FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows 2000 comparison

[gaf at blu.org (Jerry Feldman)]

No. Just on the first case:
Most Linux distros have several journalling file systems available which 
make Linux just as good as FreeBSD for transaction processing and database,

The second one on performance does mention the 2.4 kernels. It needs some 
work. I don't have any data on this. 

On security, I think it is a bit unfair on the Linux side. But, again, I 
don't really have hard data to challenge it,

On filesystems, Linux has several alternative file systems from ext2, to 
Reiser to JFS and XFS. 

Just looking at the tone of the rest of it, the author has not been 
objective. I would rather see this written by someone who can create the 
table more objectively. 

FreeBSD is an excellent system, and I think it will be growing, especially 
since Apple has essentially adopted it for the Mac. I personally would love 
to see a unification of the FreeBSD and Linux kernel people with the 
objective of producing the best free kernels. 
On 16 Aug 2002 at 12:57, David Kramer wrote:

> 
> I stumbled on this page today.
> http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html
> 
> Do you feel that this comparison is still accurate?

-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Associate Director
Boston Linux and Unix user group
http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9
PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9