On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 04:09:44PM -0400, Russell Hires wrote:
<snip>
> > 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?
>
*BSD has a closed development model-- only a few people can and do
contribute to its development. One of the consequences of this is that
it does not have the breadth of hardware support that Linux does. OTOH,
it is very solid. I don't know that I'd say it's "technically" superior
to Linux. That's a religious issue analogous to microkernel vs
monolithic kernels or vi vs emacs. But it does appear to be more
reliable. Of course, with Linux uptimes like we've seen on this list,
I'm not sure it much matters.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:44:33 EDT