Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 12:08:51 -0700 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Don Wilde <dwilde1@thuntek.net> Cc: "Robert A. Bruce" <rab@pike.cdrom.com>, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The Linux PR firestorm disaster (w.r.t. FreeBSD) Message-ID: <36DAE5C3.C1B6182B@softweyr.com> References: <199903010058.QAA24952@pike.cdrom.com> <36DAD10C.58F4A985@thuntek.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Don Wilde wrote:
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
In many ways, the different BSD projects are more alike than the different
Linux "distributions." This point can be emphasized without downplaying
the role of FreeBSD, or any other BSD.
> > 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.
And Linux really doesn't have any support for realtime operations.
RT-Linux, which does, consists of a realtime kernel with Linux running
as a task; normal Linux programs have NO access to the realtime aspects
and realtime programs have limited access to the Linux environment.
RTMX, based on OpenBSD, is a similar implementation of realtime support
in a UNIX-like environment.
> > 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.
In some applications, the user-level threads support on FreeBSD may
be faster, as you don't have change kernel context to change thread
context. There are pros and cons to both, and both are viable approaches
to multi-threaded applications. Neither make a bit of difference for
the vast majority of software available for FreeBSD and Linux, which are
not implicitly threaded.
> > 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.
Never mind faster, just runs them acceptably fast. And yes, we do need
to document these.
--
Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
Wes Peters +1.801.915.2061
Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com
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?36DAE5C3.C1B6182B>