Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 122

Thread: OpenBSD 5.1 Released

  1. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    It defaults to 100% performance and it's not fully tunable.
    No, it's not. Default is 0, so memory overcommit is not always being done. It's fully tunable. You have proven you don't know much about Linux and your basing on not trustworthy data that usually comes from Linux competitors.

    Nobody knows that, maybe perl did something stupid?
    Who cares? It was killed by Solaris even without OOM, am I right? It's better to kill some process or to crash?

    OpenBSD and NetBSD can both run on embedded systems without being recompiled with most of things disabled like Linux which also needs different userland.
    I'm interested in mobiles in this case. I don't care about user land, but about kernels.

    Another source: http://opsmonkey.blogspot.com/2007/0...vercommit.html
    It probably doesn't overcommit all memory, but it can overcommit avilable memory.
    Don't you see this is from 2007 and don't you think that current Linux kernel documentation is better place to find information about what Linux does?

    That's bloat. On Arch Linux kernel is 16MB uncompressed + 37.7MB compressed modules. OpenBSD kernel 8.6MB uncompressed and it doesn' have modules. Not to mention userland.
    No, package size doesn't matter, because you're not running every file system and driver that package contains. Linux supports many more drivers and file systems than OpenBSD, so the package must be bigger. This should be obvious. Btw. I didn't know that not having modules is something good. I also didn't know having dozens of drivers and file systems is bad. What did you check? vmlinuz, perhaps?
    Last edited by kraftman; 05-04-2012 at 10:32 AM.

  2. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    With Linux 2.5 there would be no way to get it work.
    I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. Linux 2.5 is experimental branch.

  3. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    Reliability of servers also depend on network connection and other stuffs. More FreeBSD servers are on high ranks than Linux servers percentually. There are many Linux servers much below 40 rank.
    It's nonsense. While there are more Linux servers in the first ten and while there are much more servers in the entire list it simply means Linux servers were more reliable, because they get into the list.

    NASA also runs IRIX, it doesn't mean they don't run NetBSD. If you look popularity of os and where it is being used, you come to conclusion that Windows is the most reliable os on world.
    You won't read news which says "Windows is being used by nuclear power plant controllers", because it is obvious.
    Your last sentence proves the popularity isn't an only factor that matters. It's true that Linux servers runs the most critical workloads and popularity is just a bonus in this case.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    It's better to kill some process or to crash?
    It's better to do neither on a Desktop. Windows doesn't kill anything, it enlarges the page file. Much better than OOM roulette.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. Linux 2.5 is experimental branch.
    Windows XP was released in 2001. There was no atheros driver for Linux at the time.

  6. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    It's better to do neither on a Desktop. Windows doesn't kill anything, it enlarges the page file. Much better than OOM roulette.
    Nope, it's better to do what Linux does, because you will fully use your memory. Windows uses swap without a reason and wastes memory. If Windows doesn't kill anything then it crashes in some scenarios. Btw. did you mean swap file?

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    Windows XP was released in 2001. There was no atheros driver for Linux at the time.
    Hear hear. Me, a linux user, humbly admits that wireless support used to suck back then. Happy?

  8. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    Windows XP was released in 2001. There was no atheros driver for Linux at the time.
    That's true, but the main point is it's better when OS has control of its drivers. Windows lives mainly, because it's supported by third party members. Linux was in much worse situation, because it rarely had such support (today it is much better, but Windows still rules in this case). In theory Windows can be left alone without support in the future and this is impossible to do with Linux. Nobody will steal its drivers.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    No, it's not. Default is 0, so memory overcommit is not always being done. It's fully tunable. You have proven you don't know much about Linux and your basing on not trustworthy data that usually comes from Linux competitors.
    Ok not 100%, but mostly.


    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Who cares? It was killed by Solaris even without OOM, am I right? It's better to kill some process or to crash?
    I believe Linux also has protected memory, which means that process will be killed, if it does something stupid on memory.
    There are also other limits.
    At least it doesn't kill random process.


    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    I'm interested in mobiles in this case. I don't care about user land, but about kernels.
    I'm not interested in mobiles and I do care about userland. GNU is big shit.


    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Don't you see this is from 2007 and don't you think that current Linux kernel documentation is better place to find information about what Linux does?
    Yes, and Linux documentation says: "in MOST situations"


    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    No, package size doesn't matter, because you're not running every file system and driver that package contains. Linux supports many more drivers and file systems than OpenBSD, so the package must be bigger. This should be obvious. Btw. I didn't know that not having modules is something good. I also didn't know having dozens of drivers and file systems is bad. What did you check? vmlinuz, perhaps?
    I don't need 100 file systems. What I don't need and is there I consider as a bloat.
    I checked vmlinuz which doesn't have any driver since they are in modules as you say, and it is bigger than OpenBSD with all drivers ...
    Modules are good, but OpenBSD beats Linux in that aspect without using them.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Hear hear. Me, a linux user, humbly admits that wireless support used to suck back then. Happy?
    No, I'm sad.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •