-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> Now I'm going to scare you: I was at my friend Joe's place (he's the
> Linux clonebuilder in Baltimore I mentioned a few days ago) one night,
> scarfing frozen Vodka shots, and he yanked the hard drive ribbon cable
> off of a motherboard that was running FreeBSD. It kept running. He
> plugged the hard drive back in, and it kept running.
>
> In theory, you could make a motherboard running FreeBSD (or most other
> BSDs) go on until it had an onboard failure if you had redundant or
> hot-swappable power supplies and hot-swapped hard drives well before
> they hit their manufacturers' MTBF specs. And a motherboard with a
> conservative CPU/RAM and adequate cooling could have a potential
> lifespan of 100 years or more.
>
> This is an example of *BSD's technical superiority/reliability over Linux.
>
And thus my question. If *BSD is so good, why don't we all love *BSD? Is it
philosophical? Practical?
What does Linux need to do better to get to be as good as *BSD?
Russell
PS I'm going with the hypothesis that this is true, that Linux isn't as good
as *BSD. I don't have any way of knowing...
- --
Linux -- the OS for the Renaissance Man
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE81ZGKAqKGrvVshJQRAjk2AJ4ny9Hm3k5GG9eS5gxOQeuVjCf7ogCgxRLW
Du6u6A1ACWQ39wufYD49TRA=
=GhPO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:43:04 EDT