From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Oct 23 10: 6:23 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from etinc.com (et-gw.etinc.com [207.252.1.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 558C337B479 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 10:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dbsys.etinc.com (dbsys.etinc.com [207.252.1.18]) by etinc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA06399; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:01:30 GMT (envelope-from dennis@etinc.com) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001023130049.02985eb0@mail.etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@mail.etinc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:06:16 -0400 To: Sergey Babkin , Frederik Meerwaldt From: Dennis Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux Cc: "phpStop.com" , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <39F209DF.88368125@bellatlantic.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 05:25 PM 10/21/2000, Sergey Babkin wrote: >Frederik Meerwaldt wrote: > > > > > We need this information in order to determine which of these two OS to > > > choose from to drive our website. > > > > Choose FreeBSD. It's faster. > >Also if some things don't work or work strangely or are poorly >documented, finding sources for them is MUCH easier in FreeBSD. Linux >is a patchwork of independent packages, and tracking down what came >from where and was patched by what is usually not easy. Also commercial >distributions of Linux sometimes tend to "lose" parts of sources, >so that you will not always be able to re-compile the stuff at all. >There's been a short period when I worked on building a Linux >distribution and that was a quite special experience. What he's trying to say is that the linux kernel is an abortion. They keep redesigning it and its continuously unstable. Many of the kernel "features" are experimental and large chunks of it simply dont work. Then, IF you can get everything you need working, virtually all of the ethernet drivers lock up under load. There is no static buffer pool so the memory system will fail under heavy network load. So-called "local" panics can disable the network sub-system without a reboot making it unusable in unattended environments.... Need I go on? Dennis To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message