Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 25 Jan 1999 09:20:17 -0500 (EST)
From:      Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com>
To:        Konrad Heuer <kheuer@gwdu60.gwdg.de>
Cc:        freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD - A User's Point of View
Message-ID:  <Pine.HPP.3.96.990125091859.2535H-100000@hp9000.chc-chimes.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990123030913.20784A-100000@gwdu60.gwdg.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Konrad Heuer wrote:

> My current arguments (of different quality) for FreeBSD are:
> 
> 1. FreeBSD has an excellent pedigree.
> 2. For someome who has experiences with SunOS, Ultrix etc. FreeBSD is
> more familiar.
> 3. Linux is a kernel plus distributor's work, FreeBSD is a complete
> operating system.
> 4. Linux NFS performance is bad.
> 5. Linux process scheduling algorithm is worse than that of FreeBSD if
> system load is high.
> 6. As far as I've observed, the virtual memory system of FreeBSD
> behaves better.
> 7. The Linux kernel has internal limits (e.g. max number of open
> files) which may cause troubles on bigger systems.

I enjoyed reading your mail, but just one point. Knocking Linux doesn't
constitute "..arguments for FreeBSD". 

Point #4, as some will tell you isn't something we excel at (at least in
the past)

- bill fumerola - billf@chc-chimes.com - BF1560 - computer horizons corp -
- ph:(800) 252-2421 - bfumerol@computerhorizons.com - billf@FreeBSD.org  -




To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.HPP.3.96.990125091859.2535H-100000>