> Let's not be too quick to assign blame, or to think that perfecting > the behaviour is straightforward or even possible. > > Start introducing random $20 components and you begin to dilute the > quality and predictability of the composite system's behaviour. > > But this NEVER happens on linux *grin*.
Actually, it really doesn't! At least, it hasn't in many years... I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not, but honestly... you find a USB drive that can bring down your Linux machine, and I'll show you someone running a kernel from November of 2003. And for all the other "cheaper" components out there? Those are the components we make serious bucks off of. Just because it costs $30 doesn't mean it won't last a _really_ long time under stress! But if it doesn't, even when hardware fails, software's always there to route around it. So no biggie. > Perfection? Is Linux perfect? Not even close. But certainly a lot closer at what the topic of this thread seems to cover: not crashing. Linux may get a small number of things wrong, but it gets a ridiculously large number of them right, and stability/reliability on unstable/unreliable hardware is one of them. ;) PS: I found this guy's experiment amusing. Talk about adding a bunch of cheap, $20 crappy components to a system, and still seeing it soar. http://linuxgazette.net/151/weiner.html -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
