Linux .vs. Solaris reliability

[Mike Johnson]

--uJrvpPjGB3z5kYrA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

John Turner [jdturner@nc.rr.com] wrote:
> For the most part I would say that Sun hardware will be more reliable=20
> than Intel PC hardware no matter what OS you are running on it. You=20
> have to figure that you are paying more money for that added=20
> reliability. For the most part I have not had trouble with PC hardware=20
> running Linux, but then again I have never seen it running places at=20
> the same scale as Sun hardware.

I've gotta agree, here.  The advantage of PC hardware is that it's
cheap, which makes it disposable.  Sun hardware is some solid stuff, and
will likely last longer.  You'll also find cool features like alternate
pathing and hot swap cards/memory/CPU that you don't get in PC stuff.

So, as you know, you're comparing apples to oranges.  I can't really say
Solaris is any more or less stable than, say, Red Hat (or Debian), but
Sun hardware is, in general, going to be more stable than PC stuff.

Of course, you never mentioned your price point.

Mike
--=20
"Would you like to take advantage of wiretap Wednesdays?"=20
     -- Fed on Sealab 2021

GNUPG Key fingerprint =3D ACD2 2F2F C151 FB35 B3AF  C821 89C4 DF9A 5DDD 95D1
GNUPG Key =3D http://www.enoch.org/mike/mike.pubkey.asc


--uJrvpPjGB3z5kYrA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (OpenBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE92lYricTfml3dldERAlUmAJsEHPK4q4CHa25h6Pv7KqRkCsbmpgCgjlrI
7+pPZSmuGXUu1Vo/fxKfuEc=
=uJ1A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--uJrvpPjGB3z5kYrA--