Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 17:58:41 -0800 From: Ed Hudson <elh@svic.com> To: "Jamil J. Weatherbee" <jamil@trojanhorse.ml.org> Cc: Ed Hudson <elh@svic.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, elh@spnet.com Subject: Re: Operating system stability Message-ID: <199711010158.RAA00411@xy.svic.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Oct 1997 17:08:15 PST." <Pine.BSF.3.96.971031170651.417A-100000@trojanhorse.ml.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
> From: "Jamil J. Weatherbee" <jamil@trojanhorse.ml.org>
>
> Are there any statistics to support the claim that FreeBSD is one of the
> worlds most stable Operating Systems?
>
forgive me for taking the bait...
well, i base this on personal experience with
SunOS 4.1.4, Slolaris 5.5.1, Linux (some rev 2.0-),
RISCos, HPUX 9+10, ESIX, OSF1, and the horror stories i hear
from my friends that used to install SCO and now
install NT.
secondly, people have published statistics for FreeBSD
(and its predecessors) with many months of uptime.
buy and run what you want. i work (use) and program
in a multi-os (unix,nt) environment, and this experience
leads me to use, and prosthelitize, FreeBSD.
Linux vs FreeBSD:
both are EXCELLENT os's, and both benefit from
their competetion with each other, as do all of the *bsd's.
i design chips, and write programs that work
with huge data files. these two considerations make
freebsd a better choice than linux (because of capacity
reasons) for this type of work.
however, i'd happily use linux any day over any ms product,
on moral grounds alone.
-elh
one last ms dig: if the mba's were right, we'd all still
be using vm/cms (or jcl...)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711010158.RAA00411>