> I have put an easier version of the comparison up at:
> So please post corrections referring to each paragraph.
> It would also be nice to include Mac OS X in this comparison.
1.3 All Windows users are familiar with the "Blue Screen of Death". Poor
reliability is one of the major drawbacks of Windows. Some of the major
issues have been fixed in Windows 2000, but "code bloat" has introduced
many more reliability problems. Windows 2000 uses a lot of system
and it is very difficult to keep the system up for more than a couple
months without it reverting to a crawl as memory gets corrupted and
This is from the website mentioned above. If you're going to compare
FreeBSD to Linux to Windows XP at least make sure you're comparing
Windows XP and not Windows 2000. Also I don't think we should copy
MS and refer to "Linux" and mean a specific distrobution. I suggest
you pick a specific distrobution and compare that to the other OSes.
My personal suggestion would be Debian, since this seems to be the
OS which would give FreeBSD the best run for it's money. I also
think it would be a good idea to include OSX in the comparison,
however you might want to compile to different lists. One would be
for people comparing the OSes from a server perspective, and one
would be from a desktop perspective.
4.2 The Linux ext2 filesystem gets its performance from having an
mount. You can mount FreeBSD UFS filesystems as asynchronous but this
very dangerous and no seasoned Unix admin would do this. It's amazing
Linux is designed this way by default. Often a hard carsh permanently
damages a mount. FreeBSD or Solaris can sustain a very hard crash with
minor data loss, and the filesystem will be remountable with few
I don't think it is really fair for us to compare ext2 and UFS2 and
FAT. Perhaps we should be comparing NTFS vs reiserfs or JFS vs UFS2.
I know we don't have to stage the comparison to make FreeBSD stand
out. It can stand on its own performance.
9.2 Linux is a Unix-like kernel that must be combined with the GNU system
make a complete operating system. Linux does not use any version
system so all bug-fixes and enhancements must be emailed back and forth
mailing lists and ultimately submitted to the one person (Linus) who
authority to commit the code to the tree. Due to the overwhelming
code that gets written, it is impossible for one person to adequately
quality control all of the pending changes. For this reason there is a
of code in Linux that was hastily written and would never have been
accepted into a more conservative operating system.
I don't think this is true any longer.
9.3 Microsoft Windows is a closed-source operating system driven by market
demand rather than technical merit. New technologies are rushed into
product before they have been properly designed or fully implemented.
little is known about the internal development infrastructure of
but the "blue-screen of death" speaks for itself.
When was the last time you had a blue screen of death? For me it was
over a year ago when I was having a hardware issue. Just based off
of my anecdotal evidence FreeBSD has crashed less than either my
Gentoo system or my windows system, but I don't think it is fair to
say that Windows blue screens on a fairly regular basis.
Also I think you should add an ease of use section. This is why most
people use Windows or OSX over some *nix system. That and it is what
other people they know are using. This means they can get help from
their friends. This is not something which should be discounted.
> Thank you all!
> Now let's get down to work!
I think it is a good idea, just needs a few revisions, keep up the
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"