Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 19:54:03 -0500 (EST) From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@rush.net> To: Otto Solares <solca@fisicc-ufm.edu> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux under load Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990508192709.7628g-100000@cygnus.rush.net> In-Reply-To: <37349B3F.9D830C1C@fisicc-ufm.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 8 May 1999, Otto Solares wrote: > > >Sera entonces que si hace todo esto no puede con > > >grandes cargas? Sera que es un OS de desktop? > > >Si ustedes saben de algun otro sistema > > >operativo que haga todo esto y ademas este creciendo > > >mas que linux en popularidad > > ok, so your point is: It doesn´t matter if it can handle lots of > > load, or is a "desktop OS" because linux can do all theese other > > tings? > > No, linux can handle a lots of load AND DO this other things, ask > DejaNews here's something fun to do on FreeBSD AND Linux, download the latest version of wine: ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/Linux/ALPHA/wine/development/Wine-990426.tar.gz unpack it, run configure, run "gmake -j" walk away... you might want to set TMPDIR=$HOME/tmp or something... As far as your previous posts on clustering Linux for large ray-tracing applications... That's very nice, but it's not that amazing of an accomplishment, most of these supercomputer type applications do not stress the OS, they just spin a lot of CPU cycles, no real load is being put on the boxes. > > Who cares about reliability anyway? > > Don't think so: > > Domain : RIPE+.edu > DName : --------- > Service: ftp+news+www > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Date : April `99 > > > Host OS recognized (grouped, sorted) 01/99 %recog 04/99 > %recog +/-% > ------------------------------------ ------- ------ ------- > ------- ---- > 1.( ) Linux 287093 28.5 399748 > 31.3 +2.8 > > ^^^^^^ > 4.( ) BSD Family 150961 15.0 186385 > 14.6 -0.4 > > ^^^^^^ > > So, all this people don't care about realiability for servers not to > mention desktop? > So because is very unreliable is gaining more server share than *BSD? It's been hyped up much more. Windows probably has a 10 times greater audiance on the desktop, does that make it _better_? Be fair. You can't have it both ways. > I don't want a flame war. And my real point is that linux is a very good > OS. > So don't miss this point, if you think that attacking linux your OS will > get > more acceptance you are wrong. The FreeBSD community got a lot to win if > linux > win. What i think about FreeBSD? Ok, a good OS, certainly i will not > take off my > linux boxes for FreeBSD, although i work with FreeBSD servers at work :) oh really? :) > > I think is better now to think how to make FreeBSD to not loose more > server > share than attack linux with FUD. > > > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > microsofish ahh? ;) er, yeah, running on FreeBSD webservers.... Linux is a fine OS, my preference is FreeBSD, I just wish you'd stop ranting and flaming people on the FreeBSD advocacy list. You're like the AOLers on alt.tasteless that say, "eww, ick, gross!" This just isn't the best place for Linux evangilism. Many of us have been burned by Linux in the past and are not its biggest fans. thanks, -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.990508192709.7628g-100000>