clueless linux bashing
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| herzeleid Dec 30, 2006 6:30 PM EDT |
This alleged pundit, who among other things doesn't seem to grok the fact that linux is essentially unix, does a lot of cheering for solaris, and bashes linux pretty cluelessly. Among his other gems of insight is the idea that linux is just a collection of code from random coders of unknown skill - yes, you heard it right. These unknown coders somehow get past the kernel developers and dump crappy code into the linux kernel. Silly me, I'd always thought that Linus and his trusted core of subsystem developers determined what code is accepted into the kernel. |
| dinotrac Dec 30, 2006 6:36 PM EDT |
>These unknown coders somehow get past the kernel developers and dump crappy code into the linux kernel. If he weren't in jail, I'm sure Hans Reiser could offer some insight on that point. Not a knock on Reiser's coding ability, BTW -- super talented guy. |
| tuxchick Dec 30, 2006 6:50 PM EDT |
Charlie is my fellow author on Enterprise Networking Planet. Nice guy, but a tad young yet. A few more good spankings like he's getting for this article, and he'll learn. :) I've asked a number of friends who run Solaris, AIX, and HP-UX boxes how they compare with Linux, and they all say the same thing: Linux on x86 offers so much flexibility, cost-savings, and ease of administration that any performance deficiencies are easily tolerable. With the olde Unixes you pay and pay and pay, and then you pay some more. Sure, you get zillion-nines uptimes and reliability, but at too high a cost. With Linux you sacrifice a few nines, but you get so much in exchange it's an easy choice. |
| dinotrac Dec 30, 2006 6:55 PM EDT |
>but you get so much in exchange it's an easy choice. There will always be specialty areas --- telephone switching comes to mind -- where expensive and reliable hardware/software systems prevail, but, let's face it, that ain't most of what's done out there. |
| herzeleid Dec 30, 2006 6:55 PM EDT |
Quoting: tc: I've asked a number of friends who run Solaris, AIX, and HP-UX boxes how they compare with Linux, and they all say the same thing: Linux on x86 offers so much flexibility, cost-savings, and ease of administration that any performance deficiencies are easily tolerable.Sounds like your friends are being a bit patronizing as well, damning linux with faint praise. Since moving to linux we haven't lost any 9s, the boxes stay up, period. And performance is much better in terms of bang for the buck. But I'll agree that the administration of linux is very easy compared to old school unices. The package management system, the wealth of tools and utilities, and the rapid fixes you get from a decent linux distro will spoil you for ever moving back to say, hpux. |
| dinotrac Dec 30, 2006 7:13 PM EDT |
TC - Taking a little more time to think about this, I'm reminded how hard it is to be sure that any technology is dead. IBM mainframes have been dead for years, except for all those machines still out there running mission-critical apps, or the ones running Linux. And IBM's AS400 is the computer equivalent of a cockroach. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that Radio Shack is planning to wow the market with the first new release of the Color Computer in 20 years, running on a dolled-up 64-bit version of OS-9 to handle it's multi-core, 64 bit exteneded 6809. |
| tuxchick Dec 30, 2006 7:56 PM EDT |
dino, I don't think anyone with two brain cells to rub together would call Unix dead. I would say they're trying to extinct themselves by not progressing, and stubbornly refusing to cut prices, but they're going to be around for awhile yet. Especially Solaris, if sheer technical amazingness means anything. (ZFS, DTrace, containers, etc). It's the silly Linux-trashing that stinks up the article. |
| dinotrac Dec 31, 2006 6:40 AM EDT |
>It's the silly Linux-trashing that stinks up the article. Agreed all around. It does amaze me that the Unix vendors seem never to have learned anything. As nasty as Microsoft is, they had lots of help from Apple and Unix vendors in building their monopoly. Microsoft did one smart thing and nobody contested them. That smart thing was to understand how Toyota and the other Japanese auto makers built their US business from the bottom up. OK -- they managed to miss the quality part, but they were in a business where most people didn't have a good fell for what quality actually means, so they got away with it. Microsoft offerings aren't as good as the competition now, and they weren't as good as the competition then. In the old days (I'm talking 80s and early 90s), however, they were cheap. I remember more than a few times lusting after a cool box and getting intel-DOS or intel-Windows because I could scrape up the cash. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!