From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Nov 20 05:59:11 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id FAA04899 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 05:59:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsd.tseinc.com (bsd.tseinc.com [206.114.206.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA04892 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 05:59:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from JLWEST (ws2.tseinc.com [206.114.206.22]) by bsd.tseinc.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA21250; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 07:58:40 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199611201358.HAA21250@bsd.tseinc.com> From: "Jay L. West" To: , "dennis" Subject: Re: question: Unite or Die? Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 07:58:39 -0600 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > ......My conclusion is that in some fields FBSD > is better (networking, stability) and in some other Linux > has the lead( available drivers, memory managment). My > question is why have two OS rather than one REALLY good one? > Why dont programmers,hackers,develepors of both teams unite to write the > ultimite OS? Dennis; I agree with your sentiment, but here's something to think about. The problem is that these two things are diametricly opposed. It's very tough to have stability as well as a huge number of drivers. One has to sacrifice one over the other, or be willing to wait for one to catch up with the other. Like communism - it's a great idea on paper.... J. West