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.
But please do remember--as a consultant with 20 years of {experience/pain},
it's a _helluva_ lot easier for *me* to fix your system if you have source.
And cheaper for you.
> Don't belive what you read. Sticking in the RH 5.0 floppy and having it do
> the install is only the first step in a linux setup. Have that 10 year old
> do a modular install or do a kernel upgrade or download, modify, and
> install a network card driver. My guess is unless she is a geniuos this
> is way out of her league. Linux is NOT production grade yet.
Well...please. Compare apples and oranges. Unix/Linux simply *isn't* a
desktop replacement. It's a complex server and development OS. In *that*
world, frankly, it's a helluva lot closer to production grade than NT.
> Yes RH does
> come with a pretty good install but the OS istelf still requies a great
> deal of "maintenance and tweaking" to get it working. Far more than its
> competition (NT, OS/2 and 95)
Apologies--but Linux (and Unix) are flat-out, simply NOT in competition with
OS/2, 95, or even NT. Those systems are desktop, opiate-of-the-masses
individual operating systems--or, rather, filesystem mangers/program loaders/
UI shells. A complex environment just can't be reduced to a few GUI
administration tools; but similarly, desktop, user-oriented boxes shouldn't
require a degree in CS. MS is trying to simplify the world too much; most
Linux advocates (as, to be fair, most Unix advocates I've known for the
last quarter-century) try to trivialize the difficulties of configuring and
maintaining a complex OS.
> For Linux to be concidered (sic) a "Production-grade" OS it must offer
> the same or similair installation and support features as its competition.
><complaints about having to build libs, etc. elided>
Er...unfortunately, that's simply not a supportable global statement, if you
consider Linux as a competitor in the server-grade multi-user OS world.
Most commercial OS offerings don't require you to compile support libraries,
or the tools themselves, true. But they usually do require use of binary
patch distributions, and are very, very much slower in response to security
or bugfix reports. In most respects, the availability of source alleviates
a *lot* of the complaints that users of HP or other commercial Unix syste
have to answer.
It ain't simple, kids...
--
Dave "Feeling way to grey-bearded tonight..." Ihnat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
312/315.1075 [home office] || 312/443.5860 [office]
--
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.
