[rescue] OT: Linux and USB on Intel

Robert Novak rnovak at indyramp.com
Sun Apr 20 15:49:08 CDT 2003

On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 12:56:55PM -0700, David Passmore wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 03:29:23PM -0400, Linc Fessenden wrote:
> > What??  This is that same hardware that windows runs on right?  And it's
> > Linux that thought them that?  Take a look around man - There are Linux
> > servers that are running on cheap commodity 486 hardware and early
> > pentiums that have been running reliably without so much as a reboot for
> > years...  How does that show people that hardware failures are normal and
> > it's ok to replace machines constantly.   Hell, I use Linux on older
> > machines to make them *keep* working and be useful.
> Are you claiming that x86 hardware in general, has an equal or greater
> mean-time-to-failure than dedicated UNIX hardware from manufacturers like
> Sun, HP, IBM, and hell, even Apple? I think several people on this list
> would disagree with you.

David, David, David. Please, consider saving the nonsequiturs for bad
jokes. You're the one claiming that Linux makes x86 hardware less reliable.
There are more people on this list who disagree with you on this point,
I'd bet. 

I have an x86 machine in the next room that's been running for five years 
with the exception of power outages and software upgrades. Do we blame 
Linux for the unreliability of the California power grid then? Yes, you 
might, but I won't. Your "logic' might back such a concept up, and I'll 
be amused to see you try, but there is no connection. The SS2 running 
OpenBSD and the SS5 running Solaris 7 are just as responsible for the 
failure of the grid a few years ago, and probably equally responsible 
for the dead batteries in the 4-year old UPS the systems are on.

Linc is claiming that x86 hardware running Linux can be very reliable.
You're apparently unable to dispute this, so you're jumping at alternate
claims that Linc never made. It's always easier to dispute something
the opponent didn't say, isn't it?

Repeat after me.

Don't fear the penguin.
Don't fear the penguin.
Don't fear the penguin.

You don't have to use the penguin, but if you're going to argue against
*ANYTHING* you should at least have valid reasons to do so. Even if you
are bored. It makes you and your cause look bad if you use spurious and
blatantly false claims to back your points up.

> Linux could not exist without GNU software, period. In fact, I challenge you
> to build a Linux system without any GNU software. Good luck.

Did he say that? Nope. 

It's probably time for this to move to geeks@, right?


Robert Novak, Indyramp Consulting * rnovak at indyramp.com * indyramp.com/~rnovak
	"I don't want to doubt you, Know everything about you
      I don't want to sit Across the table from you Wishing I could run."

More information about the rescue mailing list