was [TriLUG] OT: hardware question & OpenBSD Now sparc Linux vs sparc BSD.

[Chris Hedemark]

JD writes:

> Like I said before, its been a long time since I ran openbsd on sparc, so
I
> don't know the current status of openbsd.

Much improved, especially on UltraSPARC.  When I get back home I hope to try
it again on my Ultra 5.

> Also, do you really feel that openbsd is snappier than linux?

For what I do I don't notice it being more or less "snappy".  I do notice it
being more reliable, and more secure.  Uptimes over a year are the norm on
OpenBSD.  While Linux is certainly good for high uptimes, I think it is fair
to say OpenBSD is at least as good as Linux in this respect.

OpenBSD doesn't aim to be the highest performance OS.  But it is still
speedy enough that I never really noticed it being slower than other OS's on
the same hardware.

> I heard that
> BSD was supposed to support the sparc architecture better linux, but from
> my humble experience, I couldn't see much difference at all in terms of
> speed.

I've been experimenting with Linux on UltraSPARC.  So far it's been a mixed
blessing.  Red Hat 6.2 installs beautifully on my Ultra 5.  But compiling
any new programs for it is an exercise in futility (coming from a
non-developer that is accustomed to the "./configure && make && make
install" dance).  Even after downloading src.rpm files I can't do my normal
"rpm -bb --target=sparc64 application.spec && rpm -i
../RPMS/sparc64/application-0.00.sparc64.rpm" as it bombs during the build.
Debian's web site is at least up front in saying that their Sparc64 port is
not considered a stable port like Sparc32.

OpenBSD developers have been buzzing about some major improvements in
Sparc64 support so I'm going to have to try out -current (many of these
announcements came after 3.0 -release).

If your number 1 priority is speed then OpenBSD might not be the OS for you.
Not that it is slow, it is just not a priority for this project.  Security
and stability are the driving forces here.