Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!enews.sgi.com!fido.asd.sgi.com!neteng!lm From: lm@neteng.engr.sgi.com (Larry McVoy) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.sys.sgi.misc Subject: Re: no such thing as a "general user community" Followup-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.sys.sgi.misc Date: 1 Apr 1997 01:33:50 GMT Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA Lines: 85 Message-ID: <5hpolu$9t2@fido.asd.sgi.com> References: <331BB7DD.28EC@net5.net> <5g9hjp$api@flea.best.net> <5gmb58$6jd$1@news.clinet.fi> <5gn3ig$83d@flea.best.net> <5goqrq$5ak$1@news.clinet.fi> <5hd29s$e7t@fido.asd.sgi.com> <333C1614.ABD@sgi01.grn.aera.com> <5hhv1k$jh9@fido.asd.sgi.com> <333E3530.794B@sgi01.grn.aera.com> <333EA3EF.41C67EA6@consys.com> <333EE416.ABD322C@FreeBSD.org> <5hn00k$dio@fido.asd.sgi.com> <333F45A6.41C67EA6@FreeBSD.org> Reply-To: lm@slovax.engr.sgi.com NNTP-Posting-Host: neteng.engr.sgi.com X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:38160 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:6524 comp.sys.sgi.misc:29563 Jordan K. Hubbard (jkh@FreeBSD.org) wrote: : What I have a problem with is the *way the numbers : were used* to prove a wholly irrelevant point about OS superiority. I : was there at that presentation, Larry, and I listened to your both your : words and your emphasis on them - you put up a big composite slide : showing all the numbers, from P6 to 486, and then proceeded to focus : almost entirely at the top-end P6 Linux numbers vs the "Big Iron" : machines so that you could crow about how outstanding Linux's : performance was. Guilty as charged. You should reread your own words: I was mostly interested in how Linux compared to the various vendor operating systems on their lastest hardware. In many cases, Linux smoked the stuff you pay money for. FreeBSD, I'm sorry to say, wasn't really on the radar screen. Even at that time, Linux had a larger following. So I did indeed compare ``top-end P6 Linux numbers vs the "Big Iron"'' - so what is wrong with that? I also remember pointing out that HP hardware has great cache latencies, that an R6000 had incredible memory bandwidth, that PC's in general have better memory latency, that Solaris had good TCP latencies. In fact, most of the talk was not focussed on Linux. So what's the issue? I'm "bad" because I point out jobs well done across multiple operating systems and hardware platforms? Gimme a break. : Associate the OS you : want to push with the really fast hardware and that OS : now looks very cool indeed! Linux on P6 was compared with HP's latest, Sun's latest, DEC's latest, etc. If you normalize on SpecInt, there is nothing special about a P6@200. Other people have faster processors and those processors were represented. The fact that Linux kicked their butts in certain areas is to Linux' credit. In some areas, such as context switching, Linux smoked the competition on any hardware. Shouldn't the guys that did that be acknowledged? : A presentation which would have certainly won a lot more points for : proper procedure in my book would have involved some number (4? 5?) : *identically configured* x86 machines, all running a different x86 OS : variant, and compared straight on the merits of the OS software alone. Yes, I did that after I got home because the entire FreeBSD crowd whined. It didn't help any. You guys are still whining. It's getting a little tiresome. : net for entirely dissimilar hardware, destroying any chance for a truly : productive comparison. Chuckle. Systems architects at Intel, Sun, SGI, HP, and DEC all disagree with you. lmbench has become the standard for memory latency definition. It's also used for at least three current next generation processor simulations. : > your version versus the other version? Wouldn't it be better if we were : > all working on the same thing? Making one Unix better and stronger for : > everyone? : Yes. So why don't we take the older, more proven technology and run : with it? Because the *BSD people can't elect a leader. Let's see - the set of people that can't keep their own house in order are the set of people that are going to unify Unix? You guys are worse than the vendors at making Unix diverge and it is soley because of your egos. Contrast that with Linus. He works with everyone, is a nice guy, is reasonable, delegates all over the place, and still hasn't pissed anyone off. He's got millions of seats and you have millions of arguments. Come on - if you expect people to follow BSD, then 3 out of the 4 BSD factions have to throw in the towel and go with you. You're just like the vendors - "sure we want to unify Unix - how about everyone else dump theirs and go with ours?". : I think we share a lot of the same goals, Larry, we've just chosen : different ways of reaching them. We do share the same goals. But you refuse to put the cause, that of having a good Unix with us in 20 years, ahead of your own personal agenda. That's sad. Once upon a time, BSD had a chance. By having multiple warring factions, you've destroyed that chance. Sad but true. -- --- Larry McVoy lm@sgi.com http://reality.sgi.com/lm (415) 933-1804