Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
So does anyone have *recent* facts or anecdotes about the technical merits of one over the other? Historically, FreeBSD has had a more secure and debugged TCP/IP stack, but I haven't heard that claim in a while. This is really a scaled-down "cathedral and bazaar" experiment, as linux is developed by thousands with very little official oversite, while BSD is guarded by a smaller group. In line with some other discussions on this list. from a performance/scalability/reliability perspective, the areas that differentiate *NIXes the most are: - Scheduling - Memory management - Filesystem scheme (when to write, how much to read, etc) One of the reasons Sun did so well in the past is that they had excellent scheduling schemes. In fact, it was replaceable, so you could change the scheduling scheme to suit your purposes. As I understand it, Linux's scheduler is one of it's weaknesses, and a reason it benefits so much from multiprocessors. Dunno about FreeBSD. AIX played freakish games with memory management. The upside is that memory management is very efficient and usually sucessful. The downside is that memory is constantly borrowed from disk cache to heap to shared libraries so it's hard to know exactly how much memory is actually free. ------------------------------------------------------------------- DDDD David Kramer http://thekramers.net DK KD "That venture capitalists are willing to take any level of DKK D risk, even a modest one, after all that has happened in the DK KD ecommerce sector, is inspiring. They might almost be DDDD capable of becoming Red Sox fans" -Keith Regan
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |