Shannon said:

>This was one of the most predictable aspects of Linux gaining
>attention.  I wanted Linux and all the free UNIX systems to 
>get more attention.  However, I was also prepared for the inevitable
>BS that would follow.

Linux gets the attention because there are so many "distros" and the basic
power of web/media saturation.

>The same thing will/would happen to NetBSD if it were "the one" right
>now.

NetBSD is growing. There are a lot of new faces on the mailing lists.

>This should be a crime, I mean, someone should do time for this.

>I actually felt depressed because of the Alpha's demise, especially
>given the likely replacement. I know Intel has some good people, but
>they are working on all the wrong problems. Yet another technology, like
>a Microsoft operating system, with too many agendas.

The IA64 project got started back when the Alpha was clocked at 70mhz. Intel
figured that it could go with a complex design and that the compiler writers
would make everything work. 1993 - Alpha 150Mhz. 1994 Alpha 300Mhz. That's
when Intel should have dropped the project. The Alpha is already faster than
Itanic. Now. Today.

>If there is a bright side, maybe I'll get a few years use out of a EV6
>or EV7 machine, purhased for peanuts on ebay.

>I used DEC UNIX for years, and it's amazing to see servers we paid $10K
>for just a few years ago going for $300.

Yup. I want an EV6 or EV7 machine. Used them, but never owned one.

>This won't hurt anything if they'll put support into Linux to push
>Red Hat off the hill and push a sane distribution.  Then start working
>on some needed kernel changes and fund increased development of the
>VM.

But you have to see that except for HP, which has it's special Linux for
$2000, the rest of these companies do as little value added as possible.
They just want to sell hardware.

Sun is just plain nuts. Intel box margins aren't worth the effort.

>The whole UNIX world needs to push for better video support as well, and
>not just drivers for Linux, _all_ systems running XFree servers.

Well, the worst video support is probably on Intel as it is a moving
target,

>They have the resources to also work on driver models so that all
>systems can get drivers for the hardware out there. There is no reason
>to change from a Windows-only to a Linux-only world of drivers.

The commercial hardware companies are trying to milk Linux at the least
expense. 

>This is one area where the GNU zealots might actually help, if they
>don't self-destruct or drive everyone away in the process.  I won't
>make any bets there...

Maybe, as long as RMS doesn't explode.

>I don't have any trouble, and I'm no genius.  

Well, there's ext3 and other filesystems now, but crashing a system with
ext2 filesystems mounted async is a bad surprise.

>Linux recovers from crashes better than my NetBSD and FreeBSD systems.
>SGI's xfs filesystem has never let me down yet. It's an example of what
>can be done that was previously considered impossible.

That support is new. Is it in all Linux "distros"?

>I think you just need to keep up with the news, RTFM, and you'll be
>fine. I run Linux because my hardware needs it, and while I have been
>using it for many years, I've used BSD longer and I don't have to spend
>much time at all maintaining my setup. I have installed Linux in heavily
>loaded servers and done fine with it. Is it my preference? No, but I
>rarely have any trouble making it work.

The news these days is that Linux 2.4.x pukes under heavy load.

>Some guys have all the luck... I mean, that's pretty amazing.

>NetBSD has certainly had some crash bugs in that time period. You never
>hit one?

One of the hats that I've worn in the past is qualifying Intel hardware for
running UNIX. So I have been very conservative about what I have used for
running NetBSD. Most of my NetBSD i386 machines are Pentium 1 architecture.
Everything else is sparc accept for 1 Athlon box.

-- 
Rick Kelly  rmk@rmkhome.com  www.rmkhome.com