To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
That might well be. The end user, however, doesn't care about kernels at all. He wants a stable system with a lot of software, compatibility, speed etc. That's what he gets when installing Linux.
And that, BTW, is what you get when you're installing a server. So you really don't need "a superior kernel" - at least not 95% of the time. The system has to be stable and it needs to able to scale well.
Call it what you want. Linux is backed by the major players - and that's enough. It really is not important whether SUN is behind or not behind Linux as long as IBM, HP, Novell, SGI etc are backing Linux.
"Linux is without argument much inferior by design (I'm talking about kernels here ok?) compared to eg: freeBSD or solaris."
The Linux design is "no design". But I wouldn't say FreeBSD or Solaris are much superior - they still have a lot of the same problems as Linux as far as kernel design goes.




Member since:
2006-01-16
Well personaly I agree with you.
This just goes to show that technologicly inferior products tend to get used most. I think we could find alot of comparisons in history starting with VCR vs Betamax etc.
Linux is without argument much inferior by design (I'm talking about kernels here ok?) compared to eg: freeBSD or solaris.
The problem is, Linux has "hype" and years of contributions to drivers. Solaris, altho based on old system, is "young" in this open regard, and freeBSD has smaller following mostly (as I hear) because of certain old legal issues.
I'm sure that both would be better, should they ride the same hypewave, than linux by now.