Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:34 PM, Jesse Guardiani wrote:
>> I'm also highly interested in reliability, as are, I'm sure, Chris and
>> I don't see 4.x as being the rock of reliability that you make it out
>> be, however. I have a 4.x machine that crashes every few months or so
>> even without high load. I also don't see Linux as unreliable. I have a
>> machine that is just as reliable as my production 4.x machine. The
>> are comparable.
> As are 5.3 machines. No really.
Yeah. I agree. I just forgot to mention it. What I'm starting to realize
from my experience with various operating systems is that no OS is bullet-proof
yet. They all have weaknesses, and if what you need to do falls within the
realm of that weakness then you're in trouble. What stinks is that it's quite
difficult to identify these weaknesses without trying it out for a while.
In my experience, FreeBSD is quite good at networking. So is Linux, but at
the cost of a ton of disk space. And I think FreeBSD's driver distribution
and development strategy fits the embedded market better than Linux.
But, I digress.
>> I think what you have to realize is the incredible amount of complexity
>> these OS's deal with, and also the incredible amount of complexity in
>> hardware. I'm sure you could find configurations and hardware that
>> crashes on quite frequently.
> One marginal DIMM will do it.
And they're soldered to the mobo on 48xx's, so if that's the case you'll
never ever know it without running an extensive memory test.
Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator
WingNET Internet Services,
P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605
423-559-LINK (v) 423-559-5145 (f)