I am a hardware oriented person, that's my cup of tea.
The philosophy I hope to success is:
If the hardware is bad, no matter how good the software or OS is, its
just going to fail.
But, how many system (software) implementor on this planet really know
hardware? by reading this list, we may be able to conclude that some of the
problems are caused by some 'not so compatible' hardware mainly due to
design or QA control of the manufacturer.
I believe Linux can be used for serious work if you have the proper
hardware. Cheapo or unmatching hardware simply not going to hold this
promise. Agree?
A real person should solve the problem instead of avoiding it, if not,
someone else will. Agree??
Dennis/SG
"Paul W. Abrahams"
There's a belief among a lot of old Unix hands that commercially developed systems are more reliable and perform better than Linux.
One thing is that Linux is delivered on cheap hardware, which is not designed to be as solid as those machines for which there is better bus and memory CRC checking, and such other things. This hardware being meant to be more dependable, people also believe stronger in their systems. The Linux machines I used are very dependable, or so they seem. I'm lucky, and most of us are. However, I have some friends who had intermittent memory problems, or other difficulties, which are seemingly hard to diagnose precisely. We just speak of "cosmic rays", then :-). A bit irritating for them, but bearable nevertheless. Real people do not take such risks as running important programs on Intel machines. Unless they also run Windows-NT on them, of course :-) :-(. -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/