No one said it was "unix" It has never been the stated goal of Linux to become a "unix". It is a unix like operating system. The "crap" as you put it is exactly my point. What one person considers "crap" ie another person considers a feature. What I see as the pit fall of the *bsd system is that it seems (from what I have seen and mostly from what *bsd users state) the *bsd camps hinder their sucess by trying to control the code.
How many linux kernels have "flashed bios on boot". This type of nonsense is what I am talking about.
I fail to see why people continue to compare FreeBSD to Linux. It is like comparing apples to oranges.
The advantages I see being campaigned by the FreeBSD community tends to sounds something like this: (correct me if I left something out)
1) Less people are allowed to modify FreeBSD (both userland and kernel land). And thus it is more stable.
2) Less people are allowed to modify FreeBSD (both userland and kernel land). And thus it is more secure.
3) The FreeBSD group controls both userland and kernel land and thus they are able to support a superior change control management scheme.
4) FreeBSD has superior developers. (over linux) since everyone knows linux developers are a bunch of rebels hacking elaborate "fixes" rather then implementing sound designs. (Resulting in unmanageabke code)
5) FreeBSD was based on source code provided by the LORD himself *BSDlite* and thus FreeBSD is UNIX which makes it superior.
I will attempt to rebuttal each point stated above.
1) Less people are allowed to modify FreeBSD resulting in less people looking at source code. Resulting in fewer new features and new design (possibly better) concepts from being implmented in a timely manner. The fact that adding new code tends to create a possibility of it being unstable merely creates an opportunity for a better CVS like solution to be created (case in point:BitMover)
2) Less people are allowed to modify FreeBSD and thus less people look at the code, resulting in less bugs being discovered. Having a smaller user base also has the advantage of being less satisfying to "crack". I wouldn't brag to my supervisor saying I found this bug in FreeBSD. I could brag saying I found a bug in linux.
3) This is one of the most interesting arguements because it seems to be the one that has the LEAST effect on the success of Linux/Gnu. However it seems to be the one that is campaigned most by the FreeBSD community (at least the vocal part of it).
I see this as flawed thinking, the very reason why the GNU/LINUX model works is because it follows (IMHO) the model of creating that has the most longevity. I would call this a Natrual process of creating. I say that because I see the GNU/Linux process the same way I see nature. It evolves based on the energies put into it. Now this is true for all things in my opinion however it is my experince that when you attempt to "control" evolution (or nature) it has undesireable results. (fragmentation, stagnation, death, corruption ect..).
4) For the most part core FreeBSD developers and core Linux developers are of the same breed. This arguement is silly. Research the names in the Linux CREDITS list and this whole theory gets blown out of the water.
5) FreeBSD was based on the efforts of many before them. A very solid well designed system. Linux was created with these same good designs in mind. But it was created with the BAD designs in mind too. Linux is not UNIX, nor has it had the luxury of it's 40 year old code base and thus it has taken a number of years for it to mature to the point of most UNIX's. It has just recently (last year or two) reached a point where it can claim as such. If you put this in perspective, you will see that Linux is growing at a rate that is truly amazing.
The Linux/GNU process (in it's entirety) is so radically differnt then other development processes that judging it based on standard methodologies leaves you in the position of supporting an arguement that holds no water (i.e. the position/arguements you hold against something has no noticeable effect on it (leaving you always saying (just wait, it will "REAL SOON now")).
I agree. People need to learn to speak for themselfs without including the rest of the community.
Raster has valid reasons for being upset (if only because he believes so) Who are we to judge what is professional or not professional for HIM to do or say. Stop worrying about how a member of the community reacts to something.. he is but one of many..
p.s. in my OPINION it is raster's manager that has a problem acting professional.
I didn't see anywhere a reference to duplexing or ethernet card configuration. In redhat's default configuration I have noticed that it selects 10Mbit most of the time. And HALF duplex all the time..
Only way out of this is to pass the options= command when loading the ethernet module.
