Subject: Re: Resource needs
To: Chris Wareham <email@example.com>
From: Rick Kelly <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/01/2005 11:48:03
Chris Wareham said:
>Linux 2.4.x would be a fair comparison for the kernel in NetBSD 2.0. If
>I'd suggest that Linux 2.6.x should be compared to the kernel in NetBSD
>-current, as they're both unstable development versions.
I've been doing sort of an informal study.
The box: P133 128MB 9gig SCSI Adaptec 2940 ATI 3D Expression+ Soundblaster 16
Originally the box was running NetBSD 1.5.4. I used it to run SIMH acting as
a pdp11. Slow, but it ran pretty well as pdp11/UNIX V7. X ran well with
I installed Slackware 10. Kernel 2.4.26. Same hardware. Even without X running
there was only 3 megs of free memory. Fvwm plus mozilla and xmms was jerky at
times while playing streaming audio. I used reiserfs for all of the file
systems. Mozilla alone was slow. I was able to bring up openoffice on the box,
but I never did anything non-trivial with it.
Currently the box is running FreeBSD 5.3. It runs well with fvwm and ctwm. With
firefox and xmms I can listen to streaming audio and do other things at the
same time with ease, and it seems to be fairly smooth. I could actually live
with this box, whereas I would have felt very frustrated with slackware 10.
At some point I will install NetBSD 2.x.
I ran the box with Linux for 3 months, and I've been running Freebsd for
about 2 months.
Rick Kelly email@example.com
<http://rkba.rmkhome.com/> - the right to keep and bear arms
<http://wolf.rmkhome.com/> - firearm forums