>
> The question is to use a Unix system or a Gates's system.
> A little unfair for us.
>
Hmmm... well, it is unlikely that Unix A now would be nearly as good as Unix
B is without Unix B prodding it. Note also that Unix A has very far to
go to even approach the usability of "Gates's system" in certain areas that
it is foolhardy to even thing that it is even in the same league. Lithium
Carbonate can be used to help such grandiose thinking (it also helps keep the
rebound from driving you so deep into depression when the bizarre thought
processes subside, by minimizing the manic phase.) At least in our office
you need compatibility with Microsoft Word, Microsoft Powerpoint, and
Microsoft Excel for interoperability. Please refer to the latest, say
spec on the ATA interface -- hmmm... what format is it in? Oh... Mickeysoft!!!
So even to get compatibility with standards work you need access to that
(convoluted) format...
>
> ( Did youd remember some recent thread in the linux kernel list?)
>
What does this have to do with anything with FreeBSD and what context are
you refering to? Sorry, I am not sure that you posted your comment to the
right list at all.
>
> 2 - People that claim that Unix B is FASTER than Unix A rarely
> indicate the versions of systems (nor the used benchmarks).
>
Anytime that I have talked about it publically I have been VERY clear
about which versions of the OS.
>
> I was expecting that Unix B version 2.0.5 was still a little FASTER that
> Unix A version 1.3.87, and I get the OPPOSITE.
>
I am not sure if you know a critical fact about OSes... Even if one benchmarks
under a certain kind of synthetic load slower than the other -- it can be
faster under other sets of real circumstances. Additionally, 2.0.5 is
lightyears behind our -current code... FreeBSD is not a static piece of
code, and it appears that some people assume that it is.
>
> The difference is that I wrote that my benckmark is "questionnable" and
> give enough informations to guess missing informations.
> Most of Unix end users are not able to guess the MISSING informations.
> They BELEIVE what we CLAIM.
>
Well, I regularly benchmark FreeBSD vs. Linux, and I could see immediately
the totally flawed logic in your claims. In fact I also have been benchmarking
FreeBSD vs. NetBSD -- wanna guess my results? Sorry though, I am not divulging
them because the purpose of my benchmarking is NOT to publically compare the
OSes as much as to make sure that FreeBSD is not falling behind in one area
or another.
>
> 3 - It seems to me that now, current Linux is as FAST as FreeBSD-current.
> Good news!!!!!!!!!!
>
Your benchmarks do NOT demonstrate that. They show that current Linux can
benchmark faster than an ancient (and somewhat more buggy) FreeBSD in certain
areas. Little is to be gained here.
>
> It is difficult to have both Linux and FreeBSD in their current version.
>
Whaaa!!! (To non-native English/American speakers -- this is a baby's cry.)
>
> Only linux is up to date on my machine.
> If you are a FreeBSD-current user and if you have about the same
> configuration as mine, can you run the old BYTE benchmark
> and send to me your results?
>
The results would be bogus, you really cannot gain accurate comparisons of
OSes using two seperate pieces of hardware. Also, in the next few weeks there
are going to be some significant (further) improvements in the performance
of FreeBSD in a couple of areas. So how timely are the results going to be?
I can compare FreeBSD/Linux/NetBSD on identcal hardware within 1/2 hour to
an hour. If I publically (or privately) take it upon myself to discuss the
results of a comparison, I also take the trouble to do the comparison
fairly. I suggest that you do so also, Gerard.
>
> Best Regards, Gerard.
>
The above close is suspect, John.
John
dyson@freebsd.org