When there were broken benchmarks here, of Linux vs OpenSolaris, I did not argue too much. OpenSolaris used gcc 3.4, 32 bit, vs Linux gcc 4.3, 64bit. I did not whine about OpenSolaris, and I do not whine about Linux now.
I don't know what ' I did not argue too much' means, but argue you should since a there's certainly a big difference between gcc 3.4 and gcc 4.3 in the code they output, which obviously affects the performance of benchmarked binaries.
Originally Posted by kebabbert
Anyway, it would be interesting to see BSD running Linux software. I have read people claiming that BSD is faster than Linux, when running Linux software. That would be interesting to see if it is true.
Yes that WOULD be interesting, so would this particular test, IF phoronix could conduct it in a way that would make the results meaningful. But sadly these tests are so very flawed. I mean seriously, 3d performance comparisons running with different compositors enabled, of which one atleast is well known to have severe impact on 3d applications/games? They couldn't make the test more pointless if they tried (unless of course if this was specifically to test nvidia proprietary on Ubuntu 11.04 vs FreeBSD 8.2, but that is NOT how the test was presented)
Now, of course you as a well-known BSD/Solaris fanboy will look at the results and say GREAT! Just like linux fanboys would have done the same had the results been reversed. But neither of you care one lick for the actual facts anyway, so what else is new. I on the other hand (and I suspect alot of others with me who can look at an operating system objectively) would like to know the actual performance, no matter what it would be, because we find these things interesting and therefore it's a darn shame that Phoronix does all these very interesting tests and yet so poorly constructed that the testresults end up being close to worthless.
Originally Posted by kebabbert
Clearly, BSD devs did something right. Again.
I'm sure the BSD devs have done tons of things right, but what exactly were you referring to?
Great article and review about FreeBSD, err I mean PCBSD
Being that PCBSD (which is really just FreeBSD + KDE) is probably the most widely used "Desktop" of all the BSD/Unix's,
and, Ubuntu is clearly the most widely used desktop of all the Linux's, then this is a very good look into a freindly comparison.
Obviously this is a "FAIR" comparison.
and so what if PCBSD is actually faster than Ubuntu in Ubuntu's own backyard, cause that is exactly what this review proved at this point in time.
btw, unless you've been under a rock, it's definitely not the first time where Linux apps run as good or in some cases faster on FreeBSD, than on some other Linux distro's. That's been goin' on for years now.
And regarding "...Clearly, BSD devs did something right. Again. ..." Yes they certainly did, just ask MacOSX, 'cause it sure ain't Linux under that hood.
I don't use Ubuntu much anymore, I've been using Arch for a couple years now.
Anyway, Kudos to PCBSD for comin' through as a very nice BSD/Unix Desktop alternative.
Not having the auto-selection of arch/opts/flags is "the point". The ability to customize multiple facets of the OS is Gentoo's strength, and should be leveraged as such. I thank those individuals running ~x86, and those that test all of the combinations and permutations of cflags and library versions. It is their efforts that ultimately make pre-baked distributions more reliable. Gentoo users suffer so the rest of us don't have to. In regards to benchmarking, any Gentoo result is only representative of the user's Gentoo installation, not all Gentoo installations. I'd be willing to concede a bit if the benchmark author was the one constructing a targeted Gentoo installation for his/her benchmark. Alternatively, if Gentoo-BSD were to a point where meaningful comparison data could be obtained, I'd probably be interested in the comparison.
Very true. I don't envy those testers one bit. That's a LOT of testing to do. The combinations are mountainous in quantity.