On Friday 22 July 2005 01:23 pm, Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote: > From: Joe . [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > are used to dealing with complex or unoptimized piles of crap. Part of > > encouraging people to switch should at the very least be communicating > > that there are no hidden options or that straightaway things are going > > to work as best as possible. > > I think, quite the opposite, that it's fine the way it is. It's not > openbsd's fault that people fall prey to the stupid knob-tuning game and > quite dumbly follow that line of thought. I think instead that the other > OSes should be responsible for slapping a disclaimer on their {box, web > page} saying something like "This operating system, contrary to rational > thinking, is not optimized for the most reasonable performance under the > most common use cases. Instead of being functional out-of-the box, you are > expected to re-compile critical portions of the system in order to get them > to work to your specifications. If you don't find this behavior intuitive, > feel free to use a more rational, completely functional operating system > instead." > > DS
I'm going to have to agree with Henning, an operating system should be configured by the people who develop it to have sane defaults for all but the most unique cases and in my experience OpenBSD does an excellent job at doing this. The people that have the strange "corner cases" where performance tuning will make a large difference generally also have the staff, or the money to pay for someone with the experience, to do the tuning. In my mind, these are generally extreme cases where where throwing more processing power at the problem is not an efficient solution, for example huge Trading markets where transaction processing time counts (NYSE, NASDAQ). Tim Donahue
