Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 09:40:28 -0800 From: Don Wilde <dwilde1@thuntek.net> To: "Robert A. Bruce" <rab@pike.cdrom.com> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The Linux PR firestorm disaster (w.r.t. FreeBSD) Message-ID: <36DAD10C.58F4A985@thuntek.net> References: <199903010058.QAA24952@pike.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert A. Bruce wrote: > > Dave Yost <Dave@Yost.com> said... > >First order of business, I think is that http://www.freebsd.org/ must have a > >prominent main heading: > > FreeBSD vs. linux and others > >which leads to some simple, forthright information suitable for nontechnical > >journalists and TV news people. It should also have a big, forbidding table > >with lots of X marks for stuff FreeBSD has that linux doesn't and as much > >technical backup material as possible. > > What does FreeBSD have that Linux doesn't? I don't think that such > a table would be very "forbidding". > > Seriously, I am working on a chart to hand out at the FreeBSD booth > at LinuxWorld next week, and I am having a hard time coming up with > a list of things that FreeBSD does better than Linux. > I would much rather we take the high road and just talk about FreeBSD superiority. Ignore Linux and NT completely, though (of course) counter each of their strong points with your strong points. For example, "BSD does not allow kernel threads, which can let a user process lock up the whole OS and crash the machine." "FreeBSD allows full use of open source software, removing the dangers of the Not Invented Here syndrome so prevalent in the commercial world." You'd be damaging our cause if you crawl into THEIR den and argue with them. > Most claims of FreeBSD superiority boil down to: > > 1. "FreeBSD is more reliable", with no objective evidence to back > up that claim. > FreeBSD disk filesystems are mounted with synchronous writes, making data safe in the event of a hardware crash, and even when other OSen are configured the same way, FreeBSD metadata (data about the filesystem itself) is still protected better. David Greenman will be glad to support you in establishing this. When a FreeBSD system is under heavy networking load, it's performance degrades gracefully as more resources are dedicated to the traffic, rather than crashing. FreeBSD does not permit any user process direct access to the kernel, preventing the crash of the OS even if a user process goes astray. > 2. "FreeBSD has better performance", with little evidence to back > up that claim either. FreeBSD seems to have better performance > on network intensive applications when the system is heavily > loaded (http://advisor.gartner.com/n_inbox/hotcontent/hc_2121999_3.html) > but I haven't seen any clear evidence that FreeBSD outperforms Linux > in other areas or under other conditions. > You raise a good point. I have heard that FreeBSD runs native Linux X apps like Mesa faster than Linux. We should establish this by benchmark. > There are other points that people bring up, such as better kernel > architecture, etc. But that is pretty meaningless to an typical > end-user. > > 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). FreeBSD is optimized for the x86 architecture of commodity PC's. Our best developers do not splinter their time in supporting many architectures, some of which are unsuited to run multitasking OSen. If you want alternatives for Macs, visit our friends at NetBSD. > > 2. Linux has better support for realtime operations. > Meaningless. When you impose deterministic operation on a UNIX-like OS, it no longer is a UNIX-like OS. PicoBSd can be deterministic, too. > 3. Linux supports more perephrials (USB, etc.) > There aren't many USB peripherals out. All I've seen are hubs built into monitors. We still have time on this. > 4. Linux has real multiprocessor threads See above. Threads are dangerous on anything other than a dedicated or toy machine. No multiuser OS should allow kernel threads. > > 5. Linux has a lot more native commercial applications. > If FreeBSD runs them, and runs them faster, who cares? We do need to document these, though. > 6. etc... FreeBSD does not cater to the hordes of kiddie thrashers that are so prevalent in other OSen worlds. Our mailing lists don't flame nearly as much. Another poster has already made the point that FBSD has only two development tracks, and the Ports are always synchronized and tested with the release version. Finally, what I consider the most important point, FreeBSD is much better documented technically. There are hundreds of books published about BSD UNIX and its tools from reputable publishers like Prentice-Hall, Addison-Wesley and O'Reilly and Associates. > > 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. > Once again, please DON'T make a comaprison chart. Make a 'superiority' chart, but don't mention Linux by name. > -bob > -- oooOOO O O O o * * * * * * o ___ _________ _________ _________ ___==__ V_=_=_DW ===--- Don Wilde dwilde1@thuntek.net [ = = ] /oo0000oo-oo--oo-ooo---ooo-ooo---ooo-ooo---ooo-oo---oo 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?36DAD10C.58F4A985>