From owner-freebsd-advocacy Sun Feb 28 19: 6:11 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from foobar.franken.de (foobar.franken.de [194.94.249.81]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42D79151BD for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:06:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from logix@foobar.franken.de) Received: (from logix@localhost) by foobar.franken.de (8.8.8/8.8.5) id EAA20160; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 04:04:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <19990301040425.B19859@foobar.franken.de> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 04:04:25 +0100 From: Harold Gutch To: "Robert A. Bruce" , Dave Yost Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The Linux PR firestorm disaster (w.r.t. FreeBSD) References: <199903010058.QAA24952@pike.cdrom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <199903010058.QAA24952@pike.cdrom.com>; from Robert A. Bruce on Sun, Feb 28, 1999 at 04:58:42PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, Feb 28, 1999 at 04:58:42PM -0800, Robert A. Bruce wrote: > If I was trying to come up with the opposite list (areas where Linux > beats FreeBSD) the job would be much easier: > > 1. Linux runs on way more platforms (sparc, powerpc, mips,... heck it > even runs on a PalmPilot). > I followed an IRC conversation with a couple of people a few days ago on exactly this topic - one of the conclusions was that a UNIX(-clone) for the PalmPilot did not make much sense, as it's CPU for example did not have any memory protection - at least not a really useful one. I am no expert on this subject, and the above is only one of the things I just remember somehow, perhaps somebody with a more technical insight can say more on this topic :). All that I'm trying to say with this is that even if somebody wrote/ported/whatever something to run on the PalmPilot which *looks* similar to Linux or any other UNIX/UNIX-clone, it probably is _far_ away from "the real thing". Linux does run on more platforms that FreeBSD (currently ? :) ) does, but you can always use NetBSD on other architectures if you want - the only thing I can report on this from my own experience is that we wanted to install a free UNIX(-clone, whatever) on 2 SUN4s and were able to install NetBSD without too much of a problem (at least after setting up the netboot-stuff etc. which I hadn't ever done before) and the machine was up and running without the slightest problems until one of the harddisks failed, whileas Linux panicd already when booting over the net. > 5. Linux has a lot more native commercial applications. > Which run faster under FreeBSD's Linux-emulation :). In fact, I today heard of a guy, who doesn't have much UNIX-knowledge, but one thing he did notice after installing Linux over his FreeBSD-installation was that in his opinion the system became a lot less responsive than it had been before. This indeed can be called a major plus for FreeBSD, a friend and me even started joking saying we'd start a consulting company which would help people "speed up their Linux applications" [... by installing FreeBSD and then running the applications under the Linux-Emulation ;) ]. > So if you can send me a list of areas where FreeBSD beats Linux, > I would greatly appreciate it. If you can back up any claims > of better performance/reliability with published reports or > repeatable benchmarks, that would be great. But I am happy to > take anecdotes too. The chart is pretty sparse right now, so > I am not picky. > bye, Harold -- Sleep is an abstinence syndrome wich occurs due to lack of caffein. Wed Mar 4 04:53:33 CET 1998 #unix, ircnet To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message