Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 22:31:34 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW8gbcWCb2R5Y2ggYmFuZHl0w7N3?= <radiomlodychbandytow@o2.pl> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: daniel@digsys.bg Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux, 6.1 Server Message-ID: <4EF79636.7080603@o2.pl> In-Reply-To: <20111219173426.55711106579E@hub.freebsd.org> References: <20111219173426.55711106579E@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Well, the post is OT, but I need some vent. On 2011-12-19 18:34, daniel@digsys.bg wrote: >> For example, few checkboxes with common sysctl tuning would be perfect, >> > even if they would be marked as "Experimental", or not recommended. > By following this, we push FreeBSD into the Linux style of doing things: > someone else decides what is good for you, without having a clue of your > circumstances. It's nice to see sb. with similar thoughts. I too find the freedom to administer your system the way you see fit to be very important. I was very saddened when I discovered that in some ways FreeBSD also forces specific behaviour and in some others builds barriers to prevent people from doing things the authors considered stupid. I don't view it as Linux way vs. FreeBSD way ( though it may be because I don't know either too well ). Rather, I see it as the MacOS way. Education is much better than building barriers and it's never true that a developer can predict all the uses of their code. And different uses call for different configurations, artificially limiting it is a time invested to reduce code's value. -- Twoje radio
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EF79636.7080603>