My Professor Says Linux Sucks and Is Not Real Unix. 2866

Comparing Solaris and Linux is indeed valid.

That is a compareison between $25,000 *hardware* and $500 *hardware*, and has *nothing* to do with either Solaris or Linux.

Linux could be installed on the same $25,000 SparcStation.

Moreover, Linux could be installed on hardware costing ten or more times that, which would run circles around the SparcStation.

Your results are the same.

So is Linux, which will run on the same hardware. Why are you limiting Linux to run only on Intel? For that matter, why are you limiting Solaris to run only on a SparcStation?

So? We wall know that hardware is hardware, and ten times as much money will certainly buy better hardware. What has that got to do with either Linux or Solaris?

(You are aware that there are laptops, with Intel or AMD processors, costing far more than $3400, right?)

He might be better off with an IBM mainframe, running Linux of course?

You compared two operating systems, saying one was better, but the difference was the fact that you put one OS on hardware that cost 50 times as much as the other. Switch the hardware, and you have to switch the OS you claimed was better... because your comparison was simply invalid.

Nothing wrong with comparing hardware and concluding that the OS's are different? That is illogical.

Either compare the hardware and draw conclusions about the hardware; or compare the Operating Systems and draw conclusions about the Operating Systems. But you can't mix what you compare and what your conclusions apply to.

That is essentially no different than what you did, just a matter of which direction one takes the hardware comparison.

That doesn't make sense. If you want a 4096x3072 screen, *don't* buy 1024x768 hardware.

It is always beautiful here. I sleep very well too.

--