Comparing Linux To System VR4 208
robyannetta writes "Paul Murphy from LinuxInsider.com asks the question
What's the difference between Linux and System VR4? From the article: 'If there's a real bottom line here, the one thing I'm clear on is that I haven't found it yet, but the questions raised have been more interesting that the answers -- so more help would be welcomed.'"
Looks like a troll to me... (Score:3, Interesting)
What does this say? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or this: What makes a patch "artificial" ? Whatever that means, how does it imply anything about the sco/ibm lawsuit? Weren't the 2.5 development line split and the major scheduler changes introduced before the lawsuit? Even if not, what would he consider a continuation of the development up to 2.4? In short, can somebody explain to me what this guy is saying?
Re:L-A-M-E (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm surprised that Slashdot gave this latest garbage a front page headline. Hopefully if enough people ignore LinuxInsider it'll go away...
Re:Off the top of my head, here you go (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Interesting)
Bruce
Re:Off the top of my head, here you go (Score:1, Interesting)
You are correct on a bunch of this. Apparently, they did internal benchmarking and found that 2.6 was killing them esp. con networking.
In fact, Sun has recently had to re-write major portions of Solaris BEFORE releasing 10.0 to the public. My understanding is that the top ppl spent a lot of time looking at Linux and then "borrowed" ideas.
I find it funny, that when they take ideas, it is borrowing, but when Linux takes ideas, it is theft. Oh, well one groups terrorists is another's freedom fighter.
Linux Concurrency (Score:1, Interesting)
WARNING: BACKGROUND AHEAD (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Interesting)
Companies like Sun have PR firms that will synthesize buzz if they can't get any legitimate buzz. I'd suspect something like that is afoot, or it's just an ill-informed person biting off more than he can chew.
Bruce