Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 21:23:45 -0500 (EST) From: "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> To: cuk@cuk.nu Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Stability Message-ID: <200011050223.eA52Nj0490171@saturn.cs.uml.edu>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marko Cuk writes: > Can anyone explain me, why is FreeBSD known as powerful sistem > with industrial strenghth and rock stability, but I manage to > crash it several times. The "known as" part is simple: focused marketing OK, maybe not that simple. People leave an OS that is unstable for _them_ in favor of another. Even if that other OS is often less stable, it will most likely work. What are the chances of having both OSes be unstable, hmmm? So the new OS looks good. Less popular OSes tend to benefit from this affect, because most of their users jumped ship from somewhere else. The new OS couldn't possibly be worse than the one that was left. As FreeBSD gets more popular, it will have more users that are not desperate to replace an existing unstable OS. Some portion of these users will find FreeBSD to be unstable. Maybe they will switch to OpenBSD, Debian, or Solaris -- which will then be reported as being more stable. (for RZ1000 owners: Debian) So, feel free to pick a new OS and tell everyone it is stable. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200011050223.eA52Nj0490171>