Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FreeBSD 8.0 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 Benchmarks

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

  • #91
    The funny part is that BSD License clearly states that original authors retain copyrights to the product. Copyright owners are the only people who can decide whether the license is allowed to be changed to another license that isn't compatible with the prior one. In fact the only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that if GCC would manage to change the license of the original code to GPLv3 without the explicit permission from the authors, this would be a copyright violation. What really in a theoretical case (with GCC license changes actually intepreted the other way too) would happen is that you would end up in a situation where you can have a source distributed under a more limitative license (GPLv3) but you could also choose to obtain it from the authors under BSDL. The icky bit of it all is it seems to me they just left an enormous hole in the licenses since if all target code is GPLv3 and you can only link GPLv3 against GPLv3, they'd as far as I see it nullify the no-linking rule. (or face a law-suit)
    Seriously though: It's not going to change anything. In most countries copyright is definitive while software licenses are iffy so FSF guys would have to be idiots to try to sue.
    Last edited by nanonyme; 09-30-2009, 07:17 AM.

    Comment


    • #92
      GCC does not change any licences at all.

      And it DOES NOT CHANGE the licence of the source code.

      The resulting binary is a different theme - because of linking to libgcc but the FSF already stood up and clarified everything around it.

      This is just another case of the BSD crowd masturbating about some licence nonesense so they can feel victimized.

      Comment


      • #93
        Pure Crap

        Someone said that he never saw *BSD to be faster in real tests.
        Well..I never saw *Ubuntu being used in the real world.

        Comparing a desktop distro with a server distro is totally unusefull.
        Even if it was true that FreeBSD was a bit more slower, no one cares!

        FreeBSD is one of the most solid and advanced operating systems in the world, while Ubuntu is just one more desktop linux distro.

        So please, stop writing this crap. you'll influence our children's.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by energyman View Post
          GCC does not change any licences at all.

          And it DOES NOT CHANGE the licence of the source code.

          The resulting binary is a different theme - because of linking to libgcc but the FSF already stood up and clarified everything around it.

          This is just another case of the BSD crowd masturbating about some licence nonesense so they can feel victimized.
          I believed as much. My point was mostly that it would probably be a copyright violation if it tried to do so by its own.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by xpto View Post
            Someone said that he never saw *BSD to be faster in real tests.
            Well..I never saw *Ubuntu being used in the real world.

            Comparing a desktop distro with a server distro is totally unusefull.
            Even if it was true that FreeBSD was a bit more slower, no one cares!

            FreeBSD is one of the most solid and advanced operating systems in the world, while Ubuntu is just one more desktop linux distro.

            So please, stop writing this crap. you'll influence our children's.
            bullshit. FreeBSD sucked in all 'server' related tests of that article - and there are enough benchmarks in the wild showing FreeBSD sucking compared to linux.

            There is a reason why linux is much more popular for servers and HPC - and it has nothing to do with fanboyism.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by xpto View Post
              Someone said that he never saw *BSD to be faster in real tests.
              Well..I never saw *Ubuntu being used in the real world.

              Comparing a desktop distro with a server distro is totally unusefull.
              Even if it was true that FreeBSD was a bit more slower, no one cares!

              FreeBSD is one of the most solid and advanced operating systems in the world, while Ubuntu is just one more desktop linux distro.
              Where this "someone" said Ubuntu was used in comparison to FreeBSD (Gentoo and Fedora were used as far as I remember)? You can search in other threads for links. Keep in mind probably every system can be tuned to win some benchmark. Someone else explained this much better before. Ubuntu is also one of the most advanced operating systems in the world thanks to the Linux kernel (I don't know if U is also solid or not, but no one cares when comes to Ubuntu , however Debian is!). Look for DNS tests and Ingo's response to some stupid benchmark. Thankfully we don't have a flame war here yet...


              @Energyman

              bullshit. FreeBSD sucked in all 'server' related tests of that article - and there are enough benchmarks in the wild showing FreeBSD sucking compared to linux.
              It's hard to say in my opinion (different GCC) Some time ago OS X was also "the fastest" here, but...
              Last edited by kraftman; 09-30-2009, 09:20 AM.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by xpto View Post
                FreeBSD is one of the most solid and advanced operating systems in the world, while Ubuntu is just one more desktop linux distro.

                So please, stop writing this crap. you'll influence our children's.
                Actually, as far as I can tell there is only one guy in this thread fighting like his life depends on Ubuntu being faster and you can easily spot him . Everyone else has a good sense of logic and can sustain a dialog.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by risner View Post
                  GPL (v1, v2, and to a greater extent v3) require source to be provided and FSF is very busy suing Cisco and anyone else using Linux without making source available.
                  Yup, that's exactly the point.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by xpto View Post
                    Someone said that he never saw *BSD to be faster in real tests.
                    Well..I never saw *Ubuntu being used in the real world.

                    Comparing a desktop distro with a server distro is totally unusefull.
                    Even if it was true that FreeBSD was a bit more slower, no one cares!

                    FreeBSD is one of the most solid and advanced operating systems in the world, while Ubuntu is just one more desktop linux distro.

                    So please, stop writing this crap. you'll influence our children's.
                    So with a comparison between *BSD and a server Linux distro you would be fine?

                    Comment


                    • I would really like to see a stable Debian or Debian based distribution other than Ubuntu go up against FreeBSD too. I believe there were recent tests comparing Debian Lenny against Ubuntu and if I am not mistaken, Lenny was able to outpace Ubuntu, particularly in anything involving Python scripts (which are less common in Debian than Ubuntu, leading to more overhead in Ubuntu). The differences were not striking, but Debian did seem to be a bit quicker. It ought to do well compared to FreeBSD.

                      Slackware may be another distribution worth comparing to FreeBSD, especially since Slackware uses a lot of BSD conventions; it'd be interesting to see how they face off.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X