On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 08:19:28AM -0700, Scott wrote:
> Only a user who is familair with messing with an OS. I for one don't want
> to think about touching my OS in this manner. I doin't know C nor do I have
> any plans to know. I'll grant you that someone somewhere does fix it and
> updates are more quickly available.
I'll note in passing that when dealing with problems in Linux/Unix
code, you're usually able to contact the author(s) directly. That
makes life a lot easier even if you don't wish to modify the
application or the OS.
> >10. While it's a terrific platform for experimentation, it is
> >not necessarily a hacker's OS. Given that one recent article in
> >InfoWorld explained how the author's 10-year-old daughter installed
> >it in two hours, it's time to drop words like "geek" and "hacker"
> >from Linux articles. It's as much (and IMHO, more) of a production-grade
> >OS as anything else available.
>
> Don't belive what you read.
I can't think of any reason why the author of this particular
article should lie about it.
> Linux is NOT production grade yet.
Several of my clients are using it in key situations; one, a very, very
large financial institution, uses it for their firewall. Given the
reliability and robustness it's demonstrated, I'd say it's production-grade.
And certainly more so that so-called "operating systems" which need
to be rebooted merely because an application has been installed.
> I should not have to compile programs I download from the net along
> with 3 libraries that wre used to create it.
<Shrug.> So don't. Download RPM's that have compiled binaries. Or buy
packages that install with a click or two.
> The OS is a platofrm for me to run tools.
For you and lots of people, certainly. But not necessarily for everyone.
> I think things are starting to turn with support from Linksys (linksys
> offers phone suport for installing their network cards on Linux, states
> Linux as a supported OS on the box but still provides no driver), [...]
Speaking just for me: I neither want nor need phone support. I do not
like talking on the telephone, and find it a highly restrictive way
to report problems. I find e-mail -- with an attached transcript
and if necessary a screen snapshot -- a far more effective means
of communication and documentation.
> start being a concidered a real option to M$ or other Unix flavors
> (Solaris, HP-UX, SCO) is that it must compete on more than just its
> capabilites.
> It has to be easy to install, upgrade, change, and provide a
> support infrasturcture that is more than mailing lists.
Why?
I am very familiar with the support mechanisms of Sun, HP, Digital, SGI,
and BSDI, among others: in all five cases, my involvement in Unix
predates theirs. I consider the currently available ad hoc support
for Linux superior to all of them *except* BSDI, and the reason BSDI
is the sole exception is that their support mechanisms are formalized
versions of the very same ones that the Linux community uses.
I'll also note that installing RH 5.0 Linux (to choose one example)
is *already* as easy as, say, installing Solaris 2.6, and is considerably
easy than installing, say, SunOS 4.1.4.
> Just remember what happened between BETA and VHS and Apple and
> IBM. What was probably the better design/performer does not always win if
> its suports/manufactureres don't accept the way things work.
Just remember what happened between VMS and Berkeley Unix. All the
comments you are making now were made 15 years ago, when that struggle
became visible. The outcome? Unix built the Internet. Ken Olsen's
insistence on VMS destroyed DEC and allowed companies like Sun to blossom.
---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
