Debian vs NetBSD.
iodine at runbox.no
Sun Jan 10 14:17:11 UTC 2010
Chris G wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 02:16:54PM +0100, 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).
>> 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.
>> It's directly available in ISO CD image on over 30 different hardware
>> architectures (I don't know if other OSes beat 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 makes it simpler to my mind! :-)
For some situations, booting to shell is better. No need to fire up
a desktop. I think NetBSD, with such low demands, may be
suitable for many such situations. Also, it seems to me that
businesses should prefer NetBSD for their embedded purposes,
due to the BSD license, unless Linux has something they absolutely
need. Otoh, I guess lots of the software used on BSD is GPL, so
perhaps it doesn't matter?
I installed OpenBSD a couple of years ago. The install process
reminded me of Linux 15 years ago. :) Yeah, I know they have
their reasons. OpenBSD isn't supposed to be easy. they don't want
to attract amateurs.
More information about the ubuntu-users