Hubert Feyrer said:

>Like, because they often do not know there is an alternative to Linux?
>Because the media hypes (only) Linux without telling people that there's
>about 30 years of history on Unix with many other systems working equally
>well or better than Linux? Geez.

More than that. It seems to me that the computer industry marketing types
have decided that Linux is the answer to selling more x86 boxes. Compaq and
HP, IBM, and now Sun are trying to milk more money out of Intel boxes.

Meanwhile, Intel is trying to take over the world with a badly designed 64bit
processor. And destroying Alpha and PA-RISC in the process.

On the True 64 Managers List it appears that people are blindly running to
Intel and Linux, since Compaq has screwed them. And I see the same type of
threads in alt.solaris.x86, since Sun has made the future of Solaris x86
doubtful.

I have done administration on Linux systems in the past and I really don't
trust Linux security or it's ability to recover from crashes.

And since 1994 (0.9a) up until -current 1.5.ZA I haven't had a NetBSD crash
that wasn't due to bad hardware. That includes sparc, sun3, and i386.
-- 
Rick Kelly  rmk@rmkhome.com  www.rmkhome.com