Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au!news.apana.org.au!cantor.edge.net.au!news.teragen.com.au!news.access.net.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!eugene From: eugene@cs.umb.edu (Eugene O'Neil) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.misc Subject: Re: Linux vs BSD Date: Mon, 03 Mar 97 14:32:15 GMT Organization: MORE Systems, inc. Lines: 37 Distribution: world Message-ID: <5fenam$i7l@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> References: <slrn5fejrn.353.bet@onyx.interactive.net> <32F788CE.7DA1@indy <3314C92E.1AEA58A0@brainfart.com> <5f4aoc$msv$1@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: bos-ma11-12.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Mar 03 8:30:46 AM CST 1997 X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.0 Beta #2 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:162351 comp.os.linux.advocacy:86525 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2694 In article <5f4aoc$msv$1@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, spmklr@umelba.Triumf.CA (NotMyRealAddress) wrote: > In article <3314C92E.1AEA58A0@brainfart.com> Gavin Haslett > <thumper@brainfart.com> writes: > ><All snipped... you get the idea> > >[ ... "brainfarting" deleted ... ] > > >There are differences... I found X-Windows less memory hungry on FreeBSD > >(and consequently slightly faster video-update)... however for pure > >floating-point and integer mathematics I've found Linux to be vastly > >superior. I've also found Linux easier to troubleshoot when I do have a > >Ah, the fervor and religious ecstasy of the newly converted! Can you >come up with a credible explanation why operations depending only >on hardware (like, say, floating point and integer operations) can >possibly be operating system dependent? You have a truly unique >opportunity here to dispel all those nasty stereotypes about the >intellectual capability of Linux users. I have never used FreeBSD, so I don't know how this applies, but the performance of any program can be affected by OS overhead. The more time the computer spends in the kernel and the background daemons, the less time it has left over for user programs. Also, if the kernel and background daemons take up lots of virtual memory, you might swap more than you might otherwise, which has a drastic effect on performance. If you don't belive me, try running the same numerical application on the same machine, with 12MB ram and a 486/33 processor, under Linux without X windows, and Windows NT Server. Same program, same hardware.... drastically different performance. Of course, if you take this as an absolute yardstick of the efficiency of an OS, it would lead you to believe MS-DOS was the most efficient OS of all (shudder): it has practically no overhead, because there's practically no OS! -Eugene