Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:44:12 -0800 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Boris Spirialitious" <hardcodeharry@yahoo.com>, <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Supermicro Hardware and FreeBSD Message-ID: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNOEPBEPAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <20050105165001.89003.qmail@web61306.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Boris > Spirialitious > Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 8:50 AM > To: questions@freebsd.org > Subject: RE: Supermicro Hardware and FreeBSD > > > One system cost me 3 months salary in Russia. Is this how you > treat your users? Why can't your developer use the machine they > used to make 5.3 work? > YOU are not PAYING the FreeBSD developers to develop for your particular SuperMicro motherboard. If you were, then you would have a leg to stand on. Since you are not purchasing FreeBSD, there does NOT exist any kind of implied warranty or fitness for merchantability between the developers and you, and therefore the developers don't owe you anything. > Everyone tell me to use LINUX. Now I know why. You support bad > slow version and not good one. Very stupid people. > Unless you were paying RedHat or another Linux distributor the situation is exactly the same there as well. I would guess that if -I- had one of these motherboards that I would have no problems running FreeBSD on it. So far I've not heard anything specific from anyone on how it works more slowly on SuperMicro boards. For all we know the people seeing it run slow are running beta copies that were compiled with all the debugging code turned on, or they are running the GENERIC kernel instead of custom-compiling their own. I should also point out as well that FreeBSD 5.X is probably going to be slower in any case than FreeBSD 4.X simply because the kernel does more so it's bigger. FreeBSD 4.X was slower than 3.X and 3.X was slower than 2.X, and so on. All of this was because the demand from the userbase is for more and more features to be added into FreeBSD over the years, not fewer and fewer features. And adding more features to software makes it bigger, and bigger code runs slower in general because there's more instructions for the procesor to go through. All of this of course is relative since many parts of FreeBSD 5 are more efficient than 4 - and if your software app happens to use one of those bits a lot, then it's going to run faster. But if your software apps use bits of FreeBSD that in 4.X were already optimal, then you probably won't see a speed increase. Ted
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNOEPBEPAA.tedm>