Re: You mean it isn't PERFECT? ;-)

["Robert G. Brown" <bob@xxxxxxx>]

Chris Chio wrote....
>...
>http://www.abcnews.com/sections/tech/FredMoody/moody981120.html
To which there have been various responses...
Kevin Mtchell cited..
>http://icdweb.cc.purdue.edu/~lewis1/linux/abcnews.html
As a good response.

One point that no one has touch on here is PROCESS, the focus having been 
on the end result.

Linux development (warts and all) is done out in the open, and to a great
degree anyone can write to the people who wrote the software, all other 
means of settling something having failed.  You can determine EXACTLY
what you're getting before "opening the box", and installing new software
on critical systems.

The ability to consult the implementor (as opposed to an anonymous corporate
facade) is sometimes a key point in developing software, and knowing in ad-
vance how the OS is evolving gives ANYONE who is doing long-term planning 
a real advantage.

For almost every other OS, you need to pay (at least) tens of thousands of
dollars and sign a non-disclosure agreement to gain similar (not equal, only
similar) access to information; I've been involved in a couple of those, and
the Linux model is superior, even if the software were "only as reliable" as
NT.

Shame on ABC for having published such tripe; at least it didn't come up for
broadcast. If this is the best anyone can do for FUD, we're doing well.

Thanks to everyone who helped refute this, experience in the real world is
more persuasive than articles like this, just as grass-roots networking is 
more powerful than all the "Where do you want to go today?" [TM] ads.

                                                         ---> RGB <---
PS:[bob@groucho bob]$ uptime
  8:34pm  up 62 days, 21:53,  5 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Any questions?