Linux code is gloriously defect-free Same can't be said of its OS rivals...

Silicon.com ^ | Thu 20 February 2003 11:14AM GMT | Silicon.com

[Mr. K]

you are showing your lack of windows knowlege.
I have not seen a 'blue screen of death' in YEARS (I mean it- YEARS)

If you are using Windows2000 or windowsXP you may have no idea what a 'blue screen of death' is... it is an old Windows problem that would turn your screen blue and show you an error message when the operating system crashed. it used to happen a LOT

[Joe_October]

What planet are you writing from? ....

Same one I'm on. I got Win 98, ME, XP, and 2000 running without a crash in at least months (I can't even remember how long). I do help people fix their computers and I do see some seriously fouled up software (user doing all the wrong things).

It's pretty simple actually, keep your software current, don't download junk software, run an anti-virus, defrag, in short, read the fine manual.

Probably the same for Linux.

[Bush2000]

The same mental midgets that want us to switch to Linux seem to be the only ones who can't keep a Windows box running -- despite the fact that millions upon millions of us do exactly that every day.

[mpresley72]

>>That kills any interest in your logic, as you are no doubt an open-source bigot. I have commercial products that I keep the source code secret to as well. So what?>>

I don't care one way or the other what M$ (or you or anybody else, for that matter) does with their code. All I was saying was that it is hard to know what they do regarding "fixes" since it is all secret.

As far as being an open-source bigot? A bigot is generally thought to be intolerant of differing opinion. If I were intolerant of opinion I certainly wouldn't be posting in an open forum.

I will admit to finding Linux better than Windows for my purposes. On the other hand if I were to run a large organization that needed mission critical applications with scalability (and money was no object) I'd opt for Solaris or AIX on proprietary hardware. So, from that standpoint I'm not an open source uber alles kind of guy.

[brianl703]

Let's recap.

The article in question was talking about "Linux code".

Someone posted that they didn't see how Linux code was as bug-free as the article claimed, due to the number of security patches that Redhat releases.

I pointed out that the Linux code that the article was talking about is only the kernel, and not many of the security patches from Redhat are for the kernel.

Whatever assumptions you may draw of my "ilk", are, I hope, corrected by this recap of what I said.

[brianl703]

Correction: I did not point out, until now, that the code the article is talking about is only the Linux kernel. I sort of implied it in my first post, but I did not clearly state it.

[Bush2000]

Whatever assumptions you may draw of my "ilk", are, I hope, corrected by this recap of what I said.

Relax, Brian. I just get a little annoyed when Linux advocates bash Windows generally for IIS and IE bugs -- and then proceed to contradict themselves whenever bugs are found in components shipped with Linux (DNS Bind, WSFTP32, etc), insisting that "it isn't Linux". They can't have it both ways -- and I'm not about to roll over.

[brianl703]

All software has bugs. The real problem is when people do not bother to patch their software when bugs are found and corrected. That happens with Solaris, FreeBSD, Windows, Linux, and practically any other application or OS you care to name.