Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux.misc:28569 comp.os.386bsd.misc:3905
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!news.tpa.com.au!myall.awadi.com.au!myall!blymn
From: blymn@awadi.com.au (Brett Lymn)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: LINUX SUCKS!!!!
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.386bsd.misc
Date: 02 Nov 1994 05:55:04 GMT
Organization: AWA Defence Industries
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <BLYMN.94Nov2162504@mallee.awadi.com.au>
References: <085334Z20101994@anon.penet.fi> <385viv$8r4@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
<MICHAELV.94Oct28223159@MindBender.HeadCandy.com>
<1994Oct29.072352.2213@escape.widomaker.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mallee.awadi.com.au
In-reply-to: shendrix@escape.widomaker.com's message of Sat, 29 Oct 1994 07:23:52 GMT
>>>>> "Shannon" == Shannon Hendrix <shendrix@escape.widomaker.com> writes:
In article <1994Oct29.072352.2213@escape.widomaker.com> shendrix@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix) writes:
Shannon> In article
Shannon> <MICHAELV.94Oct28223159@MindBender.HeadCandy.com>
Shannon> michaelv@MindBender.HeadCandy.com (Michael L. VanLoon)
Shannon> writes:
>> From: michaelv@MindBender.HeadCandy.com (Michael L. VanLoon)
>> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.386bsd.misc Date: 29 Oct
>> 1994 03:31:56 GMT Organization: HeadCandy Associates... Sweets
>> for the lobes.
>>
>> In article <1994Oct28.041604.589@escape.widomaker.com>
>> shendrix@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix) writes:
>>
>>
>> Really, and what hard numbers do you have to prove this? Or do
>> you just blindly believe something someone you've never met
>> told you, about something that doesn't even apply to the
>> current state of NetBSD?
Shannon> Bite me... If I run two systems and watch one outrun the
Shannon> other I don't need hard numbers. I just pick the better
Shannon> one and you do the same for yourself. In my case Linux
Shannon> easily out-performced BSD. That's an absolute and I
Shannon> don't give a damn if you believe it or not. Not slow
Shannon> enough to keep me from using it but it was pretty obvious
Shannon> in just a few minutes and completely obvious after about
Shannon> a week. It's totally non-important unless you are in an
Shannon> in-depth discussion about such things, not a post like
Shannon> that.
The difference in FS speed comes from the differing philosophies of
the two systems. The linux ext2fs does asynchronous writes of it's
inodes, the *BSD FFS does them synchronously. Basically it means that
heavy file writing will be slower on a *BSD system but then you know
that the inodes will have been updated - whether this is a good thing
or not is open to debate.
--
Brett Lymn