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