From owner-freebsd-chat  Wed Sep  3 16:40:27 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA15621
          for chat-outgoing; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 16:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA15610
          for <chat@freebsd.org>; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 16:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from sef@localhost) by kithrup.com (8.8.5/8.6.6) id QAA10588; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 16:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 16:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@Kithrup.COM>
Message-Id: <199709032340.QAA10588@kithrup.com>
To: chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: (none)
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In article <Pine.NEB.3.96.970903152655.9490A-100000.kithrup.freebsd.chat@pooh.cdrom.com> you write:
>
> http://techweb.cmp.com/internetwk/reviews/reviews.htm
>
> Comparsion of FreeBSD, SCO's Enterprise Server, Microsoft's Windows NT,
>Red Hat's version of Linux, Berkeley Software Design Inc.'s BSD/OS 3.0.

An interesting article.  FreeBSD does not come out as well as I would have
liked, though -- better than NT, but not as good as BSD/OS or Linux.  (They
don't give any numbers for SCO.)

The numbers they do give for Linux are surprising, in fact -- it would seem
to indicate that Linux is considerably ahead of FreeBSD 2.2.2 in terms of
performance as a Web server, even with several hundred "simultaneous"
connections.

John?  Any comment?