model. FreeBSD (via the Jolitz 386BSD) and Linux started about the
same time, but Jolitz started with the 4.4BSD code base and Linus started
from scratch. Now, Linux is arguably ahead, in spite of the 20-year
built-in time advantage of 4.4BSD. I'm going with the penguin!
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Andico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> POTS Phone: +63 (2) 937-2293
Mosaic Communications, Inc. GSM Mobile: +63 (917) 531-5893
I'm not suffering from insanity -- I'm enjoying every minute of it!!
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
