Consolidating messages:
Matthias Buelow [Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 03:35:13AM +0200]:
> Micha? Pasternak wrote:
> > Besides, I'd happily accept lower disk performance if that means a
> > smaller risk of data loss.  That, for example, involves disabling of

> Hmm, earlier someone said, that Linux is the system, that uses the
> safest settings... 

You are using a statement made on one topic to argue a second one.

Since I made the original statement you refer to, I'll clarify both.

Linux defaults to the safest/slowest IDE transfer rates, in order to
be more likely to work on a wider range of hardware.

NetBSD identifies drives and controllers and sets the safest/FASTEST
transfer rate for that hardware. 

The statement above, made by Matthias was related to filesystems.

Linux(*) defaults to EXT2FS, async(metadata)/async(data). This means
that fsck cannot be certain of what operation was being performed when
the system went down, and often has to stop and ask for the user to RUN
FSCK MANUALLY, so the user can try to guess what was in progress when
the system went down. Async metadata writes also mean that the structure
of the filesystem can be highly unstable at times, leading to the loss
of entire directories... including '/'.

NetBSD defaults to FFS sync(metadata)/async(data). This means that fsck
can always tell(**) what was happening when the system went down, and
correct it without user intervention.

(*) Of course, there's no such thing as Linux defaults - you have to
specify a distribution of Linux. So I'm speaking in generalities. Also,
Linux is in a transitional period right now, trying EXT3FS and ReiserFS
(among others), so this problem may be disappearing now (after living
with it for some 12+ years)

(**) Hardware failures, or changes in filesystem code in -current could
produce this problem on NetBSD, but that's the outside scope of
'reliability by design when running an official release'.

This difference in filesystem approaches is one reason people have
criticised your 'speed' comparison. At the least, to compare NetBSD to
Linux EXT2FS, you need to mount the NetBSD FFS async/async, so both
systems are running 'fast and loose'. Otherwise, you're comparing
running to being shot out of a cannon. Travel by cannon may be faster,
but... Ouch, the landing!

On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 02:53:17PM +0200, Micha? Pasternak wrote:
> Dawid Busse [Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 02:39:50PM +0200]:
> [...]
> > You think that Linux is better(? for You) then start Your 2xpIV 3GHz (is it
> > enough?) boot Linux and have fun. 
> 
> Few weeks ago I had NetBSD on my 500MHz Celeron laptop (well, sorry I don't
> have any lousy 486 at home, but I prefer _using_ computers, not toying with
> them). After 2 weeks it was replaced with Linux. Problems with XFree86, 
> panics, no APM support - and that was with the stable release of NetBSD.

How long did you have NetBSD installed? I didn't see any questions from
you on the mailing lists about your problems.

Laptops are fickle hardware. I've seen the opposite of your story -
Linux on a laptop which wouldn't run sound, ethernet, or wireless, and
NetBSD on the same laptop worked from the install, with no fiddling.

Since each laptop is so different, you can't extrapolate much about an
OS from its behaviour on a single model.

> Debian unstable on 2.4.20 works, it does it very good. No panics, no problems,
> APM works as it should work, not to mention PCMCIA.

Hun? You're comparing Debian -current to NetBSD -release ? That's not an
appropriate way to compare OSs either.

> I know NetBSD's superiorities in _many_ areas. I know where it beats
> FreeBSD, I know, where it beats Linux. But please, stop talking crap
> about Linux just because it's NetBSD mailing list.

Forcing users to fiddle with every installed system just to get it to
work half-decently (performance wise) is a bad thing Linux does. Either
contradict it, or don't tell me not to tell people the truth.


> Ricardo Ryoiti S. Junior [Sat, May 31, 2003 at 11:55:07PM -0300]:
> > And for old crap hardware, my machine is a Dual Pentium III with a
> > VIA686B controller (I know it's still crap, but not that old), and Linux
> > will not set drives to run at DMA mode by default (even windows does).
   
> I always thought it's better to have _safe_ settings turned on and leave
> potentially dangerous tweaks to user.

To review:

Linux: Slow IDE, unsafe FS. Each must be tweaked by the sysadmin.
NetBSD: Fast IDE, safe FS. No tweaking needed.

							David