Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!metro!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!svc.portal.com!news1.best.com!nntp1.best.com!flash.noc.best.net!not-for-mail
From: dillon@best.com (Matthew Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux vs. FreeBSD ...
Date: 9 May 1996 12:57:10 -0700
Organization: Best Internet Communications, Inc. (info@best.com)
Lines: 26
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4mtimm$1ji@flash.noc.best.net>
References: <3188C1E2.45AE@onramp.net> <dZDkxoHpv+EH089yn@skypoint.com> <4mpmt8$na9@agate.berkeley.edu> <3191679E.35B7F086@lambert.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: flash.noc.best.net
:In article <3191679E.35B7F086@lambert.org>,
:Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> wrote:
:>Nick Kralevich wrote:
:>] Is it fair to say FreeBSD doesn't work reliably on 3 out of 5
:>] EIDE cards, due to the bugs (RZ1000 and CMD640) you described,
:>] in addition to FreeBSD EIDE driver problems?
:>
:>No.
:>
:>It is fair to say that some IDE CDROM drives won't work because
:>they suck, and they suck because the entire idea of IDE CDROM
Actually, more to the point: It's an amazing commentary on the lack
of capability of DOS, Windows (3.1, 95, NT) ... that these operating
systems barely exercise the capabilities of the hardware they run
on top of to not hit many of the hardware bugs that Linux, *BSD, and
even OS2 kernels hit.
You'd think that motherboard and card manufacturers would test,
test, test. 'Gee, it works under Windows 95 running a couple of
16 bit apps, it *must* be perfect!'. Pah!
(Duck!)
-Matt