> My experience and some of my friends' experience is that Linux is
> quite unreliable. Microsoft is <em>really</em> unreliable but Linux is
> <em>worse</em>. In a non-PC environment, it just won't hold up.
A couple of thoughts:
1) He *may* well be referring to more than just the Linux kernel.
Unix, after all, is known for its tools and daemons.
2) The non-x86 ports of Linux do tend to be much buggier than the x86
ports. This is especially true on the 64 bit ports.
3) It is not clear when he looked at the Linux code.
So, maybe WinNT on the Alpha *is* less buggy than Redhat 5.0...?
Mr Thompson has too much on the ball to not seriously consider what he
is saying. I just wish he could have been more specific.
One more thought:
Consider following situation. It is 2015 and Linus has long ago moved
onto other projects. Linux market share is rapidly being eaten by
BeOS. An interview is conduced with Linus about other things and the
interviewer asks about what he thinks about BeOS, which Linus replies
that he doesn't think it is as reliable as Linux.
Would you dismiss Linus as being clueless? Probably not.
Would it be possible that Linus, while not intentionally, might have
some "non-technical reasons" for his dislike of BeOS? Maybe, but
Linus is usually pretty clear headed.
Dunno. At this instant in time, I think we owe more to Ken than Linus
and even if we disagree with either of them, we should at least
carefully consider what they are saying.
-wayne
-- Wayne Schlitt can not assert the truth of all statements in this article and still be consistent.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/