The development methods for the two are so radically different that I don't think you can compare the two by the amount of code freezes.
Really, There might be more bugs in a linux kernel releases but there are more drivers, and more features. More people also use the code, and thus bugs becomes more apparent.
As you stated you're "personal" opinion is based on an experince in 1994. I think we both remember the state of linux in 94. Freebsd on the other hand took less time to mature because it was based on an existing code base.
I believe times have changed since then.
Just to give you an idea of the servers we have around here and the uptimes:
15 alphas (osf 4.0) ranging between 4000s, DS20s, and 8400s. (with ranging uptimes of 30 days to a year)
8 linux boxes (all redhat 5.2) (3 are servers with uptimes exceed 150 days, 2 are routers with uptimes exceed a year, rest are workstations)
3 BSDI boxes (uptimes ranging from 30 days to 100 days)
12 suns from sparc20s to ultra enterprise 5000. (varing degrees of uptime)
5 AIX RS6000s (30 days to 6 monhths) (they are new)
misc other servers..
Reguarding uptime it has been my experince that the uptime of all the above operating systems are directly related to the following:
a) hardware used b) software used c) strain
Again my opinion is if its important we need someone who is willing to put there money where their mouth is and show some statistics.
If you run linux on a packard bell its not going to get high uptimes. If you buy a server from var research I think the odds are you won't run into situations where you need to reboot often.
I really wish people would either stop commenting on performance/reliability of Linux vs Freebsd. Or post some extensive test results to support their claims.. I have yet to see anything that even comes close to this. (Closest I have seen was in the freebsd zine, which compared redhat 5.0 running 2.0.34 to freebsd 2.9?(8?) which showed them both to be about equal.. with freebsd possibly ahead by a nose)
I think it shows that people rely to much on "what they think" based on personal experience.. This is fine in of itself, but when people make generalizations like "freebsd is more stable then linux" or "I have found that freebsd is 20% faster then linux overall" It would be nice to see supporting facts.
I use/have used both for a number of years and I can't in all good conscious say one is faster or more stable over the other.. My personal experience of stability with linux or freebsd is GOING to be different then someone else. I most likely have different hardware and have used different distributions / versions of them both. So for me to make a general statement would be pointless.
If this is so important to some people I would suggest there be a test procedure drawn up on how to test these things.. perferably using a current configuration of each. Having a "expert" from both camps on hand wouldn't be a bad idea either.
According to their report: httpd, smb & nmb were all running from inetd.
There is no other possible explimentation if what they state is true.
The following processes were running immediately before the NetBench and WebBench tests: init, (kflushd),(kpiod), (kswapd),/sbin/kerneld, syslogd, klogd, crond, inetd, bash,/sbin/mingetty [on tty2, tty3, tty4, tty5, and tty6], update (bdflush), and portmap
What I can't figure out is what Redhat installation option sets up these services in inetd.conf? Very odd:)
This report is rather hard to believe. Especially since all the tests done by zdnet and pc world shows linux to royally stomp NT in these two catagories.
I for one think varesearch or penguin computing should refute this report on their comparable hardware as SOON as possible as to avoid too many mis-informed people spreading this nonsense around.
I don't think microsoft honestly expects this report to hold up... I think its more of a attempt to cause reasonable doubt in the minds of would be linux users.
What was it exactly that was "Bad" (tm) in this article? I didn't get the impression that this org wants to take credit or ownership of OpenCode.. It looked to me like they see the concept that we take for granted as being something that could change the face of business and community for everyone.. Sounds admireable to me.
All that happend was a site that you liked was taken down by the person who ran it for personal reasons. Freshmeat says nothing about OSS, it is just a service provided to us by someone who believes in our cause..
Sites go down everyday for all types of reasons.. Same with commerical sites.
Slashdot Mirror
That was a sarcastic commit.
