[Info-vax] OS implementation languages

[Simon Clubley]

On 2023-08-29, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
> On 2023-08-29 19:25, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2023-08-29, Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell at munted.eu> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1970-01-01 at 00:00 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>> Very much FreeBSD here for some years, after decades first with
>>>>> dec,
>>>>> then Sun. Forms the basic of at least some proprietary offerings,
>>>>> as
>>>>> well as millions of embedded devices. Linux is still a unix,
>>>>> and runs the majority of web sites of the world, so if anything,
>>>>> unix has won the os wars...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, very much so. (And I can't believe Arne thinks the *BSDs have no
>>>> serious users... :-) ).
>>>
>>> Netflix picked FreeBSD as it could chuck out data at 400GB/s. Linux was
>>> not even close.
>> 
>> 10 years from now (assuming the economy hasn't collapsed by then :-) ):
>> 
>> 400GB/s ??? Is that all ??? Amateurs!!! :-)
>
> Well. I have this friend of mine, who installed 40 Gb/s at his moms 
> place in 2007...
>
>> On a more serious note, I wonder what the maximum rate VMS is capable
>> of emitting data at if it was using the fastest network hardware
>> available.
>
> What a weird question. VMS in itself don't have any limits. It's all 
> always just about the hardware.

As you have just been educated by multiple people, this statement is
nonsense and shows you have no understanding of the tradeoffs involved
in OS design and how those tradeoffs have changed over time.

You have also just quoted a message above that says two very conceptually
similar designs (Linux and FreeBSD) still manage to have very different
performance outcomes.

> Some software might be able to squeeze more out of the same hardware, 
> but just spin up faster hardware, and you'll get higher throughput. But 
> any system will basically just be limited by the speed of the network 
> hardware, if that item is fixed. You can't go above that. But there are 
> no reasons why you wouldn't be able to get to that point.
>

Why do you say that ? There will always be OS overheads. The only question
is how large are those overheads ?

> These are the kind of questions that sometimes make me wonder if you 
> know anything at all about computers. But then you do some other posts 
> which clearly demonstrate that you do understand some stuff.
>

The problem with you Johnny is that you appear to be a very arrogant
person who assumes that if you don't understand what a person is
saying, then you assume that person is talking nonsense.

You never seem to consider the possibility that the lack of understanding
might be at your end instead of in the person whose comments you are reading.

I, OTOH, enjoy being pointed to new ideas and knowledge by others in
this newsgroup. Look at the recent ALGOL discussions for one example.
I found out quite a bit about systems I simply didn't know about until then.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.