From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 31 14:15:36 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C21106566B for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:15:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCD3F8FC12 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:15:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1QylZm-0007Nb-6w>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:15:34 +0200 Received: from e178023043.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.23.43] helo=thor.walstatt.dyndns.org) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1QylZm-0004xn-3J>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:15:34 +0200 Message-ID: <4E5E4205.4060501@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:15:33 +0200 From: "Hartmann, O." User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110825 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Sugioarto References: <4E5941D6.9090106@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4E5BEF65.2010502@gmail.com> <4E5CAD9E.6050903@rktmb.org> <4E5CB49F.50806@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4E5CBC14.4080908@rktmb.org> <4E5CF1ED.2030504@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4E5CF417.5080503@rktmb.org> <4E5D031E.2000602@xaerolimit.net> <20110831140729.24130ea0@zelda.sugioarto.com> In-Reply-To: <20110831140729.24130ea0@zelda.sugioarto.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: 85.178.23.43 Cc: freebsd-www@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Chris Brennan Subject: Re: http://www.freebsd.org/marketing/os-comparison.html X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:15:36 -0000 On 08/31/11 14:07, Martin Sugioarto wrote: > Am Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:34:54 -0400 > schrieb Chris Brennan: > >> the object is to show people *WHY* FreeBSD is a sound (and valid) >> choice against the competition, we can't just claim we're better >> because we know we are, we have to provide a convincing argument that >> is true and honest fact. > Hi Chris and all the others, > > I want to suggest that you shouldn't compare every single feature about > FreeBSD kernel. You should not also try to lie to people about vendor > support, because it's not worth mentioning, when you compare it to many > Linux distributions. Don't tell people there are games and don't tell > them that FreeBSD can replace Microsoft Windows, please. > > I like to advertise FreeBSD, but I try to do it honestly, because it > will send the wrong signals. > > You should compare what you can *DO* better with FreeBSD. And one thing > that comes instantly into my mind is the FreeBSD port collection (for > my part). I've tried various Linux distributions for years and there is > no such thing as FreeBSD ports in Linux world (portage comes close, but > it lacks integrity sometimes). And that's why after using other OSes, I > always arrived back on FreeBSD. The effort which is going into ports is > amazing and (for me) the most important part of the OS. FreeBSD is one > of few systems where you can have configurable up-to-date applications > and this is what I need. And this is mostly the reason why I use > FreeBSD. "Better" is relative. People who are supposed to compile or were supposed to compile their software in the past are better with freeBSD. Those people looking for a Windows alternative used to get binaries do not care about configuring. They'd like to have running software, getting it with the ease of a mouse click. I was never able to convince people about the control they have since they won't have to have it! But you made a striking point! With the BSD ports system, a niche has been covered up which may be very important for people like you and me. And this is a certain point were is no "better" or "worse', since it is a complete different philosophy. And I would like to see a mixture of some comparisons, even if they are slightly worse for FreeBSD, but supported by reasonable numbers and those basic paradigms. Thinking is: if an OS is approximately 10% slower in a certain benchmark I favor for future mission-usage of the OS, say file I/O or network, I wouldn't care if I have the uncompensated advantage to control software settings and others. > > I suggest that you look at the applications of FreeBSD in the world. > How people use it and why the decided to use it. I heard many people > prefer FreeBSD on web servers (yeah, Netcraft also says so). But why? > > You tell me that FreeBSD has the best IPv6 implementation? So what?! > Please tell me what you do with it, when it's "so great". There was a time, I recall it was the end-nineties of the last century, when there were many network-performance benchmarks floating around, comparing FreeBSD's incedible network stack to others. There were many benchmarks, not even one. Since Linux and Windows gained up, it became quiet around FreeBSD. The last "field" benchmark I saw was presented by Kris Kenneway, as far as I remember and he presented some benchmarks comparing MySQL running on FreeBSD 6/7 and Linux. I'm not completely sure about that. > > Jails are nice, yes! There are surely scenarios where jails are needed > above every other concept. Instead of telling people about "lightweight > virtualisation"... tell them what others do with it. > > Many people are too dumb to understand technical or abstract concepts. > They need examples to understand the features. > > -- > Martin Or they need some hints already written by others like this: http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Health-Check-FreeBSD-The-unknown-giant-920248.html I'm not sure whether this is linked on the project's webpage, I didn't find it when I searched it. Oliver