
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"You see, they are different but I don't see the differences."
Well, do some heavy benchmarks with FreeBSD, like multiple Firefoxes running, a couple of running videos, and other "stress" tests.
Repeat the same tests on ANY Linux distro, and you'll clearly see "The *BSD difference"
What advantage would I be seeing when I currently run the most BSD-like Linux distribution (Slackware) with a custom compiled AMD Athlon kernel?
Before I installed the latest release it had been running for months under heavy stress since I use is as a VNC/file server and also compile jobs in VMware/QEMU even running Slackware ports for other architectures.
Aside from that I have Mozilla Firefox running with more than 10 windows each containing more than 15 tabs. So I would like to know if FreeBSD would perform better than this or not. Solaris does not, despite possible advantages for a server as ZFS and zones.
I briefly ran FreeBSD 4.5 on my laptop a few years ago and recently OpenBSD 4.0, both of which didn't perform as well despite the better security they have out of the box.
Member since:
2005-06-29
You have to understand an operating system to actually see the differences.
This is true. I am a normal user, I don't know the internals of an operating system, this is why I don't see any differences.
Try ... try *BSD or Linux.
I have. For several years already.
Distros aren't different operating system. But *BSD IS different.
You see, they are different but I don't see the differences.