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=B4t matter if it can handle lots of > > load, or is a "desktop OS" because linux can do all theese other > > tings? >=20 > 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=3D$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? >=20 > Don't think so: >=20 > Domain : RIPE+.edu > DName : --------- > Service: ftp+news+www > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Date : April `99 >=20 >=20 > Host OS recognized (grouped, sorted) 01/99 %recog 04/99 =20 > %recog +/-% =20 > ------------------------------------ ------- ------ -------=20 > ------- ---- =20 > 1.( ) Linux 287093 28.5 399748 =20 > 31.3 +2.8 =20 > = =20 > ^^^^^^ > 4.( ) BSD Family 150961 15.0 186385 =20 > 14.6 -0.4=20 > = =20 > ^^^^^^ =20 >=20 > 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? :) >=20 > I think is better now to think how to make FreeBSD to not loose more > server > share than attack linux with FUD. >=20 > > 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=20 ranting and flaming people on the FreeBSD advocacy list. You're like the AOLers on alt.tasteless that say, "eww, ick, gross!" =20 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>