Jaromir Dolecek [Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 02:27:20AM +0200]:
> Micha³ 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?
> 
> 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.

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.

-- 
Micha³ Pasternak :: http://pasternak.w.lub.pl
$ mv /Almo /var  :: miejsce na  Twoja reklame