Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!ames!agate!theos.com!riscan.riscan.com!n1van.istar!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!nnrp.info.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!ns1.netone.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-fw-12.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-fw-22.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-ana-7.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-ana-24.sprintlink.net!sulu.psyberlink.net!root From: root@davids.psyberlink.net (Harrison Bergeron) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: TCP latency (lucid discussion :-)). Date: 18 Jul 1996 15:59:08 GMT Organization: Psybernautics Lines: 42 Message-ID: <slrn4uso2h.ofm.root@davids.psyberlink.net> References: <4paedl$4bm@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <x7687w1dsr.fsf@oberon.di.fc.ul.pt> <4s220u$nmq@symiserver2.symantec.com> <31E53C2B.41C67EA6@inuxs.att.com> <4s6k8o$4o0@fox.ksu.ksu.edu> <31E6FD92.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> <4s8cuq$ljd@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <31E7C0DD.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> <4s8tcn$jsh@fido.asd.sgi.com> <31E80ACA.167EB0E7@dyson.iquest.net> <4see1t$f0l@fido.asd.sgi.com> <31EAD559.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> Reply-To: semon@comp.tamu.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: davids.psyberlink.net X-Newsreader: slrn (0.8.8.4 (BETA) UNIX) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.networking:45692 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:4110 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:23932 Previously of sound mind and body, John S. Dyson toor@dyson.iquest.net wrote: >Larry McVoy wrote: >> >> John S. Dyson (toor@dyson.iquest.net) wrote: >> : Larry McVoy wrote: >> >> : > It's kind of fun to contrast this with the Linux crowd: >> : > >> : > BSD guys: "your benchmark sucks! your numbers are wrong! you mislead the >> : > world! you suck! whine!" >> : > >> : > Linux guys: "Hey Larry, the null syscall benchmark is busted because we can >> : > do a null syscall in about 1 usec. You need to change it so >> : > it times in nanoseconds". >> : > >> : I think that was a kind-of cute situation. We decided NOT >> : to special case the syscall that Larry uses for the >> : null-syscall case. It never ceases to amaze me that systems with so much in common (relatively speaking) can tear at each other while other systems that offer nothing by comparison, essentially don't even have to address the issue, since by the time we get done arguing, they'll be left standing. It might be more productive to make these arguments to that segment of the OS world. At least there, you won't be nickel and diming each other to death. While this is an important topic, it doesn't seem to be headed in a very productive direction. Wouldn't it be better in the long run to research what is better in Linux/BSD and then try to apply the strategy to whichever of the two you happen to be enamoured with? Simply denying that the other may actually do something better doesn't make it so. (At least, not without a much larger marketing dept.) Just my 0.00 cents. -- semon@comp.tamu.edu Steinberger: State of the Instrument