Debian 7.0 GNU/Linux vs. GNU/kFreeBSD Benchmarks

[intellivision]

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

[intellivision]

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.

[Sergio]

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.

[Sergio]

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?

[dante]

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 .

[stevenc]

Correct, BSD == zero

But then GNU divided by kFreeBSD gives infinity?

[stevenc]

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.

[V10lator]

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 )

without write cache or journalling

But you know that journaling slows things down for better security, right?

[0xBADCODE]

Division by zero!

GNU/kFreeBSD

You just divided by zero, didn't you?

[Sergio]

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...