lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Accountability
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 11:48:43AM -0700, david parsons wrote:
> In article <linux.kernel.199909151240.IAA04464@tsx-prime.mit.edu>,
> Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >If it weren't for the input filtering, we would end up with something
> >like NT/Windows 2000 --- a huge, bloated kernel, that blue screens
> >constantly.
>
> Well, as someone who has to administer a whole bunch of NT machines,
> I regret to inform you that NT does _not_ bluescreen constantly at
> either of the sites I administer.
>
> I wish it did, for then I could replace it with Linux or xBSD, and
> make the users use StarOffice instead of MS-Office.
>
> Is the NT kernel that much larger than Linux? Sure, it takes three
> disks to bootstrap it, but a large part of that is drivers and the
> stage-1 installer, which is, in my experience, the thing that bloats
> up a Linux bootstrap to the point where you either have to use a
> compressed root filesystem or (shudder) multiple floppies to
> bootstrap.

Oh Plah. Tom's RootBoot. Full kernel with networking and most drivers
and lots of nifty utilities to boot. After the three NT disks, you STILL
don't have a usable system. Some of the *&%^ DLL's you would need probably
won't even fit on a floppy...

As someone who also works with NT, no, it doesn't quite bluescreen constantly,
but it does have this slow spiral to death tendancy. A reboot usually fixes it.
This doesn't even cover the other slow spiral of death where DLL's and registry
entries get so fscked up due to bugs / software installations where the only
REAL fix is to format and reinstall. Win2000 CAN'T fix this or no current apps
would work.

Long-term stability, managability (remote and local), flexability, standards,
security, virus resistance, and open source are all perfectly valid reasons
to use Linux over NT. Lack of constant bluescreens is no excuse to stay with
MS products.

So to get back to the MAIN topic, we DON'T want Linux ever being developed like
an MS product where with each service pack comes New and Improved bugs (and
security holes).

Guys: this Colin person is just mucking out flame bait. He obviosly has NO clue
whatsoever about the Linux development process, and wants to shovel his own
preconcieved notions about how things SHOULD work down the kernel maintainers
throats. Whining Constantly that his pet patch was rejected because the author
didn't give a shit about really wanting the patch in future kernels (if he did,
he would have been on LK promoting it and doing what was needed to keep up with
dev kernels.)


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.044 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site