On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 02:45:37AM +0200, Micha? Pasternak wrote:
> Jaromir Dolecek [Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 02:27:20AM +0200]:
> > Micha? Pasternak wrote:
> > > > > > performance."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The NetBSD approach is "Detect the controller and HD, and automatically
> > > > > > configure for the highest throughput supported by both devices."
> > > > >
> > > > > Interesting, how come Linux beats NetBSD at the HD performance on i386
> > > > > in _all_ cases?

This statement has no facts or measures associated to back it up. This
is the reason people have asked you for benchmarks.

> > > > > > This machine detected an Intel 82371AB IDE controller, a Maxtor 34098H4
> > > > > > and a MATSHITADVD-ROM SR-8582. Although the HD supports Ultra-DMA mode
> > > > > > 5, the kernel sets Ultra-DMA mode 2 because that's the best this
> > > > > > controller supports.
> > > > > Congratulations, I guess you belive Linux can't detect that?            

I believe the URL I posted, (and my personal experience) clearly states
that Linux defaults to the 'safest' (read: slowest) settings, leaving it
to the sysadmin to ratchet the settings up. If Linux correctly detected
the hardware's capabilities, they would have no reason to do that.

> > Would be interesting to see the difference - would you share the
> > benchmarking details? I suppose you use ext2fs on Linux
> > and async mounted ffs on NetBSD to get fair comparison.
> 
> Benchmarks? What benchmarks are you talking about?! IMVHO you should at
> least _try_ to run Linux on your hardware. NetBSD on my laptop (i1200 series
> Thinkpad) was lagging slow, hopefully Linux makes it fly. I can _feel_ it.

My experience has been the opposite in many respects. As far a a usable,
responsive desktop system, NetBSD makes my machines fly, compared to
running Linux. Feel free to provide detailed contradictions.

> Benchmarks... what specific benchmarks do you mean? I could run them, no
> problem. What benchmarks? Compilation time? PHP performance? PostgreSQL
> queries per second? I am afwully sure Linux would outperform NetBSD in
> performance in all these areas.
> 
> I _am_ pro-BSD guy, I know NetBSD superiority to Linux/FreeBSD in many
> areas... but please, don't say "NetBSD has better approach to hardware,
> than Linux", because it's _not_ true.

Why did NetBSD have USB and Cardbus hot-swap before Linux... because,
_NetBSD has a better approach to hardware than Linux_. Anyone who does a
comparison of driver code from the two OSs can see that pretty easily.

You seem to be trying to assert that NetBSD's approach is NOT better,
based on 'how your system feels' - without providing any hard numbers to
back it up. That won't move this discussion forward.

From another thread:
> > I would thank you for using a slightly more civilized tone, this mailing
> > list is not some Slashdot-style web forum.
                                       
> You'd better tell this to David and his Linux vs NetBSD trolling.   

You asked a question on a NetBSD list, telling you why NetBSD is better
is not trolling.

							David