From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Mar 7 01:33:46 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id BAA22280 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 01:33:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from nixpbe.pdb.sni.de (mail.sni.de [192.109.2.33]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA22269 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 01:33:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nerv@localhost) by nixpbe.pdb.sni.de (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18914 for hackers@freebsd.org; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 10:33:15 +0100 Message-Id: <199603070933.KAA18914@nixpbe.pdb.sni.de> Subject: Comparing FreeBSD and other OSs To: hackers@freebsd.org (Hackers; FreeBSD) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 10:29:50 MET From: Greg Lehey X-Mailer: xmail 2.4 (based on ELM 2.2 PL16) Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk The current FreeBSD/Linux comparison is only part of a larger question: which operating system should I install on my PC? Stretching the term "Operating System" to include program loaders like DOS, we have at least the following choices on standard PC hardware: DOS Windows 95% Windows NT OS/2 Linux Xenix SCO "UNIX" UnixWare Solaris 2.x BSD/OS FreeBSD NetBSD OpenBSD (?) I've tried to list these roughly in order of publicity; no flames please, note the word "roughly". One way or another, FreeBSD is quite a way down the list. What questions do people ask? I assert that the most common one is "which OS do I choose". In most cases the implicit answer is "none, DOS", but in some cases people really do care. We should be able to help them come to a good decision--*not* necessarily FreeBSD. Another question is the one most people have been discussing in the past day or two: "Which system has the best performance?" As people have indicated, this is so tied in to hardware that it's impossible to give a really good answer. Certainly it pays to be fair to each system and show up its strengths (and weaknesses). A third question might be "ease of use". This is a hot potato, since it relates to previous experience. For many people, the choice might be DOS. For the rest of us, though, it's more difficult to choose. I don't know if it's even worth following up on this one. Looking at the two first questions, I think it would be presumptous of us to want to make a choice by ourselves. I think we should at least contact the other groups (yes, even Microsoft) and for a group to hack up some criteria for comparing the systems. Possibly a magazine would be interested, if we can come to a consensus on which magazine would be neutral enough. I expect that many vendors (particularly Microsoft and IBM) would either not want to participate or impose such ridiculous conditions that we wouldn't be able to work with them, but I think we should at least show the good will. That brings us to the next point: what criteria? I don't even know how to start, but here are some things that spring to mind: - Stability (how do we measure it? Maybe including ease of getting bugs fixed) - Performance (what do we measure?) - Ease of installation - Ease of use - Price/performance ratio :-) - Ease of administration and maintenance (including installing new versions of the system) These are, of course, only labels on which to hang a whole lot more. In particular, such a group would have to establish criteria for the measurements. This is a pretty vague suggestion, but I think it will draw more attention to our professional attitude than if we start a one-sided attack on Linux, however professionally we go about it. Comments? Flames? Greg