No one said it was "unix" It has never been the stated goal of Linux to become a "unix". It is a unix like operating system. The "crap" as you put it is exactly my point. What one person considers "crap" ie another person considers a feature. What I see as the pit fall of the *bsd system is that it seems (from what I have seen and mostly from what *bsd users state) the *bsd camps hinder their sucess by trying to control the code.
How many linux kernels have "flashed bios on boot". This type of nonsense is what I am talking about.
I fail to see why people continue to compare FreeBSD to Linux. It is like comparing apples to oranges.
The advantages I see being campaigned by the FreeBSD community tends to sounds something like this: (correct me if I left something out)
1) Less people are allowed to modify FreeBSD (both userland and kernel land). And thus it is more stable.
2) Less people are allowed to modify FreeBSD (both userland and kernel land). And thus it is more secure.
3) The FreeBSD group controls both userland and kernel land and thus they are able to support a superior change control management scheme.
4) FreeBSD has superior developers. (over linux) since everyone knows linux developers are a bunch of rebels hacking elaborate "fixes" rather then implementing sound designs. (Resulting in unmanageabke code)
5) FreeBSD was based on source code provided by the LORD himself *BSDlite* and thus FreeBSD is UNIX which makes it superior.
I will attempt to rebuttal each point stated above.
1) Less people are allowed to modify FreeBSD resulting in less people looking at source code. Resulting in fewer new features and new design (possibly better) concepts from being implmented in a timely manner. The fact that adding new code tends to create a possibility of it being unstable merely creates an opportunity for a better CVS like solution to be created (case in point:BitMover)
2) Less people are allowed to modify FreeBSD and thus less people look at the code, resulting in less bugs being discovered. Having a smaller user base also has the advantage of being less satisfying to "crack". I wouldn't brag to my supervisor saying I found this bug in FreeBSD. I could brag saying I found a bug in linux.
3) This is one of the most interesting arguements because it seems to be the one that has the LEAST effect on the success of Linux/Gnu. However it seems to be the one that is campaigned most by the FreeBSD community (at least the vocal part of it).
I see this as flawed thinking, the very reason why the GNU/LINUX model works is because it follows (IMHO) the model of creating that has the most longevity. I would call this a Natrual process of creating. I say that because I see the GNU/Linux process the same way I see nature. It evolves based on the energies put into it. Now this is true for all things in my opinion however it is my experince that when you attempt to "control" evolution (or nature) it has undesireable results. (fragmentation, stagnation, death, corruption ect..).
4) For the most part core FreeBSD developers and core Linux developers are of the same breed. This arguement is silly. Research the names in the Linux CREDITS list and this whole theory gets blown out of the water.
5) FreeBSD was based on the efforts of many before them. A very solid well designed system. Linux was created with these same good designs in mind. But it was created with the BAD designs in mind too. Linux is not UNIX, nor has it had the luxury of it's 40 year old code base and thus it has taken a number of years for it to mature to the point of most UNIX's. It has just recently (last year or two) reached a point where it can claim as such. If you put this in perspective, you will see that Linux is growing at a rate that is truly amazing.
The Linux/GNU process (in it's entirety) is so radically differnt then other development processes that judging it based on standard methodologies leaves you in the position of supporting an arguement that holds no water (i.e. the position/arguements you hold against something has no noticeable effect on it (leaving you always saying (just wait, it will "REAL SOON now")).
I agree. People need to learn to speak for themselfs without including the rest of the community.
Raster has valid reasons for being upset (if only because he believes so) Who are we to judge what is professional or not professional for HIM to do or say. Stop worrying about how a member of the community reacts to something.. he is but one of many..
p.s. in my OPINION it is raster's manager that has a problem acting professional.
I didn't see anywhere a reference to duplexing or
ethernet card configuration. In redhat's default
configuration I have noticed that it selects 10Mbit most of the time. And HALF duplex all the
time..
Only way out of this is to pass the options= command when loading the ethernet module.
The development methods for the two are so radically different that I don't think you can compare the two by the amount of code freezes.
