Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30

Thread: Debian 7.0 GNU/Linux vs. GNU/kFreeBSD Benchmarks

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    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...

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    328

    Wink Division by zero!

    GNU/kFreeBSD
    You just divided by zero, didn't you?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    393

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stevenc View Post
    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 )

    Quote Originally Posted by stevenc View Post
    without write cache or journalling
    But you know that journaling slows things down for better security, right?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TAXI View Post
    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.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archibaId View Post
    Correct, BSD == zero
    But then GNU divided by kFreeBSD gives infinity?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    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 .

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archibaId View Post
    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?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TAXI View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Sergio; 06-10-2013 at 11:45 PM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archibaId View Post
    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.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inteIIivision View Post
    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

Posting Permissions

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