Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 23:23:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill/Carolyn Pechter <pechter@shell.monmouth.com> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Opinions again Message-ID: <199607200323.XAA01331@shell.monmouth.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > >From The Desk Of "Marty Leisner" : > > I really get miffed hearing people laud the robustness of NT and OS/2...I > > found both pale to current copies of linux and FreeBSD. > > > > Well, it depends on your point of view. Yes Linux and FreeBSD are probably > more robust than NT or OS/2 however from a DOS and Win3.1 point of view > NT is rock solid 8) > > > Regards, > Amancio FreeBSD is more robust than Linux, Solaris, SunOS, HP-UX. I'm running OS/2, AIX, Win/NT, FreeBSD, Linux. The OS/2 problem as far as robustness is the Presentation Manager single input queue problem -- which looks like it's Fixed (er, well worked around) in the latest Fixpack (17). Realistically, I've had the best reliability with FreeBSD. The worst was HP-UX. (The patch of the week) SunOS had the "you want us to fix WHAT... Use Solaris" problem. At least VAX/VMS used to have a timely patch service. Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Pechter/Carolyn Pechter | 17 Meredith Drive, Tinton Falls, NJ 07724, 908-389-3592 | pechter@shell.monmouth.com I'll run Win95 on my box when you pry the keyboard from my cold, dead hands. FreeBSD, OS/2, CP/M, RT11, spoken here.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607200323.XAA01331>