Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
>
> I saw this mail on another list and thought I'd pass it on here.
> Since it's not the first time I've seen attacks on linux's
> reliability I thought it's worth bringing it up. I dont know
> whether an electronic version of this interview exists...
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
> Ken Thompson is interviewed in this month's _IEEE Computer_
> magazine on UNIX and developments. At one point during the
> interview, Computer asks him what he thinks of Linux. Here's his
> response (any typos are mine, and I show italics via <em> and
> </em>):
>
> "Thompson: I view Linux as something that's not Microsoft -- a backlash
> against Microsoft, no more and no less. I don't think it will be very
> successful in the long run. I've looked at the source, and there are
> pieces that are good and pieces that are not. A whole bunch of random
> people have contributed to this source, and the quality varies
> drastically.
> My experience and some of my friends' experience is that Linux is
> quite unreliable. Microsoft is <em>really</em> unreliable but Linux is
> <em>worse</em>. In a non-PC environment, it just won't hold up. If
> you're using it on a single box, that's one thing. But if you want to use
> Linux in firewalls, gateways, embedded systems, and so on, it has a long
> way to go."
>
Consider this: The professional programming community has taken a long
time (almost ten years?) to look at Linux as a useful, viable product.
Only recently have the commercial software giants begun to endorse it,
and only with reservations - you still have to ask for Linux when you
buy a machine from Compaq or Sun. Is it possible that Ken's remarks
might have something to do with this?
Knee-jerk reactions like "he must be on drugs" or "he doesn't know what
he's talking about" are kind of strange when directed toward an
accomplished software professional like Ken Thompson, especially
considering that he is not only the co-creator of UNIX but that he
worked on it for years improving it to a point where one of the biggest
software giants of all, AT&T, began to market it. AT&T made a fortune
on UNIX until they sold it. That says a lot.
The real question is: how many of you will look at this with an open
mind?
Isn't there (a LOT of) room for improvement in Linux? If not, why are
we moving towards 2.3 and beyond with an eye toward CORRECTING some of
its flaws?
Comments welcome; flames ignored.
--------------E05175AA29FF1BC2B26A4AD1
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="markh.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Mark Hull-Richter
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="markh.vcf"
begin:vcard
adr;dom:;;1821 East Dyer Road;Santa Ana;CA;92705;
n:;Mark Hull-Richter
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Procom Technology, Inc.
version:2.1
email;internet:markh@procom.com
title:Senior Software Engineer
tel;fax:949-851-3907
tel;work:949-794-4242 or 800-800-8600x67
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Mark Hull-Richter
end:vcard
--------------E05175AA29FF1BC2B26A4AD1--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/