🚀 go-pugleaf

In <336C5116.FB0@netkiosk.com.au> Doug Smith <doug@netkiosk.com.au> writes:

>It's a sad thing indeed to read that someone claiming to "know what they
>are doing" is so willing to defend an operating system that at it's very
>best is still an experiment [...]

And such an enormously successful one, too. I currently have 4 linux hosts
with uptimes over 100 days - and these are hosts which do real work too;
mail hub, shell server, virtual web, DNS, terminal server - the list of
tasks these machines perform just goes on and on.

>Not even those people who "know what they are
>doing" have been able to stablize the kernel [...]

See the above - if 100 days of processing diverse workloads (with _no_
crashes on any machine, since I installed Linux 2.0) doesn't indicate a
"stable" kernel, you must be using some strange alternate meaning for
the word.

Or perhaps you mean a kernel which doesn't evolve. Go for DOS then,
or maybe CP/M, which to my knowledge hasn't evolved for several years.

>Comparing Linux to something like SCO Unix is like comparing todays
>internal combustion engine with a steam engine.

I guess so. A friend tried to install SCO and he reported to me that it
was pretty inflexible with its demands for particular network cards or
adapters and IRQ addresses, etc. Linux just moves so much quicker.

>Incidently, I have Linux (Slackware version) on one of my computers.
>Every time I want to raise my blood preasure, I use it (or try to) for
>an hour or so. Just a Colonial viewpoint of course!

The fact that you can't handle Unix is not a criticism of Linux.

Nick.
-- 
Kralizec Internet                       Data: +61-2-9837-1183, 9837-1868
Zeta Microcomputer Software             Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9837-1397
P.O. Box 177, Riverstone NSW 2765       http://www.zeta.org.au/