On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 08:14:13PM -0700, Rick Kelly wrote:

> More than that. It seems to me that the computer industry marketing types
> have decided that Linux is the answer to selling more x86 boxes. Compaq and
> HP, IBM, and now Sun are trying to milk more money out of Intel boxes.

This was one of the most predictable aspects of Linux gaining
attention.  I wanted Linux and all the free UNIX systems to 
get more attention.  However, I was also prepared for the inevitable
BS that would follow.

The same thing will/would happen to NetBSD if it were "the one" right
now.

> Meanwhile, Intel is trying to take over the world with a badly designed 64bit
> processor. And destroying Alpha and PA-RISC in the process.

This should be a crime, I mean, someone should do time for this.

I actually felt depressed because of the Alpha's demise, especially
given the likely replacement. I know Intel has some good people, but
they are working on all the wrong problems. Yet another technology, like
a Microsoft operating system, with too many agendas.

If there is a bright side, maybe I'll get a few years use out of a EV6
or EV7 machine, purhased for peanuts on ebay.

I used DEC UNIX for years, and it's amazing to see servers we paid $10K
for just a few years ago going for $300.

> On the True 64 Managers List it appears that people are blindly running to
> Intel and Linux, since Compaq has screwed them. And I see the same type of
> threads in alt.solaris.x86, since Sun has made the future of Solaris x86
> doubtful.

This won't hurt anything if they'll put support into Linux to push
Red Hat off the hill and push a sane distribution.  Then start working
on some needed kernel changes and fund increased development of the
VM.

The whole UNIX world needs to push for better video support as well, and
not just drivers for Linux, _all_ systems running XFree servers.

They have the resources to also work on driver models so that all
systems can get drivers for the hardware out there. There is no reason
to change from a Windows-only to a Linux-only world of drivers.

This is one area where the GNU zealots might actually help, if they
don't self-destruct or drive everyone away in the process.  I won't
make any bets there...

> I have done administration on Linux systems in the past and I really don't
> trust Linux security or it's ability to recover from crashes.

I don't have any trouble, and I'm no genius.  

Linux recovers from crashes better than my NetBSD and FreeBSD systems.
SGI's xfs filesystem has never let me down yet. It's an example of what
can be done that was previously considered impossible.

I think you just need to keep up with the news, RTFM, and you'll be
fine. I run Linux because my hardware needs it, and while I have been
using it for many years, I've used BSD longer and I don't have to spend
much time at all maintaining my setup. I have installed Linux in heavily
loaded servers and done fine with it. Is it my preference? No, but I
rarely have any trouble making it work.

> And since 1994 (0.9a) up until -current 1.5.ZA I haven't had a NetBSD crash
> that wasn't due to bad hardware. That includes sparc, sun3, and i386.

Some guys have all the luck... I mean, that's pretty amazing.

NetBSD has certainly had some crash bugs in that time period. You never
hit one?

-- 
shannon@widomaker.com  _________________________________________________
______________________/ armchairrocketscientistgraffitiexenstentialist
 "And in billows of might swell the Saxons before her,-- Unite, oh
 unite!  Or the billows burst o'er her!" -- Downfall of the Gael