Ron Watkins writes:
> It sounds like what you want is an appliance, and OpenBSD gets
> closest to that. The chance of you being forced to patch that
> system, while non-zero, is lower than pretty much any other OS.
> FreeBSD is fine, but for this usage, I think OpenBSD would be
> better. The Linux kernel, on the other hand, is a constant stream of
> problems and bugs,
Well, yours it the first response which pans one of the good OS'es
suggested. Please, let's not let this list degenerate into a
FUD-slinging cesspool.
You're comparing apples to oranges, in multiple ways. The Linux kernel
has stable (maintenance mode) and development series, and they are at
quite different ends of the reliability spectrum. Also, most of the
problems are in device drivers, and the higher rate of problems is
correlated with the greater hardware coverage. While one can argue
about X is more robust than Y, categorising any of Linux/*BSD as
having a "constant stream of bugs" is not a supportable statement.
> and I don't recommend it for a low-maintenance environment. If you
> really want to use Linux, I'd suggest using Adrian Bunk's stable
> tree. With that kernel, at least you're not forced to accept new,
> untested features to get your (many, many) bugfixes.
I certainly agree that for low maintenance, go for the stable
series. There's actually a few, depending how conservative you want to
be, versus getting fancy features.
Regards,
Richard....
_______________________________________________
Soekris-tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.soekris.com/mailman/listinfo/soekris-tech
