From owner-freebsd-advocacy Tue Jun 29 14:35: 6 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from xylan.com (postal.xylan.com [208.8.0.248]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19F8F14EDB for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:35:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from mailhub.xylan.com by xylan.com (8.8.7/SMI-SVR4 (xylan-mgw 2.2 [OUT])) id OAA12807; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:34:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omni.xylan.com by mailhub.xylan.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4 (mailhub 2.1 [HUB])) id OAA27817; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:34:03 -0700 Received: from softweyr.com (dyn2.utah.xylan.com) by omni.xylan.com (4.1/SMI-4.1 (xylan engr [SPOOL])) id AA09748; Tue, 29 Jun 99 14:33:59 PDT Message-Id: <37793BC7.FAB4D452@softweyr.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:33:59 -0600 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en Mime-Version: 1.0 To: "Daniel C. Sobral" Cc: Jonathan Walther , advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [Linux vs. NT, take 2.] References: <3778E7A7.1F548BE@newsguy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "Daniel C. Sobral" wrote: > > Jonathan Walther wrote: > > > > The only damage was to Redhat. None of the Linux bigwigs participated. > > Linus, Alan Cox, Jeremy Alison... none of them participated or endorsed the > > benchmarks. Linux is pulling through this one pretty well. And the fact > > that Mindcraft is still involved taints all results in the eyes of the > > journalistic community. As well as the fact that Apache was what was > > tested, not the faster web servers. > > Err... you should take a few pills of reality. > > The distinction between RedHat and linux distributions in general, > the lack of "Linux bigwigs", the fact that Apache was used instead > of other servers only affects the Linux community, which is not > likely to change it's mind in first place. And the fact that > Mindcraft is still involved doesn't taint the results anymore than > the fact that Microsoft is involved, giving the steps taken to > insure a fair process (quote me one non-Linux source saying the > results a dubious!). > > This has a HUGE impact against Linux. And even an impact against > other open source operating systems. But most of the credible sources have been pointing out Linux faired much better than in the original MindCraft tests, and that the experimental Linux 2.3 kernel showed promise of being in the ballpark with NT once again. The capsule review in Network World pointed out this benchmark gave the Linux developers some valuable performance data on WHERE to improve their systems. It also pointed out that Solaris x86 whups NT pretty handily without resorting to stupid stunts like putting the guts of the FTP and HTTP servers into the kernel. From the preliminary results reported here the other day, we have even further to go to rise to these reported performance levels. Anyone who is surprised by that hasn't been following the development of NT, Solaris, or Linux very closely. The world is beginning to accept that SMP servers are a good idea, and SMP is becoming "where it's at" in the world of servers. If our SMP support lags far behind, we will NOT be "where it's at" pretty quickly. So, kudos and applause to the group working on better SMP scalability. You guys are the future of FreeBSD. ;^) -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC http://www.softweyr.com/~softweyr wes@softweyr.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message