Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:29:51 +0200 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Volodymyr Kostyrko <c.kworr@gmail.com>, "Hartmann, O." <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>, "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: http://www.freebsd.org/marketing/os-comparison.html Message-ID: <201108300929.51810.hselasky@c2i.net> In-Reply-To: <4E5BEF65.2010502@gmail.com> References: <4E5941D6.9090106@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4E5BEF65.2010502@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 29 August 2011 21:58:29 Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote: > 27.08.2011 22:13, Hartmann, O. wrote: > > This website should be brushed up or taken offline! > > It seems full of vintage stuff from glory days. > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/marketing/os-comparison.html > > I think this one would better look like list of major features with os > comparison, like: > > = Networking = > * IPv6: major support, best stack around. > * SCTP: full kernel implementation, still no userland support (i.e. > ssh doesn't work over sctp by default yet). > > = Data storage = > * ZFS: full support, datasets, compression, dedup, other stuff. Linux > has LVM (?features...) and btrfs (?unstable.. ?features..), Windows has > dynamic disks since XP (?features). > > = SMP = > * (?something about comparing other shedulers with SCHED_ULE), (?some > rt stuff), (?some comparison with other interesting shedulers, like > DragonflyBSD and QNX). > And USB. I believe there are significant changes in the USB subsystems which those who are making performance benchmarks completely fail to mention. --HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201108300929.51810.hselasky>