Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 08:19:55 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: "Ron G. Minnich" <rminnich@Sarnoff.COM> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD comparison - it's time, I think! Message-ID: <199603061519.IAA22625@rover.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 06 Mar 1996 09:56:09 EST
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
: Sounds fine to me, but I think we should make an effort to be absolutely : fair and to show some integrity. All numbers should be verified with : 2 or more people, and pointers to the results should be maintained. If we : get a rep for playing fast and loose with the facts then we have a : problem. If we get a rep for being honest and being willing to give linux : its due (and it does have its good points) then we get to be an honest : broker. Yes. I agree. We should also pick stable versions of Linux. Right now the 1.3.x series is going through a rough patch. We should likely compare 1.4.x to 2.1-stable. Later, we can compare 1.5.x to 2.2. Also, which distribution of Linux becomes a problem... Things that FreeBSD is good at, relative to older linuxes (and maybe current ones): *LARGE* numbers of FTP users *HUGE* routing tables *INSANE* HTTP performance Linux seems to be a little better at context switch time and low low level things like that, but doesn't scale well. That would be a good selling point. Just some thoughts. I know that the Linux folks are doing work in the performance areas as we speak... Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603061519.IAA22625>