From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 25 07:22:43 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3ACD16A468 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:22:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xistence@0x58.com) Received: from mailexchange.osnn.net (1e.66.5646.static.theplanet.com [70.86.102.30]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 77A0C13C4CC for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:22:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xistence@0x58.com) Received: (qmail 7335 invoked by uid 0); 25 Jan 2008 07:18:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wideload.network.lan) (xistence@0x58.com@68.228.228.123) by mailexchange.osnn.net with SMTP; 25 Jan 2008 07:18:55 -0000 Cc: FreeBSD Hackers Message-Id: <47928318-0FF3-49F2-B427-A026DB56BE3E@0x58.com> From: Bert JW Regeer In-Reply-To: <84a208a0801242158q632314dfpd370a2fee2f87390@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-1--399754265; micalg=sha1; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:22:24 -0700 References: <84a208a0801232306k6a34134aqd549a1ba2160fe41@mail.gmail.com> <86bq7bwlot.fsf@ds4.des.no> <84a208a0801240456q3154de92me73e846df84d587a@mail.gmail.com> <86prvrv0b1.fsf@ds4.des.no> <84a208a0801240711j979874apad2d17c9afdbd6e@mail.gmail.com> <86fxwn877v.fsf@ds4.des.no> <84a208a0801242158q632314dfpd370a2fee2f87390@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Re: FreeBSD hacker 101 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:22:43 -0000 --Apple-Mail-1--399754265 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Jan 24, 2008, at 22:58 , william wong wrote: > That brings me to another ponder: why juniper and cisco are using > FreeBSD and not Linux even Linux performs better in an UP environment? > > 2008/1/25, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav : >> "william wong" writes: >>> Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav writes: >>>> "william wong" writes: >>>>> It seems that Juniper favors the even number FreeBSD's. >>>> Only because 5 was a dog. They probably stuck with 4 for a =20 >>>> while, then >>>> switched to 6 once they had ascertained that it was significantly =20= >>>> more >>>> stable than 5. I would be surprised if they skipped 7. >>> Please pardon my ignorance of the jargons. Does that mean 5 is not >>> stable or does not perform or what? >> >> FreeBSD 5 was not a very good series. It was released late and had >> issues with both stability and performance. FreeBSD 6 corrected the >> stability issues and some of the worst performance issues. FreeBSD 7 >> took care of the remaining performance issues; it may not be as =20 >> fast as >> 4 was on UP, but it beats Linux on SMP. >> >> (there's no point in comparing SMP performance between 4 and 7 =20 >> since 4 >> had a single-threaded kernel and practically no userland thread =20 >> support) >> >> DES >> -- >> Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no >> Please do not top post. The reason Juniper and Cisco are probably using FreeBSD is because of =20= the license that FreeBSD is under (BSD-License) versus the Linux =20 kernels GPL. Bert JW Regeer --Apple-Mail-1--399754265--