Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 1st Jun 2009 17:50 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Thread beginning with comment 366891
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
I've got an issue with the whole "not being able to update without going bleeding edge thing", which frankly is a huge turn off.
However, the term "Slowlaris" is completely unjustified. It was a term coined during the transition from BSD-based SunOS 4 to Sys V-based Solaris in the late 90's. Solaris required more memory, and when high-end workstations had 32 MBytes, memory was fairly precious. Use too much, and you'd swap out, hence the term "Slowlaris".
However, that hasn't been the case in over a decade. So while the term Slowaris has an agreeable snark to it, it's wholly unfounded.
Because it takes longer to boot isn't really a huge concern. If it's a desktop, it's annoying, but it's not going to really affect your on-boot performance.
I ran a Solaris test a couple of years back comparing MySQL performance, and it tested very favorably to Linux, and they both trumped FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD in those MySQL benchmarks. Solaris has long had a very reliable SMP function and threading system.
Still, the update issue is rather a shame.