This paper tries to compare Linux vs. Solaris. Its author comes to many conclusions, among which this is one of the more interesting: "All-in-all Solaris is a powerful, stable, conformant-to-standards OS that can run many open source applications as well as Linux, and some (mainly multithreaded applications) better than Linux. Like in the cases of Red Hat and Suse, the cost of support is extra, but it is more reasonably priced. Security patches are free which makes Solaris similar to Windows."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
That's fair enough, but I just need you to come up
with the exact definition of portability, and numbers
you use to conject that NetBSD is more portable than
Linux. Thanks.
But I never said NetBSD was more portable; you claimed that Linux was available on more platforms, to which I said, "what about NetBSD"?
I'm advocating neither because both do a good job, but you seem to be determined, like some sort of child, to scream, "look, look, I'm right, and you're wrong', in which case, I won't participate in such a junvinile grand pissing competition.
Member since:2006-04-17
But I never said NetBSD was more portable; you claimed that Linux was available on more platforms, to which I said, "what about NetBSD"?
For the last time, it was not me asking that question
before. However, you said:
"1) NetBSD supports more platforms than Linux"
So due to your utter inability to produce a single
scrap of evidence except for some vague references
to the NetBSD website, I'll consider this is a
"rectum pluck" (to use your terminology).
I'm advocating neither because both do a good job, but you seem to be determined, like some sort of child, to scream, "look, look, I'm right, and you're wrong', in which case, I won't participate in such a junvinile grand pissing competition.
You made an unqualified assertion that NetBSD supports
more platforms than Linux, so I think you have to
back it up when called to task. That is what a mature
discussion is all about.
If you don't want to participate because you are wrong,
or you can't produce any evidence, then just
gracefully admit it and move on.
Member since:
2006-04-17
You made a clear statement that BSD ran on more platforms than Linux - you failed to mention which BSD,
No that wasn't me. I'm just wondering how you
conclude that NetBSD runs on more architectures than
Linux.
as there are three flavours, and NetBSD is actually available with full support on 37 different architectures, 97 in total. Obtained off the www.netbsd.org site.
No, you're counting what NetBSD calls "platforms".
Have a look under "Ports by CPU architecture" on
http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/ <-- that page.
Now, even within this list, NetBSD has some funny
ways of counting architectures. For example, they
count big and little endian twice for mips and sh,
they count sparc and sparc64 seperately, counts
m68k twice due to different MMUs, etc.
alpha, arm, hppa, i386, m68010, m68k, mipseb, mipsel
ns32k, powerpc, sh3eb, sh3el, sh5, sparc, sparc64,
vax, x86_64 (17)
Even if we are generous to NetBSD and not to Linux
(eg. Linux supports multiple types of mmus, bit-sizes
and endianness in several architectures but only
counts them once), Linux supports *at least* as many
CPU architectures as NetBSD.
alpha, arm, cris, frv, h8300, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, parisc, powerpc, s390, sh, sparc, v850, x86_64, xtensa (17)
Actaully, the way you count NetBSD, you could also
probably add arm26, arm-nommu, m68k-nommu, sparc64,
sparc T1 (different MMU), mips64, sh64el, sh64eb, mipsbe, sh3be, off the top of my head.
ARM is one architecture - whether it is made by Samsung, Intel, or some other company, its still one architecture.
NetBSD counts it as multiple "platforms".
x86 is pretty much the same architecture over and over and over again, with some tweaks here and there.
SPARC, PA-RISC, POWER, x86, x86(incl. x86-64), they're different architectures, whether its made by Intel, AMD, SUN, Fujitsu or Via, it makes no difference to the software running ontop of it.
NetBSD count many of them as multiple platforms, even
though the usermode ISAs are the same.
That's fair enough, but I just need you to come up
with the exact definition of portability, and numbers
you use to conject that NetBSD is more portable than
Linux. Thanks.