Subject: Re: Real Time O.S vs 'conventional' one.
To: Zafer Aydogan <email@example.com>
From: Timo Schoeler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/26/2005 14:52:23
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:36:44 +0200 (MEST)
"Zafer Aydogan" <email@example.com> wrote:
> > --- Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht ---
> > Von: Timo Schoeler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > An: "Zafer Aydogan" <email@example.com>
> > Kopie: firstname.lastname@example.org, tech-embed@NetBSD.org, email@example.com
> > Betreff: Re: Real Time O.S vs 'conventional' one.
> > Datum: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:23:49 +0200
> > >=20
> > > That depends. If you want to run a business, then you don't want to r=
> > > NetBSD at all, at least not right now, because it is buggy and under
> > heavy
> > > development.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > (besides the massive x-posting: am i missing <irony> </irony> tags? are=
> > there
> > several commercial products using NetBSD or based upon it?)
> Name one.
reading is up to you...
i am not an evangelist as i used to be in my early years on Apple (and, yes,
even this is some time ago); i don't use NetBSD only -- there are some
'Enterprise Class' OSs we employ as well as 'some other BSDs'. but no linux=
this has saved us from a lot of trouble.
not willing to start a flame here, but please compare the incidents reported
from/to/regarding linux (NB: linux is only a kernel in contrast to the BSDs=
those reported to the BSDs. linux is sometimes as high as three or four cri=
(exploitable over network, that is) flaws *a week*.
> There is recently no embedded hardware running NetBSD. Also in the past,
> there were barely any Product running NetBSD OS.
> > hm, i think then it's time to do it again? ;)
> Nice approach.