Really, There might be more bugs in a linux kernel releases but there are more drivers, and more features. More people also use the code, and thus bugs becomes more apparent.
As you stated you're "personal" opinion is based on an experince in 1994. I think we both remember the state of linux in 94. Freebsd on the other hand took less time to mature because it was based on an existing code base.
I believe times have changed since then.
Just to give you an idea of the servers we have around here and the uptimes:
15 alphas (osf 4.0) ranging between 4000s, DS20s, and 8400s. (with ranging uptimes of 30 days to a year)
8 linux boxes (all redhat 5.2) (3 are servers with uptimes exceed 150 days, 2 are routers with uptimes exceed a year, rest are workstations)
3 BSDI boxes (uptimes ranging from 30 days to 100 days)
12 suns from sparc20s to ultra enterprise 5000. (varing degrees of uptime)
5 AIX RS6000s (30 days to 6 monhths) (they are new)
misc other servers..
Reguarding uptime it has been my experince that the uptime of all the above operating systems are directly related to the following:
a) hardware used
b) software used
c) strain
Again my opinion is if its important we need someone who is willing to put there money where their mouth is and show some statistics.
If you run linux on a packard bell its not going to get high uptimes. If you buy a server from var research I think the odds are you won't run into situations where you need to reboot often.
I really wish people would either stop commenting on performance/reliability of Linux vs Freebsd.
Or post some extensive test results to support their claims.. I have yet to see anything that even comes close to this. (Closest I have seen was in the freebsd zine, which compared redhat 5.0 running 2.0.34 to freebsd 2.9?(8?) which showed them both to be about equal.. with freebsd possibly ahead by a nose)
I think it shows that people rely to much on "what they think" based on personal experience.. This is fine in of itself, but when people make generalizations like "freebsd is more stable then linux" or "I have found that freebsd is 20% faster then linux overall" It would be nice to see supporting facts.
I use/have used both for a number of years and I can't in all good conscious say one is faster or more stable over the other.. My personal experience of stability with linux or freebsd is GOING to be different then someone else. I most likely have different hardware and have used different distributions / versions of them both. So for me to make a general statement would be pointless.
If this is so important to some people I would suggest there be a test procedure drawn up on how to test these things.. perferably using a current configuration of each. Having a "expert" from both camps on hand wouldn't be a bad idea either.
echo 8192 > /proc/sys/fs/file-max
kernel patches my ass..
According to their report: httpd, smb & nmb were all running from inetd.
/sbin/kerneld, syslogd, klogd, crond, inetd, bash, /sbin/mingetty [on tty2, tty3, tty4, tty5, and
:)
There is no other possible explimentation if what they state is true.
The following processes were running immediately before the NetBench and WebBench tests: init, (kflushd),(kpiod), (kswapd),
tty6], update (bdflush), and portmap
What I can't figure out is what Redhat installation option sets up these services in inetd.conf? Very odd
echo 8192 > /proc/sys/fs/file-max
enjoy.
Care to show your result on the SMB test you mentioned?
Thanks
This report is rather hard to believe. Especially since all the tests done by zdnet and pc world shows linux to royally stomp NT in these two catagories.
I for one think varesearch or penguin computing should refute this report on their comparable hardware as SOON as possible as to avoid too many mis-informed people spreading this nonsense around.
I don't think microsoft honestly expects this report to hold up... I think its more of a attempt to cause reasonable doubt in the minds of would be linux users.
just my two cents.
What was it exactly that was "Bad" (tm) in this article? I didn't get the impression that this org wants to take credit or ownership of OpenCode.. It looked to me like they see the concept that we take for granted as being something that could change the face of business and community for everyone.. Sounds admireable to me.
http://souls.net/desktop.gif
All that happend was a site that you liked was taken down by the person who ran it for personal reasons. Freshmeat says nothing about OSS, it is just a service provided to us by someone who believes in our cause..
Sites go down everyday for all types of reasons.. Same with commerical sites.