9 ms·

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

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 really unreliable but Linux is worse. 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.

gits1225 14y ago
"My experience and some of my friends' experience is that Linux is quite unreliable." I don't think any software is "reliable". Well tested/battle hardened? Yes. Reliable? No.
- drats 14y ago
  This is the kind of ridiculous statement that comes from Slashdot. Yes for a Mars rover or medical device we might want some insane level of reliability. But reliable enough for Google, IBM and Amazon and thousands of other companies is enough to take the title "reliable operating system", the rest is just playing semantics.
ibotty 14y ago
have you used linux in '99?? i did. it was pleasurable but in a certain academic or toy sense (if i had to be productive back then i might even have been prodcutive but not everything worked and it was surely missing many reliabilities). it did go a long way and it is now at a point what thompson would not attribute to it back then. he would surely conclude differently now.
batista 14y ago
>My experience and some of my friends' experience is that Linux is quite unreliable. Microsoft is really unreliable but Linux is worse. 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. Huh? Linux _IS_ used in servers, embedded devices, gateways, firewalls, cellphones, what have you... What exactly is "unreliable" about it, except a very vague accusation?
- SG- 14y ago
  in 1999 Linux wasn't really used for big production, but sometime around then the .com/linux bubble happened with a lot of companies selling/using linux as their main product (VALinux/Akamai/Redhat/many others).
- eckyptang 14y ago
  I was still using Sun/Solaris machines back in '99 when this was written, which were considerably more reliable from an every day use perspective. Most of the negative comments and opinion came from people who'd worked with industrial grade kit and moved to cheap PCs with Linux on. To be honest, if you go back that far, Windows NT 4 on Compaq Professional Workstations was probably the most reliable thing out there believe it or not so I'm not sure where the hell these comments came from.

gits1225 14y ago

"My experience and some of my friends' experience is that Linux is quite unreliable." I don't think any software is "reliable". Well tested/battle hardened? Yes. Reliable? No.

drats 14y ago
This is the kind of ridiculous statement that comes from Slashdot. Yes for a Mars rover or medical device we might want some insane level of reliability. But reliable enough for Google, IBM and Amazon and thousands of other companies is enough to take the title "reliable operating system", the rest is just playing semantics.

ibotty 14y ago

have you used linux in '99?? i did. it was pleasurable but in a certain academic or toy sense (if i had to be productive back then i might even have been prodcutive but not everything worked and it was surely missing many reliabilities). it did go a long way and it is now at a point what thompson would not attribute to it back then. he would surely conclude differently now.

batista 14y ago

>My experience and some of my friends' experience is that Linux is quite unreliable. Microsoft is really unreliable but Linux is worse. 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. Huh? Linux _IS_ used in servers, embedded devices, gateways, firewalls, cellphones, what have you... What exactly is "unreliable" about it, except a very vague accusation?

SG- 14y ago
in 1999 Linux wasn't really used for big production, but sometime around then the .com/linux bubble happened with a lot of companies selling/using linux as their main product (VALinux/Akamai/Redhat/many others).
eckyptang 14y ago
I was still using Sun/Solaris machines back in '99 when this was written, which were considerably more reliable from an every day use perspective. Most of the negative comments and opinion came from people who'd worked with industrial grade kit and moved to cheap PCs with Linux on. To be honest, if you go back that far, Windows NT 4 on Compaq Professional Workstations was probably the most reliable thing out there believe it or not so I'm not sure where the hell these comments came from.