This is a real "horses for courses" argument.
There's no point in de Raadt bagging out Linux for its differences to
OpenBSD. When the 2.6 kernel was close to release and there was a lot of
discussion about the new scheduler and how close to optimum it was, it
was compared with other operating systems, including OpenBSD. OpenBSD
performed abysmally.
Quite rightly, someone (can't remember if it was de Raadt) defended
OpenBSD's performance by pointing out that its focus is security. But
it's funny that he completely ignores this concept of project focus when
asked about Linux.
Torvalds, AFAIK, has always maintained an attitude of "good enough" when
it comes to kernel development. Considering that the kernel and
Linux-based OSes are having to play catchup to Windows a lot of the
time, there aren't the resources available to maintain everything to
100% perfection.
Maybe, when vendors are more on board with collaborating on Linux and
the time is available to clean-up code, then we can see GNU/Linux
operatings systems getting closer to the standards that de Raadt is
talking about.
Right now, I'm happy to make that sacrifice in code quality in order to
have a decent OS that's more ethically sound.
Carlo Sogono wrote:
Interesting article here.
http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
Your thoughts?
Carlo
PS. I'm not an OpenBSD guy.
----------------------------------------------
Carlo Sogono
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.hi-speed.net.au
________________________________________________________________________
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
