On 23.12.11 08:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
A further thing is that I cannot understand the people here sometimes.
I would like that the -RELEASE versions of FreeBSD perform well
without any further optimizations.
The -RELEASE things is just a freeze (or, let's say tested freeze) of
the corresponding branch at some time. It is the code available and
tested at that time.
Thus, it is safe to say that FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE is much worse than
FreeBSD RELENG_8 (still 8.2 at the moment), because years have passed
between both code bases, lots of bugs have been discovered and fixed and
new technologies have been integrated. Especially in this line, the
compiler has changed from 4.2.1 to 4.2.2.
When the distribution does not compile with the latest compiler it's
simply a bug.
FreeBSD is not a distribution. It also compiles with the latest compiler
- LLVM. :)
I find it amusing, that people want everything compiled with GCC 4.7,
which is still very much developing, therefore highly unstable and
(probably) full of bugs.
Why should one try to penalize the other distribution and downgrade
their binaries?
Many suggested that the Linux binaries be run via the FreeBSD Linux
emulation. Unchanged.
There is one problem here though, the emulation is still 32 bit.
When FreeBSD has a bad default setup, there must be a reason for that.
Tell me this reason and show me that it's justified in form of some
other benchmark.
FreeBSD has safe default. It is supposed to work out of the box on
whatever hardware you put it. As much as it has drives for that
hardware, of course.
Once you have working installation, you may tweak it all the way you wish.
If your installation is pre-optimized, chances are it will crash all the
time on you and there will be no easy way for you to fix, short of
installing another "distribution".
Daniel
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
