Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 68

Thread: DragonFlyBSD, CentOS, Ubuntu, Solaris Benchmarks

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    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.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BSD Sucks and Dies View Post
    Your behaviour is insulting
    Please re-read your nickname and your previous posting, then consider this statement again.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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'.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,187

    Default

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

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    220

    Default

    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.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BSD Sucks and Dies View Post
    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?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BSD Sucks and Dies View Post
    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.

    BSD:
    * runs BSD binaries
    * runs ELF binaries

    Linux:
    * runs ELF binaries

    Oh well.

    FAIL.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BSD Sucks and Dies View Post
    binary incompatibility is a huge issue
    Especially for proprietary software.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kill BSD View Post
    Linux does need a compatibility layer like shitBSD does.
    So how do you run BSD applications on Linux?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BSD Sucks and Dies View Post
    But BSD code IS proprietary code that just hasn't been closed up yet.
    yet.

    And its their choice.
    They are aware of it.
    yet.

    Don't limit their freedom of choice.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •