>
>
> 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.
>
Now and then I get email about how we're "scared" to run more BSD
stories on one site or another. Yup. Every time I see a little red devil
logo I go boo-hooing into the nearest corner because "my" operating
system can't keep up.
Personally, I fall into the "good enough" technology camp. Perhaps, in
some specialized server environments, BSD offers enough advantages over
Linux to be worth a look, but for most purposes, Linux is good enough,
and there are enough people familiar with it and enough fixes and
patches and utilities and applications programs out there for it that it
meets my needs -- and our corporate server needs, too.
But then, I keep running around in the same old 94 Jeep Cherokee because
it, too, is "good enough" for me. It'll go over 100 MPH smoothly, handle
really rough country, launch and recover my little sailboat easily on
either a launch ramp or most beaches, and has seats I find comfortable
on all-day drives. Maybe a new one would go a little faster and ride a
little smoother and have power windows, but I'm satisfied with what I
have, thank you.
- Robin "Stodgy" Miller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:44:39 EDT