[rescue] Re: rescue Digest, Vol 5, Issue 73
J. Alexander Jacocks
jjacocks at mac.com
Sun Apr 20 16:48:33 CDT 2003
I hate to interject my opinion into this discussion at this late date,
but I'm going to anyway. :-p
It seems to me that the root of what you're saying is the following: If
something cannot be done in the optimal manner, it should not be done.
I think such a viewpoint is very limiting. Think about all the
incredible advancements that have come out of people "playing" with old
equipment in a garage.
Beyond philosophy, in my professional capacity, I have administered
several different OS's on several different platforms. Through my
experiences I have come to realize that different situations require
different solutions. When I started, I truly believed that SunOS was
the "right" answer to all questions. (twisted, I know) I now
administer Solaris/UltraSparc and Linux/IA32, and have SGI, DEC, Sun,
and commodity PC hardware at home. Every one of these machines has at
least one thing that it does particularly well, and many things that it
is entirely unsuited for.
As to the point of Linux destroying the market for large systems, I
believe that it has the opposite effect. Replace NT with Linux
somewhere, and you will give the company a taste of what is possible
with an advanced OS. Then, you can bring in hardware reliability and
all of the many reasons for using a more mature workstation/server
Anyway, this is just my 2 cents worth.
J. Alexander Jacocks Senior UNIX Systems Administrator
jjacocks at mac.com AT&T Government Solutions, Inc.
My opinions are solely my own, and no one else wants them anyway!
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 13:57:30 -0700
> From: David Passmore <dpassmor at sneakers.org>
> Subject: Re: [rescue] OT: Linux and USB on Intel
> To: The Rescue List <rescue at sunhelp.org>
> Message-ID: <20030420135730.L1959 at sneakers.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 09:36:55PM +0100, Mike Meredith wrote:
>> And what has Linux got to do with hardware failures ? Surely they
>> will happen
>> whatever o/s you're running.
> Okay, my point has been widely misunderstood, it seems, so I will
> repeat it:
> my point is that Linux doesn't make hardware less reliable, but that it
> encourages the use of less reliable hardware.
More information about the rescue