Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 15:10:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Simon Shapiro <Shimon@i-Connect.Net> To: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Good Lord, Commercial Linux Message-ID: <XFMail.971004151024.Shimon@i-Connect.Net> In-Reply-To: <19971004210211.32240@klemm.gtn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Andreas Klemm; On 04-Oct-97 you wrote: > Hi ! > > On Tue, Sep 30, 1997 at 08:50:02PM -0700, Simon Shapiro wrote: > > I still like FreeBSD installation better. The rest is pretty much > > the same to me. > > Can't understand this. Could you please explain it a bit more ? > Based on my own experience I can't follow here... On second reading, it does require a clarification; Aside from ``minor'' issues like quality, integrity, stability, etc., once you install either a Linux or a FreeBSD, provides they both work, what you get is a very current, complete and usable... Unix. Some people care a great deal about the SysV vs. BSD differences. I do not. I see the differences as noise. Having said that, we can go to the ``minor'' issues listed above and analyze them. Here FreeBSD is (in my opinion) a clear winner. This is why I am investing in and using FreeBSD and not Linux (as I did in the past). > > Kernel-wise, I think i trust FreeBSD kernel better than Linux, > > although performance is, well, six of this, half a dozen of the > > other; Both are tuned very well. > > Could you please explain this a little more verbose as well. Sure, The Linux kernel appears to me as a sandbox; A great place to build interesting structures and tear them down just as fast, while maintaining a strong toy orintation. Watch children in a sandbox. They are NOT playing. They are seriously building. Some of what they do will, one day, be built professionally, etc. Although much of my professional life was within the SystemV camp, I actually like the BSD kernel better than Linux. It is much more traditional, building on well known principles and expreinces. The Linux kernel seems to me like a hack. A hodge-podge of ideas (some of them excellent!). >From performance, on a PC platform, performance ends up being similar. Under heavy load, I'll choose FreeBSD over Linux, as FreeBSD runs and Linux dies. By heavy load I mean hundreds of processes running continious disk I/O and networking code, and RDBMS code. LA of 250 for months on end. >From stability point of view, FreeBSD is a winner. One can only take the weekly kernel for only so long. > So you are saying that FreeBSD has about half the performance > as Linux ? You're kidding ;-) No, I said that 6 Linuxes are about equal to half dozen FreeBSDs. I said 6 == 12 / 2, which is still true, last I checked :-)) > Or did you compare things like the speed of rm -rf on a large > directory tree without recognizing, that FreeBSD doesn't do > asynchronous I/O to a file system as default ?! While anomalies are important, they are not representative of the entities they are excepting. In my daily work, I do not have much use for large rm -rf. I have use for other things, but there they are similar. I would have copared a ``make world'' session on both O/S's but that concenpt does not exist on Linux, that I know of. For my professional work, that (lack of a coherent source tree) was a major reason to NOT use Linux. If I cannot reliably build a coherent, synchornized release, then I cannot say with certinty that my system is reproducable and thus true regression testing is impossible, thus I cannot use Linux for mission critical without faith. I have a lot of faith, but not in engineering products being correct by default :-) --- Sincerely Yours, Simon Shapiro Atlas Telecom Senior Architect 14355 SW Allen Blvd., Suite 130 Beaverton OR 97005 Shimon@i-Connect.Net Voice: 503.799.2313
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.971004151024.Shimon>