Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 00:45:39 -0400 From: "Sam Stephenson" <sam@conio.net> To: "Brian W. Buchanan" <brian@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> Cc: <freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Marketing / Differentiating FreeBSD Message-ID: <NDBBLFFHAKMHCGPCGNFAMEGDCAAA.sam@conio.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908072129110.88884-100000@smarter.than.nu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > o Run forever. Uptimes of months are the norm. > > > > Stability seems to be one of the Linux community's favorite claims. We > > first must prove (or attempt to prove) that FreeBSD is more stable than > > Linux -- perhaps by pointing out that kernel updates are nowhere near as > > often as Linux's four-times-a-week? > > I fail to see what the frequency of kernel updates has to do with > stability. And FreeBSD's kernel updates are *hourly* if you use CVSup. > I've never heard anyone say that Linux is more stable than FreeBSD, and > there's a lot of anecdotal evidence the other way around, but no good > studies to support this. What I meant was it's hard for a Linux user to stay current with the frequent kernel changes and releases. A FreeBSD user wanting to stay current (assuming current to him is the -RELEASE tree) needs only to upgrade every few months. --Sam Stephenson sam@conio.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?NDBBLFFHAKMHCGPCGNFAMEGDCAAA.sam>