On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 13:14 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: > On 11/4/05, James Strandboge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 11:11 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > > > > > I used Solaris for many years for serious embedded development work, > > > as well as an embedded operating system. I've used Linux for just > > > about a year. All the GNU tools can be compiled for Solaris, and > > > it has a few which Linux doesn't have. Many more vendors build > > > versions of their software for Solaris than do so for Linux. I also > > > found the Solaris kernel to be much more robust than Linux. I only > > > *had* to reboot my Solaris machine (running on a Sparc) one time in > > > 5 years. It was rebooted maybe one to two times per year for some > > > sort of upgrade or new install, otherwise. I find that I have to > > > reboot my Linux machine far more often, maybe every month or two, > > > to clear up some strange state (though far less often than > > > I have to reboot my Windows machines). I only saw Solaris crash > > > two times in over five years. > > > > > Probably depends on what you are doing. I have servers running 2.4 > > kernels that only have to be rebooted for kernel upgrades. Otherwise > > they are very solid. Not to mention, if you are comparing commodity > > hardware to Sun's, then these issues you are having could very well be > > hardware related (you didn't mention hardware, so I thought I'd toss > > that out). > > Lovely defence... By the way I hear that loads of server admins tend > to avoid the 2.6 kernels, implying that they regard the 2.4 series > more stable. Can anyone confirm if it's actually so or if it's more of > paranoia? > > > > That sort of weirdness never happened with Solaris. I've also been > > > unable to umount the floppy, when I know there was no process using > > > it, using Linux. > > > > > This is probably fam running in the background. This is a known issue > > and many people just don't use fam as a result. gamin with an inotify > > kernel is/will be much better. > > > > > Linux seems to be more of a hacker/fiddler's dream, while Solaris > > > is more of a let's get the job done, it just runs sort of deal. > > > > Hmm... I use and rely on GNU/Linux in production for my day to day work > > without incident, and am quite happy with it. > > That's among the first things I heard about Linux kernel anyways... > stability. This means that McCarty provided an anti-climactic comment. > > > That said, I will say that I really do NOT like the 2.6 kernel > > development model. With so much development happening on a 'stable' > > kernel, you can't help but introduce new bugs (there were no less than > > 12 'stable' patches to the 2.6.11 alone). Leaving it up to the > > distributors is a disservice to them and users because backporting > > security patches from the latest upstream to Debian's stable kernel is > > hard since the 2.6 series is such a moving target. Of course, it is not > > like this hasn't been discussed before.... > > Where has this been discussed... I'd like to take a peek. Thanks for > the reply... >
For just two: http://lwn.net/Articles/126763/ http://lwn.net/Articles/157951/ (requires subscription, but will be available without subscription in a week or so) -- James Strandboge [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
