Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debian 7.0 GNU/Linux vs. GNU/kFreeBSD Benchmarks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    In your dreams. Linux is used in the most demanding workloads not BSD. Linux is also more safe and provides more security mechanisms. BSD is worse in every case, it seems. One should ask a question: why do they even care to provide kfreebsd kernel? It's so typical for bsd fanboys and trolls: bsd is faster! Benchmarks show it's not. So, bsd is more safe! Reality show it's not. So, it must be more stable! Again, reality show it's not. The last two things cannot be proven easily, but if it was more safe and stable it would be used in the most demanding workloads and environments where security is a priority. Nothing like this has place.
    So 'kraftman', aka 'OpenSLOWLARIS', aka 'LinuxANALSBSD' is back...

    Comment


    • #12
      Division by zero!

      GNU/kFreeBSD
      You just divided by zero, didn't you?

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by stevenc View Post
        The default plain UFS filesystem operates in the safest possible mode
        Why do they use the term "fast" then:
        It is also called the Berkeley Fast File System, the BSD Fast File System or FFS
        (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_File_System )

        Originally posted by stevenc View Post
        without write cache or journalling
        But you know that journaling slows things down for better security, right?

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by TAXI View Post
          But you know that journaling slows things down for better security, right?
          A plain UFS filesystem assures safety by syncing a lot, which hurts performance on slow spindles, and is particularly painful on older flash and USB drives. Plain ext2 on Linux would be similar.

          With something like softupdates or a journal, we can skip much of that and go much faster, making better use of write caches, because there is a way to recover to a consistent state. The journal itself could incur a slight overhead but is probably worth it.

          ZFS is generally faster than UFS on GNU/kFreeBSD since its design avoids the above issues.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by archibaId
            Correct, BSD == zero
            But then GNU divided by kFreeBSD gives infinity?

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
              In your dreams. Linux is used in the most demanding workloads not BSD. Linux is also more safe and provides more security mechanisms. BSD is worse in every case, it seems. One should ask a question: why do they even care to provide kfreebsd kernel? It's so typical for bsd fanboys and trolls: bsd is faster! Benchmarks show it's not. So, bsd is more safe! Reality show it's not. So, it must be more stable! Again, reality show it's not. The last two things cannot be proven easily, but if it was more safe and stable it would be used in the most demanding workloads and environments where security is a priority. Nothing like this has place.
              Linux is generally faster than FreeBSD , safer no, just take at the number of linux CVE's , is much bigger than BSD cve's .

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by archibaId
                You've got no proof that those people are the same. Troll. Kraftman came long before OpenSLOWLARIS or what ever.
                Hey, kraftman. What's up?

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by TAXI View Post
                  Why do they use the term "fast" then:
                  (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_File_System )
                  It's FAST file system because, at the time it was developed (early 80's, in 4.2BSD), it was quite a significant advance in file systems technologies.
                  Last edited by Sergio; 06-10-2013, 11:45 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by archibaId
                    You've got no proof that those people are the same. Troll. Kraftman came long before OpenSLOWLARIS or what ever.
                    You would have to lack a brain to think that i386reaper, LinuxANALSBSD and OpenSLOWARIS aren't the same person.
                    They both raise the same flawed points, both lack a grasp of basic grammar and spelling, both use profanity on a SFW forum when there is literally no need, both show an intense bias towards copyleft software in any and all circumstances and both flock to threads with Solaris, BSD, Hurd, Minix and other *nix-like systems with the intent to mock and insult the participants in those threads and derail any prior discussion taking place.
                    There have been many iterations of the same user under different accounts and by some means of mental deficiency they keep coming back regardless of how many prior accounts get banned.
                    I suppose they get a kick out of trolling and losing arguments, but that sort of mentality should be left at 4chan, not brought here.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by inteIIivision
                      No, it's more like they trying to convey something important to people.

                      And copyleft is the only ethical thing. Proprietary is unethical and CopyFree is far more unethical. Case closed.
                      Oh, and this person will also try to imitate other's usernames to spread confusion, CuIIuthx and Vim_LUser were the big offenders as well as my own with inteIIivision.
                      In a way I feel honoured that my username was worthy of you to drag through the mud, but in the future you should come up with some original ideas for a change

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X