On Sunday 05 May 2002 20:50, you wrote:
> > 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.
>
My machine is up 75 days. Running a BSD would not improve that. On my peak
day so far, I served up >7,500 web pages from home. Running a BSD would not
improve that.
I have a ton of application software. Running a BSD would not improve that.
Just a quick mental review of what I have seen offered on freshmeat causes me
to believe that, if anything, running a BSD would reduce my application
software options.
Linux is struggling to prove itself superior to Windows on the desktop. As a
technical issue, in that battle I am convinced that Linux is the clear
victor. On the perceptual level with zillions of other users, it has a ways
to go.
BSD is struggling to prove itself a worthy successor to Linux. Maybe it is a
worthy successor. However, IMO, as well as the opinions of IBM and a number
of other major corporations, BSD has not yet proven that.
It is one thing to be the greatest. It is another to prove it.
Bill
-- 10:52pm up 75 days, 19:09, 3 users, load average: 2.59, 2.50, 2.39 "The more I know about Microsoft, the better I like Linux."http://organic-earth.com Organic urban gardening. With photos.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:45:14 EDT