Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 00:11:43 -0800 (PST) From: <unknown@riverstyx.net> To: Joseph Scott <joseph@randomnetworks.com> Cc: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com>, Travis Ruthenburg <travis@trickster.net>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG, de-bsd-chat@DE.FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD 3.1 SMP outperforms SuSE 6.0 SMP by factor 2.3 !!! Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9903150005040.30974-100000@hades.riverstyx.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9903150153560.29457-100000@sonic.digital-web.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Joseph Scott wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Andreas Klemm wrote: > > Ah .. didn't had time for that, but would be interesting.... > > > > On the other hand SuSE Linux comes as supported system with > > the kernel from which SuSE says ... this is stable and the > > only kernel we support ... > > Hummm. Fair enough, then maybe Red Hat 5.2 would be a good > comparision. ( I think it's 5.2 that's got the Linux 2.2 kernel, to be > honest my actuall "work" only involves FreeBSD, so any Linux stuff is > pretty much outside of my normal day, although interesting none the less ) Currently, no distribution actually ships with the 2.2.x kernel, since no distributions have been released since the 2.2.x kernel was released. As I mentioned before, the kernel development schedule is in no way related to the distribution development schedule (aside from the distributions trying to keep up). It's also non-trivial to upgrade as a general rule, and no distribution (that I know of) is planning a release including the 2.2.x kernel by default 'coz they're still regression testing it. Still, the kernel "is" Linux, not the distribution. If the Linux kernel crew deem it the stable branch (which it is, by definition), then it's the same as the FreeBSD people branding 3.1-stable as stable. > > If I run a webserver farm or something like this and buy > > supprot from SUSE, then I'd get this system as it is ... > > but not a hacker system with a hacker kernel ... > > > > So I wanted to compare FreeBSD-STABLE with Linux-STABLE... > I was under the impression that the general Linux community felt > that the 2.2 kernel was the new stable. I always thought it was neat how > the new Linux 2.2 kernel and the new FreeBSD 3 came out around the same > time, and both seemed to make big jumps in their use of things like smp. That's pretty much the end of my rant, I'm going to shut up about it from now on. I just want to finish off by saying that I really like FreeBSD, and I'm not some kinda Linux Nazi just because I don't agree with this particular benchmark. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.04.9903150005040.30974-100000>