On Wednesday 23 June 2010 11:16:37 Marco Peereboom wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 04:53:09PM +0200, Ektor Wetterstr?m wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Kevin Chadwick
wrote:
> > > What are the unsurpassable real world weaknesses in OpenBSD, that you
> > > know of?
> >
> > Lack of prop
> facinating number of posts like this recently, all from gmail users
> we've never seen before...
>
Yes, it's troll year.
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:08:34 +0100
Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> 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 tro
> OpenBSD pleases me every day, Linux annoys me half the time.
The number of mass casualty events avoided is the true metric
by which operating systems should be measured.
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:53:09 +0200
Ektor WetterstrC6m wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Kevin Chadwick
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),
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 04:53:09PM +0200, Ektor Wetterstr?m wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > What are the unsurpassable real world weaknesses in OpenBSD, that you
> > know of?
>
> Lack of proper SMP support, inefficient threading (old userland-only
SMP is prope
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 04:53:09PM +0200, Ektor Wetterstrvm wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Kevin Chadwick 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 libr
2010/6/24, Ektor WetterstrC6m :
> filesystems (not even FFS2!),
>
??
Please take a look at man newfs?
--
IMPORTANT: DO NOT send me Microsoft Office/Apple iWork documents.
--
IMPORTANT: DO NOT send me Microsoft Office/Apple iWork documents.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Kevin Chadwick 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 perfor
> What are the unsurpassable real world weaknesses in OpenBSD, that you
> know of?
Lots of fake people attacking the project on the mailing lists makes
them a poor resource for users.
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:29:24 +0200
Ektor WetterstrC6m wrote:
> (I see to much zealotry here)...
It is not zealotry at all. Just a want to be straight and get things
correct. Questions which turn out, to be next to meaningless in the
real world, can annoy.
If I knew what tests the link containe
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Reyk Floeter wrote:
>
> this statement is weird, in some way.
>
that statement is self-referential . . . so, I agree, it's a bit "weird" ;-)
> reyk
> this statement is weird, in some way.
I concur. I'll shutup. :-)
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 08:39:20AM -0400, Adam M. Dutko wrote:
> Not that I have a lot of room to talk because I haven't submitted a patch
> yet...
>
this statement is weird, in some way.
reyk
> By the way, I like OpenBSD and I really appreciate its strong points
> but, unlike You, I have no problems in admitting its weaknesses (I see
> to much zealotry here)...
Not that I have a lot of room to talk because I haven't submitted a patch
yet... However, I think the general belief is that
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Rod Whitworth wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:20:34 +0200, Ektor Wetterstrvm wrote:
>
>>Bye,
> Promise?
Sure, this is my last mail on the topic. I only wanted to know Your
opinions about these types of benchmarks...
By the way, I like OpenBSD and I really appreci
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:20:34 +0200, Ektor Wetterstrvm wrote:
>Bye,
Promise?
*** NOTE *** Please DO NOT CC me. I subscribed to the list.
Mail to the sender address that does not originate at the list server is
tarpitted. The reply-to: address is provided for those who feel compelled to
reply of
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 07:01:44 -0400, Nick Holland 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 po
yawn
Continues working...
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Ektor WetterstrC6m
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Nick Holland
> 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
>>>
> I agree, but you should admit that OpenBSD is clearly a looser in
> regard to "pure performances" (e.g. I/O, compression, encryption,
> etc.)
>
> > Nick.
>
> Bye,
> Ektor
>
They should have also ran tests on multiple hardware, single core and
32bit.
32 bit, out performs 64bit on OpenBSD, atl
> I agree, but you should admit that OpenBSD is clearly a looser in
> regard to "pure performances" (e.g. I/O, compression, encryption,
> etc.)
Yes, if my goal is to have ZOMG AWEZUMZ benchmarks, clearly OpenBSD
is a douchebag.
But if I want a system that doesn't make me want to initiate a mass-
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Nick Holland
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 post
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:36:38PM +0200, Ektor Wetterstrvm wrote:
> I know http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/ is wrong / outdated /
> non-scientific / whatever... But what about this? Phoronix has more
> credibility imho...
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_bsd_opensolari
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Nick Holland
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 post
Hi
Very good performance putty :)
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:36:38 +0200, Ektor WetterstrC6m
wrote:
> I know http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/ is wrong / outdated /
> non-scientific / whatever... But what about this? Phoronix has more
> credibility imho...
>
>
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a
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 bef
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Ektor Wetterstrvm wrote:
> I know http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/ is wrong / outdated /
> non-scientific / whatever... But what about this? Phoronix has more
> credibility imho...
>
>
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_bsd_opensolaris&num=
1
I'm missing info about how much and where is real crypto and security
techniques used in those systems. Oh waitit's Phoronix. Now it's
clear. "I have better toy then you" benchmark type :-)
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Ektor WetterstrC6m
wrote:
> I know http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/ i
I know http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/ is wrong / outdated /
non-scientific / whatever... But what about this? Phoronix has more
credibility imho...
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_bsd_opensolaris&num=1
Best Regards,
Ektor
30 matches
Mail list logo