[at-l] Sleeping Bag Drive and computer Trouble!!

[atlist at kens.com (Dog Tag)]

J Bryan Kramer wrote:

> Well you can fault MS for many things but bugs in the OS isn't one of
> them. It has been mathematically shown that it is impossible to write

Let me guess...."They" have proven that, haven't they?  The famous 
"Them" have once again done studies.

> Other OS have as many or more bugs as MS products but the general
> public just doesn't hear about them since they are such a tiny
> portion of the market. 

Right.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/12/02/december_2003_web_server_survey.html

Oh, I know you'll retort with something saying that there are 50000 
trillion windows installs world wide, or something equally mundane. 
Yeah, and leeches seemed like a good idea until somebody invented the 
scalpel.

> LINUX is much more buggy for example. 

Let me guess..."They" told you that, didn't they?

I love it when people who know nothing of *nix use "linux" as the 
be-all-end-all all-purpose *nix OS.

<RANT>
Let's take, just for instance, a web server.  What you're ultimately 
interested in is the performance of HTTP requests. There are two parts 
to that: the connect latency and the latency for answering the actual 
HTTP request. The connect latency is the time it takes for the server to 
notice the connection attempt and call accept.

This time is largely dominated by the event noficiation. Accepting a 
connection does not actually do anything besides sending a TCP packet 
and allocating a file descriptor.

Windows, by definition, sucks as this, as does OpenBSD.  Therefore, 
Windows sucks as a web server.  Actually, I'll further refine that by 
saying that windows sucks at being any kind of server.

Linux 2.6 scales well in all benchmarks. If you are using Linux 2.4 
right now, switch to Linux 2.6.

FreeBSD 5.1 has very impressive performance and scalability. All BSDs do 
not play in the same league performance-wise just because they all share 
a lot of code and can incorporate each other's code freely. FreeBSD has 
by far the best performance of the BSDs and it comes close to Linux 2.6.

Linux 2.4 is not too bad, but it scales badly for mmap and fork.

OpenBSD 3.4 (what I run here) sucks almost as hard as windows. The 
installation routine sucks, the disk performance sucks, the kernel is 
unstable, and the network scalability sucks. OpenBSD also sucks for 
sabotage they did to their IPv6 stack.

OK, rant over.   My point?  Don't interchange "LINUX" for "*nix-like 
OS's".  They're not all the same.

And for chrissake, stop calling it "LINUX".  That's like saying 
"Microsoft WINDOWS"


ok, rant really over now.