> > apparently random chance. On some machines, everything works, while on others,
> > bits and pieces do not. Windows NT is said to be very finicky about hardware,
>
> Linux is very intolerant of flaky/out of specs hardware. Live with it. Buy
> decent kit.
Judging from our experiences and those I read about in this list every day, Linux is
"very intolerant" of every single brand of computer made, including all the big
names. Our problems have occurred on both big-name machines, e.g., Compaq, and
home-made, e.g., Yokohama Storm Door and Motherboard Works, Ltd. Just whose "kit" is
acceptable to Lord Linux? And whose specs are relevant? Is Linux the tail which
deigns to wag the cybernetic dog?
Is this intolerance supposed to be a virtue? Do all other OSes of equal competence
exhibit the same intolerance? Is this intolerance, which is costly and annoying,
worth tolerating?
Much has been said about Linux's intolerance of hardware. Can someone suggest to me
what benefit to the user is derived from this? Clearly, system reliability is not
it. In what other field of commerce or industry is such finicky and unreliable
behaviour deemed acceptable? How long do you think my company would last if the
users of our machines had to yell for help as often as Linux users do? Or, are such
questions beneath Linux's dignity to answer?
In short, sir, what substitute is there for reliability?
--
David Fisher
Chief Engineer
Fisher Research Corporation
Rochester, New York
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
716 328 4230
fax 328 1984
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
