[plug] Linux isn't there yet

[Matt Kemner]

On Fri, 7 May 1999, Rob Hall wrote:

> What do the gurus reckon about this article?  I don't have that deep a
> technical knowledge to reject their claims.

Mr. Russinovich (the author) has been contacted several times by
well-known Kernel hackers such as Alan Cox and Ingo Molnar.  He avoids
their questions and keeps trying to stress the same thing over and over
again. 

But as was pointed out by someone else (I can't find the URL atm sorry)
Sure, Linux has a fair way to go before it will be "perfect" for
"Enterprise" scale systems, but then so does NT.
If Mr. Russinovich really believes Linux is not quite ready for that, then
NT isn't either.

Quote from one of Alan's posts on the subject:

"I've had several discussions with him. He avoids questions about points
that don't fit his pet theory of OS design, he criticises anything that
doesn't follow his theory and often doesnt seem to understand it - eg he
didnt understand the kernel lock in 2.0.x SMP.
I'm not sure he's pro NT as pro his pet theory and NT happens to match."

An interesting response from Ingo is at

http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9905.0/0000.html

Someone (Shane R. Stixrud) forwarded Ingo's response to the NT Mag author
(Mark Russinovich) and Mr. Russinovich replied to it, which Shane
forwarded back to the list at:

http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9905.0/0103.html

Note how Mr Russinovich dances around Ingo's questions

Ingo replied at

http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9905.0/0109.html

The rest of the messages in the thread are worthwhile reading too.

http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9905.0/index.html
for a threaded index.

 - Matt