On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Amarendra Godbole <amarendra.godb...@gmail.com> wrote: > What good is efficiency when it sacrifices stability and reliability?
I find the statement to be contradictory - suggesting that Linux is efficient but not stable or reliable. IMO, all three have to co-exist. > I find Linux code to be bloated, untested, and added at whim of a > developer or two who has/have clout. All Linux h/w drivers are > typically "blobs" - written by the device manufacturer, and used > "as-is". I doubt if a serious scrutiny of these happens, since Linux > requires to support all known h/w to mankind in its race to world > domination. Please quantify your statement about "All Linux h/w drivers are typically "blobs" - written by the device manufacturer," Wow, if this were true then users would not be struggling to install or run Linux with their cutting edge hardware or get their USB dongle to get detected or work with xyz service etc. One could simply press F6 and plop in the "manufacturer's" driver CD. The development model of the OSs in discussion are different. In either case end users have the "freedom" to choose. About a couple of years ago, I seriously considered FreeBSD as a NFS server for a client (NFS server being better on FreeBSD). The server had a Chelsio 10Gb (2 port) NIC. After doing some search I found that FreeBSD supported the card but users had reported problems with the driver (stability). I opted for CentOS 5 that has native support (FOSS driver) for the card. I use various flavors of Linux distributions (which amongst themselves have their own pros/cons) as well as FreeBSD (to a lesser extent). My latest discovery is DragonFlyBSD and plan to give it a spin. -- Arun Khan A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? _______________________________________ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List
