Debian vs NetBSD.
iodine at runbox.no
Sun Jan 10 14:05:28 UTC 2010
Gilles Gravier wrote:
> On 10/01/2010 13:23, Odd wrote:
>> Gilles Gravier wrote:
>>> Of course, now, Ubuntu doesn't offer support for SPARC anymore, so you
>>> have to consider Debian Linux (or NetBSD, if you want something slimmer
>>> and higher performance).
>> Source please. Only examples I can find state "BSD performance better"
>> without any underlying benchmarks backing it up.
> Not sure where the latest numbers are, but NetBSD has had several
> performance records, inlucind the fastest internet speed record :
> This is old, and NetBSD has gotten faster (as you point out yourself
> that they had performance increases).
And so has Linux. Therefore, I don't think your word will suffice.
I'd like to see them go head to head, configured as similar as
possible, and benchmarked.
> System requirements are low : The minimal configuration for a
> NetBSD/i386 system requires 4M of RAM and about 40M of disk space. For a
> full installation (including source and X11), at least 8M of RAM and
> 200M of disk space are recommended.
Nice. Don't think Linux can compete on that, unless tweaked rather
substantially, like they do with it in in routers etc.
> It's directly available in ISO CD image on over 30 different hardware
> architectures (I don't know if other OSes beat that).
Don't think so. From what I've hear, NetBSD is to dog on that.
> It's not the simplest OS to use (in particular because by default it
> boots in text mode and you THEN have to install GNOME... :)
That's a personal preference, not objective fact, though.
> But if you want raw performance on smaller hardware... that's what you want.
> If you want the full comfort of Windows without the hassle of bugs,
> hands, viruses, and Microsoft, then you go for Ubuntu.
Or Kubuntu, or Mandriva or..
More information about the ubuntu-users