David Fisher wrote:
> > > 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.
I dont know what or where you read , but from my following of the contents of several
lists I see many differnet hardware sissues being resolved. I see nowhere near the what
is it 4 million users writing in so either there arnt 4 million users of Linux, or they
must have totally differnet hardware to anything you have come accross.
there does seem to be some unreliability, and it is mostly the way the facts are
presented.
For me. I like Linux because it does what I want, and does it well.
I am not a coder or hacker. If Linux didnt work I wouldnt use it, simple.
true, there may be some glitches that need sorting.
But if you want to drive a truck to get from A to B use MS
if you want to fly use Linux!
Oh , and thats just what I have observed from my use of MS and Linux!
> 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?
Learns Patience and etiquette in mailing listsLearns to ask and be grateful to thiose
that help
Increases the desire to help others ... who actually want help and not to criticise
Learns about there own computer and how it all works
> 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?
Interesting, you must be comparing the Linux user groups to MS tech support lines. I
guess those lines are empty of tracffic these days now that NT and Win 95 are so
reliable !
> Or, are such
> questions beneath Linux's dignity to answer?
As you have not invested as much $ in your Linux as say your NT , then it must be easy
top go back to NT with little loss. Perhaps simply the question may linger, how do all
thiose other people derive such reliabuility from their systems?They must all be
deluded!
Phil
>
>
> 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.
--
email at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This message was sent using Linux 2.0 power!
Where do you want to go tomorrow?
_____________________________________________________
--
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.
