Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!metro!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!news.inetnebr.com!netserv.unmc.edu!news.mid.net!mr.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!nntp.ucsb.edu!usenet From: Axel Boldt <boldt@math.ucsb.edu> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.misc Subject: Re: Linux vs BSD Date: 05 Feb 1997 18:04:04 -0800 Organization: Univ of California at Santa Barbara, Dept of Mathematics Lines: 53 Sender: boldt@emile Message-ID: <ywtraiu7krv.fsf@math.ucsb.edu> References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <5c155c$p6u@raven.eva.net> <5c19pg$rf6@lynx.dac.neu.edu> <5c39sk$ddl@troma.rv.tis.com> <5c8jlm$50u@cynic.portal.ca> <m23evrulla.fsf@desk.crynwr.com> <5cdqos$e6k@camel1.mindspring.com> <Pine.SOL.3.91.970201040446.16129A-100000@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu> <32F378FC.41C67EA6@freebsd.org> <slrn5ekm26.5ml.ralsina@ultra7.unl.edu.ar> <32F68743.2781E494@freebsd.org> <slrn5feb63.93l.ralsina@ultra7.unl.edu.ar> <32F73973.167EB0E7@freebsd.org> <slrn5fejrn.353.bet@onyx.interactive.net> <32F788CE.7DA1@indy.celebration.net> <ywtvi87rgwh.fsf@math.ucsb.edu> <32F8A363.41C67EA6@freebsd.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: emile.math.ucsb.edu X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:157009 comp.os.linux.advocacy:82958 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2394 "John S. Dyson" <dyson@freebsd.org> writes: > Axel Boldt wrote: > > "John S. Dyson" <dyson@indy.celebration.net> writes: > > > If you are comparing a FreeBSD V2.1 kernel with Linux 2.X, you'll > > > find that Linux is faster in many ways. FreeBSD V2.1 is of the > > > Linux 1.2.X vintage, and we sorely need to release a 2.2 kernel > > > Of course, the main reason for upgrading is for performance and > > > stability, > > You just admitted above that the current released version of Linux is > > faster than the current released version of FreeBSD, so "performance" > > is a vaporware argument. > Actually I said "in many ways" which means NOT in every way. > Even 2.1.X is faster in very important ways than the latest > greatest Linux kernel. There are ways that each performs > very well, however 2.1.X comes out behind in some LL benchmarks > (which are questionable in measuring real world perf.) You perform a pretty funny dance here. Linux wins most tests, but those are the unimportant ones, I got it right? Now give a criterion for "importance" please, so that we can talk business. > > Higher "stabilitiy" of FreeBSD is often > > claimed and never proven, (and also hard to disprove), but I would > > guess that it is very likely a leftover from Linux 1.0.x days. > > > Nope, still getting Linux converts due to stability under loading > issues. It is hard to create a metric for this, other than > experience. Well, we should at least try (see my other post). The fact that there are more Linux->FreeBSD converts than FreeBSD->Linux can be very easily explained without claiming a difference in stability: Linux is much more visible, and people interested in Unix on PCs are more likely to start out with Linux. Assuming that Linux is more stable than FreeBSD for some hardware and some usage patterns, and FreeBSD is more stable than Linux for some hardware and some usage patterns, and assuming furthermore that exactly those users who experience an instability switch OS's, one would see a much higher migration from Linux to FreeBSD than the other way round. And that is not just in absolute numbers, but even percentage-wise (because those who switched once have nowhere to go when encountering another instability). Axel -- Axel Boldt * boldt@math.ucsb.edu * http://www.math.ucsb.edu/%7Eboldt/