[CentOS] Headline - Linux misses Windows of opportunity
mike.mccarty at sbcglobal.net
Thu Sep 29 21:58:42 UTC 2005
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 15:02, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>>Problems happen all the time. Why is this one newsworthy? If someone
>>>made such a big deal out of every Windows BSOD there wouldn't be room
>>>to publish anything else? The problem could almost certainly have been
>>>fixed as well by replacing the problematic hardware (even if the problem
>>>is in the Linux driver it will be fixed by using something different).
>>>Would it still be a big news item: "PC crashes,owner buys replacement!"?
>>The point is fourfold:
>> (1) RHEL is PAID TO CARE
> Some PC's crash. I'm sure everyone at RHEL feels bad about that.
> Others run for years running the same software.
But RH was accepting money and being paid to do something about
>> (2) MS software ran, and RHEL did not, so
> MS has some cozy arrangements with hardware vendors and may very
> well include code to work around specific bugs in specific hardware
> that is not disclosed to the public. In fact I'd pretty much bet
I dunno whether what you say be true, but certainly I do *know*
for a fact that vendors write drivers for WinXXX and put information
into those drivers on how to initialize hardware, for which
*no* specs are available, about defects or otherwise. So...
certainly RH is operating at a disadvantage with respect to MS.
> on it. Is it the hardware vendor's fault or RHEL's that the
> same workarounds haven't been disclosed in open source drivers? Or
> is it the customer's fault for not picking more dependable hardware?
You do miss the point, here. It matters not who's "fault" it may
be. It does matter that a customer was lost, for whatever reason.
>> (3) the customer left for greener pastures, and
>> (4) RHEL can expect more of the same...
> Except from people whose hardware doesn't crash, which is most
> of them. The problem may very well be something in the linux
> device drivers but the point is that it isn't reproducible which
> is why it shouldn't be news. I've been through that myself with
Umm, you are arguing against something I didn't claim. I claim that
it is of interest to me, because it may affect the future of a product
which I use. Do you disagree with that?
> a box that would crash under load about every other week but
> nothing I tried would cause it to happen predictably. I moved
> the same software to a different box and went on with life.
> And they probably could have done the same.
Umm, I dunno about that. I *am* aware of how the organization
treats some customers who pay for support, and I do know that
it has in past driven other customers away. I have seen the
same attitude in other suppliers cause better products to die,
while inferior products flourish, due to the difference in
support. I'd prefer that Linux flourish and not die just because
MS is willing to do more of what is necessary to make life easier on
customers than some other organization which supports Linux is
willing to do.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
More information about the CentOS