No announcement yet.

DragonFlyBSD, CentOS, Ubuntu, Solaris Benchmarks

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    You guys should just STFU and get back to coding under whichever license you prefer. Otherwise there will be less both BSD and GPL code - which means there would be more proprietary code.

    Or you can continue trollwars, with hope someday to create trollcompiler so that each of your claims here actually work. Which will never happen. Because you will all be banned and your time wasted.


    • #22
      Originally posted by BSD Sucks and Dies
      Your behaviour is insulting
      Please re-read your nickname and your previous posting, then consider this statement again.


      • #23
        Originally posted by joe_gunner View Post
        The GraphicsMagick tests shouldn't be legal. It uses OpenMP to scale and the DragonFly compiler in 3.2 doesn't have support for OpenMP and is therefore much slower than Linux in this test. The current development version of DragonFly has GCC 4.7 and OpenMP is enabled on that. In every other test, it is competitive to Linux.
        You sure about this? The Phoronix test data sheet states that the DragonFlyBSD 3.21, 3.03 tests where done with GCC 4.47, which as far as my memory goes certainly has openmp support, the test results do indicate that you are right though. I fully agree though that for a test lke this to be anything close to fair the same compiler toolchain/version needs to be used across all systems, as it stands it's pretty worthless.

        Originally posted by froznen View Post
        You do realize that CentOS uses a kernel that is 3 years older than the kernel Ubuntu is using and it performs better in most of those tests right?
        Well to cut Ubuntu some slack, I imagine this is vanilla Ubuntu which is running dash and lots of other stuff together with compositing etc which can affect benchmarks.

        Also I'd say that in many (most?) of these tests done here the kernel version does not have a big impact, compiler toolchain, filesystem used and the settings applied, number of applications/services running by default etc seem more likely to affect the outcome unless the benchmark targets an area which has had great improvements between kernel versions. Overall I think these tests just highlight the general sloppiness which have become synonymous with 'Phoronix benchmarking'.


        • #24
          GCC version alone is not enough, as it can be compiled without OpenMP. (libgomp needs separate porting to platforms)


          • #25
            Your nickname alone makes me wonder that you actually know the word "behaviour".
            And while we're at fragmenting: How many Linux distributions with incompatible package formats are out? Hmm.


            • #26
              Originally posted by BSD Sucks and Dies
              No, BSD BullShitDistro is trying to inform you BSD zealots is that the BSD init system really is inferior and that system V and lately systemd (to a much more greater degree) is just superior. I agree with him in full. Here's the reasons:

              BSD init:
              -slow initialisation
              -big shell overhead
              -prone to freezing the entire system
              -Dependency based script startup
              -limited to serializing script startup
              -cannot be taylored to any graphical configuration tool
              -complex interface

              System V:
              -faster initialisation
              -smaller shell overhead
              -more robust
              -capable of parallel startups
              -Simpler interface
              -Many graphical config tools are taylored to it
              Why not add Systemd to your outstanding comparison?


              • #27
                Originally posted by BSD Sucks and Dies
                Incompatible package formats are a very minor problem while binary incompatibility is a huge issue and one that BSD has and linux has not.
                Oh, yes, binary compatibility.

                * runs BSD binaries
                * runs ELF binaries

                * runs ELF binaries

                Oh well.



                • #28
                  Originally posted by BSD Sucks and Dies
                  binary incompatibility is a huge issue
                  Especially for proprietary software.


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by kill BSD
                    Linux does need a compatibility layer like shitBSD does.
                    So how do you run BSD applications on Linux?


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by BSD Sucks and Dies
                      But BSD code IS proprietary code that just hasn't been closed up yet.

                      And its their choice.
                      They are aware of it.

                      Don't limit their freedom of choice.