Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!phaedrus.kralizec.net.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!grumpy.fl.net.au!news.webspan.net!news1.exit109.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!gail.ripco.com!nntp.neu.edu!not-for-mail
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux vs whatever
Date: 29 Jan 1997 20:57:13 -0500
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <5cov5p$7hu@lynx.dac.neu.edu>
References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <5cmv5q$k6d@cynic.portal.ca> <5co7vd$lvt@lynx.dac.neu.edu> <5coib1$jvv@cynic.portal.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lynx.dac.neu.edu
Content-Type: text/html
X-No-Archive: yes
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:155145 comp.os.linux.networking:66655 comp.os.linux.setup:94614 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2131 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:51373 comp.os.os2.advocacy:264428
Curt Sampson (cjs@cynic.portal.ca) wrote in article <5coib1$jvv@cynic.portal.ca> <pre><blink>
]In article <5co7vd$lvt@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
]Michael Kagalenko <mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
]
]> That is because you did not make any points pertaining to the discussion;
]> that is, how well Linux netwroking code performance compares with
]> BSD code performance.
]
]Perhaps you have difficulty reading. I reproduce below the first
]few lines of my article, which quote the previous two articles. I
]would like you to explain to me exactly where performance comes in
]to it.
]
]:> 1. Design and source code quality. The quality of the design and
]:> source code in the BSD kernels is far, far above that of Linux.
]:
]:Not clear about that. For example, BSD uses mbufs, while Linux uses
]
]I don't see the word performance there. I see the words `design
]and source code quality.' This is why I...
]
]>...talk about organization of the code, and
]> how BSD's code is written in the way you consider better.
]
]Yes. In the way that anbody who can program his way out of a paper
]bag considers better. If you don't believe me, just read the comments
]in the source code from the people who work on the Linux code. For
]example, when we look at definition of `struct device' in netdevice.h,
]we see the comment `Actually, this whole structure is a big mistake.'
]If you read _Linux Internals_ (published by Addison-Wesley; I think
]that's the title--the book's at home but I can get a reference if
]anyone really wants one) it discusses a much, much older kernel
]that's a major revision level behind, and, says pretty much the
]same thing. Will this kind of rubbish ever be fixed? Perhaps Linux
]users are going to find it more important to write a third tulip
]device driver instead, because two different device drivers for
]the same piece of hardare just isn't enough.
As I mentioned, that is legitimate subject to discuss, but this
thread started by allegiation that Linux networking isn't as good as BSDs.
I requested some evidence of it, none of were forthcoming so far.
]>]I think the performance it really affects is that of the programmers.
]>
]> Well, I read this as indirect acknowledgement that BSD's and Linux's
]> networking performs rather similarly well.
]
]Two years ago it did not.
But the operational word is "now", as in "today".
] I've not done any testing recently or
]seen any tests that I would consider more than tentative, but from
]everything I'm still hearing, Linux networking still does not
]perform as well as BSD networking.
In other words you have no evidence, but repeat what everyone else is saying. This
seems to be the most common answer when you press for evidence on the claims
re Linux vs BSD networking.
]However, this is not an issue
]that I really care to debate; so if you wish to assert that Linux
]networking is just as good without some solid testing to support
]you, I'm not going to refute that.
I am not going to assert neither this, nor opposite. I am trying
to find some evidence, or references to such evidence, to support either position. So
far, none was forthcoming (you'l excuse me for discounting 2-years old one)
--
ABILITY,n. The natural equipment to accomplish some small part of the meaner
ambitions distinguishing able men from dead ones.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"