Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eight-Way BSD & Linux OS Comparison

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
    I was comparing yum vs. apt, and if yum does extra things that help then great, but from my experience I've had package breakage happen more often on systems using yum so I'm not sure what as a user yum gives me over apt.
    All I know is Fedora takes a lot longer to install updates than Ubuntu even if they are small updates, and it doesn't seem to benefit me as a user.
    Default behaviour of yum is to check if there is newer dependencies, conflicts and update before the install. You can speed the process by enabling cache via "yum makecache" first then do the installation via "yum -C install". Apt default behaviour requires manual checking i.e. it cannot do all process at once without separate command.
    Note that a newer version of you temporarily called dnf expected to be ready for Fedora 22 will use libsolv library which should speed up the process.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
      Just because it doesn't have all the data integrity features of file systems like btrfs or zfs doesn't make it 'crappy and insecure', that is just pure BS.

      Everything is a balance, I as a desktop user are perfectly happy with the performance/features/safety of a filesystem like ext4, as such I see no reason to use a more resource demanding file system like btrfs or zfs, in short, for my needs I don't think their additional features make up for the increased resource use and loss of performance, YMMV.

      This is also mirrored in all other Linux distros I've come across, as they (if they default to anything) default to ext4. Given that PC-BSD is a desktop oriented 'distro' it seems as overkill to default to ZFS.


      I'd agree if this was a file system comparison, but it was a 'out-if-the-box' comparison between a bunch of Linux distros and a BSD distro.

      Obviously you have to view the results with that in mind, there's no doubt that each and every one of the tested systems could be tweaked to run faster for certain tests than in their default settings.
      Yes, you are right... I guess what I wanted to question is the interpretation of the results; indeed, because it is NOT a file system benchmark, it is misleading to use two completely different kinds of beasts, as are ZFS and HAMMER on one side, and ext4 on the other.
      Yes, I know the whole out-of-the-box thing, but I'd be more interested in the following:
      1. If the intention is to compare OS performance, then use the same file system. This is specially true now that ZFS for Linux is considered for production use.
      2. If not possible to use the same file system, at least use the same class of file systems (ZFS, HAMMER, BTRFS are in the same class; UFS and EXT2FS are in the same class).

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by finalzone View Post
        Default behaviour of yum is to check if there is newer dependencies, conflicts and update before the install. You can speed the process by enabling cache via "yum makecache" first then do the installation via "yum -C install". Apt default behaviour requires manual checking i.e. it cannot do all process at once without separate command.
        Note that a newer version of you temporarily called dnf expected to be ready for Fedora 22 will use libsolv library which should speed up the process.
        Great, sounds like something that should be run by cron periodically by default then, but regardless so far my experiences have been poor.

        I could care less about these package managers anyway as they do not provide a cross-distro packaging solution for easy Linux program sharing which has only hurt the Linux software ecosystem. Linux has a horrible reputation for terrible and confusing software installation for any out-of-repo program for a reason.

        Maybe PackageKit, AppStream, and Listaller will come to the rescue though if Zero Install doesn't see more uptake.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
          Great, sounds like something that should be run by cron periodically by default then, but regardless so far my experiences have been poor.
          Which version of Fedora did you use at that time? I both use F18 and F19 without problem related to yum. To enable that run with cron, simply install yum-cron.

          Maybe PackageKit, AppStream, and Listaller will come to the rescue though if Zero Install doesn't see more uptake.
          You can try using pkcon command from PackageKit

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by Sergio View Post
            it is misleading to use two completely different kinds of beasts, as are ZFS and HAMMER on one side, and ext4 on the other.
            Well they are the defaults as such I can't complain given this is what the test was based upon.

            On the other hand I personally find broad unfocused comparisons such as this one to be rather pointless, worthwhile comparisons are those were you focus on one particular feature and then make sure that the surrounding environment match up as much as possible so as to interfere as little as possible with the final results.

            That's not really the 'Phoronix' way of benchmarking though, ambiguousness often seems to be the rule by which these tests are devised.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
              I was comparing yum vs. apt, and if yum does extra things that help then great, but from my experience I've had package breakage happen more often on systems using yum so I'm not sure what as a user yum gives me over apt. The breakage could just be due to poor repo maintenance in Fedora but it doesn't help increase my belief in Yum/RPM.
              You do realise that YUM is just one program out of many, right? How about at least trying zypper and urpmi before jumping to such conclusions?

              Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
              I could care less about these package managers anyway as they do not provide a cross-distro packaging solution for easy Linux program sharing which has only hurt the Linux software ecosystem. Linux has a horrible reputation for terrible and confusing software installation for any out-of-repo program for a reason.
              Uh huh. How to install any out-of-repo program on openSUSE: 1) Go to http://software.opensuse.org 2) Search for your program 3) Press "Show unsupported packages" 4) Click on "1 Click Install" 5) Confirm the installation.

              Yeap. Totally terrible and confusing

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by CthuIhux
                Dude BSD crashed on the Xonotic benchmark. Cause it's(BSD) so crap.
                No, I suspected something like this because ... because BSD nuts have ignored opensource GPU drivers development for a long time, so there is situation where new opensource GPU drivers are only supporting KMS and DRM subsystems (because their devs like those interfaces). Yet, BSDs are unable to provide those interfaces (FBSD guys are "working on this" but as usually "too little and too late", as it's hallmark of BSDs). So no recent opensource drivers in BSDs. But HD4000 card is old enough to try to run somehow even with ancient UMS-era-based drivers. Though they can be bugged and your idea about crash could be correct.

                But there was also at least one Linux missing in Apache benchmark since there are 5 results and only 2 BSDs, so simple math gives us that one Linux distro is missing. And failure to serve files with Apache would be a serious EPIC FAIL for Linux distro as well, don't you think so? So I'm really curious about this result as well. If someone is EPIC FAIL guys, they deserve proper mention at least. In fact silent lack of some result makes results interpretation hard enough.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by finalzone View Post
                  Which version of Fedora did you use at that time? I both use F18 and F19 without problem related to yum. To enable that run with cron, simply install yum-cron.
                  Wow. Are you from RH? I think you forgot the "problem" I was talking about, which is that apt is faster than yum in my experience. To find out you'd have to compare them side-by-side with roughly the same packages.

                  Fuckin shills.

                  Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                  You do realise that YUM is just one program out of many, right? How about at least trying zypper and urpmi before jumping to such conclusions?
                  What in the hell does that have to do with me saying I've had bad problems with packages breaking on Fedora?

                  Trolololo much?

                  Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                  Uh huh. How to install any out-of-repo program on openSUSE: 1) Go to http://software.opensuse.org 2) Search for your program 3) Press "Show unsupported packages" 4) Click on "1 Click Install" 5) Confirm the installation.

                  Yeap. Totally terrible and confusing
                  Again, wow. What does any of that have to do with universal package management for Linux that is out-of-repo? I never said anything about packages for SUSE, I don't give a shit about SUSE. I give a shit about the Linux ecosystem as a whole and how it's horribly stupid, non-standardized, and fragmented when it comes to a lack of packaging standards that allow you to easily install programs and their dependencies from anywhere. A-n-y-w-h-e-r-e. Not from a distro's stupid walled garden software store, from anywhere. The only solution right now is to ship static binaries or include the linked libraries with the download. The only way to get launcher icons on a user's desktop is to include an installer program.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                    No, I suspected something like this because ... because BSD nuts have ignored opensource GPU drivers development for a long time, so there is situation where new opensource GPU drivers are only supporting KMS and DRM subsystems (because their devs like those interfaces). Yet, BSDs are unable to provide those interfaces (FBSD guys are "working on this" but as usually "too little and too late", as it's hallmark of BSDs). So no recent opensource drivers in BSDs.
                    FreeBSD 9.1 (release in late 2012) has KMS for Intel GPUs. I can run it very nicely on my Ivy Bridge laptop. Work to provide KMS on AMD GPUs is in-progress and going well. The next release of OpenBSD will have KMS for Intel GPUs.

                    The BSD developers have not ignored open source GPU drivers, there has been nobody to work on them. The manpower available to BSD is tiny compared to Linux, so things often take longer. It's not a great situation, but it has been getting steadily better.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
                      Wow. Are you from RH? I think you forgot the "problem" I was talking about, which is that apt is faster than yum in my experience. To find out you'd have to compare them side-by-side with roughly the same packages.
                      No, I am one of Fedora contributor using yum on daily basis. When pointing out why apt seems to load faster than yum due to skipped steps and its configuration, you blind yourself iwth your bias toward the former. It is that elitism complex you display that slows down the development of FOSS.

                      Fuckin shills.
                      You are what you accused me with your ad hominen attack.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X