Linux can out perform NT maybe, but Solaris? That is like
comparing a GEO Metro to a Mercedes Benz IMHO.
Linux wouldn't stand a chance against Solaris nor would
any other Unix save AIX. I have personally ran test suites on IRIX,
Solairs 2.6, AIX, and Linux. We were looking at using some
Linux machines at the University I worked for but Linux failed
to measure up, and AIX hardware costs too much, so we went
with Ultra Sparcs and Solaris.
The only reason linux is so popular is it is free and most of the
software is free. Solaris has a far more robust kernel and their
C/C++ compilers are unparralled in performance and ability.
Don;t get me wrong, I like RH, I think it is great for the Unix community,
but comparing it to Solaris is a no no. There is a reason Solaris costs
nearly $500 bucks and its compilers $1500. Anyone that has worked
on a nicely equipped Ultra will know what I mean.
I personally think IBM's AIX is the best Unix out there but being as dumb
as IBM is, they cannot market shit and their hardware is hideously over-
priced.
My 2 bits,
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Mutsaers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, May 15, 1998 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: Advice for 4000 mail users on a Red Hat 5.0 box
>>> On Fri, 15 May 1998 19:01:08 -0400 (EDT), William T Wilson
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> WTW> On 16 May 1998, Peter Mutsaers wrote:
> >> No, but you'd better use FreeBSD for such a task. While Linux
> >> may be nicer for a personal workstation, as a serious server
> >> FreeBSD offers more performance and stability.
>
> WTW> This is no longer true. Hasn't been true for two years.
> WTW> Both FreeBSD and Linux are excellent in terms of stability
> WTW> and performance, and either will outperform Solaris, NT, or
> WTW> most anything else on comparable hardware. Linux also equals
> WTW> or outperforms FreeBSD in most applications, including
> WTW> networking overhead and disk speed. (Though most of this
> WTW> "outperforming" is due to the default configurations of the
> WTW> kernels and not any fundamental limitations).
>
>Hmm, I cannot speak of all variants of hardware, but on my computer
>(64MB RAM, P200, SCSI NCR 815) there's a significant difference in
>favour of FreeBSD w.r.t. performance, especially when doing some
>memory intensive things at the same time.
>
>I run both, usually Linux because of availability of some apps I need,
>but for sure FreeBSD runs faster; I've done some pretty extensive
>benchmarks, also on various kinds of disk I/O.
>
>Not that I'm critical of Linux, since it also performs quite well and
>better than any Windows and most Unices, however. But I really feel
>that for big servers FreeBSD is (still?) better.
>
>--
> /\_/\
>( o.o ) Peter Mutsaers | Abcoude (Utrecht), | Trust me, I know
> ) ^ ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] | the Netherlands | what I'm doing.
>
>
>--
> PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
>http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
> To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
