From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: William Josephson To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] micro vs monolithic kernels Message-ID: <20010409181656.A11512@honk.eecs.harvard.edu> References: <20010409174018.A27849@honk.eecs.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com on Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 05:10:04PM -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:16:56 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7c5fb498-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 05:10:04PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > > It is amusing to hear Microsoft Windows and Linux labeled > > 'production' quality software. > > I don't believe I used the term 'production quality' once. I said they > were used in a 'production environment' and they are. > > Find somebody else to mis-quote to use to grind your personal issues. A worthy attempt at a flame. In any event, the point remains that you are comparing apples and oranges: of course a Linux install is trivial if you've done it many times over, but to claim that, for instance, Red Hat installations are trouble-free is completely bogus. Red Hat's in particular have been getting worse with each release. Even Windows installations aren't much better -- you are completely out of luck if anything goes wrong. I'd love to see your reaction to the installation process for some other research systems I've worked on. -WJ