Paul -

I got your private email, and since it would be unethical to post private
correspondence on a public list, I will save you the embarrassment, though I
think it would be worth a few good laughs!

Stating that you you only read the first few lines and then claim that I
hadn't debunked anything you said, is kind of silly, don't you think?  The
fact that you picked my comment about a Dell box being able to bring up many
virtual Linux systems which was in the middle of my post, tells me that you
actually read a substantial part of my post, if not all of it.  Getting off
the topic of Linux's efficiency here, but does speak to your credibility.

Speaking of credibility, you are a Linux/Unix expert because you made some
sort of contribution to BSD in 1982?  LOL!  That was when BSD was first
getting networking implemented and the whole OS had several major
overhauls.  Telling me that you will send me a 9-track tape so I can "fgrep"
your name?  Sheesh, just burn a CD and save yourself postage and me having
to find a 9-track to use.  Or, better yet, just zip (tar/gzip) the whole
thing up and post it online so everyone can be see what your contributions
were.  No wonder I couldn't find you doing an online BSD search (
http://lists.hu.freebsd.org/bsd/cgi/search.cgi), we are talking about code
written when MSDOS 1.0 was first released!

All those references you gave to Linux running on large mainframes as
examples of how inefficient Linux is?!  I think anyone with a little common
sense would realize that most people with the money to run a large IBM
mainframe are not fools, and picked the most EFFICIENT operating system to
run their application!  Your example (http://www.hoplon.com/content/view/1)
is classic, and though a bit short on details, certainly indicates that
people that want to maximize their use of expensive mainframe hardware use
Linux to run their applications on!  LOL!

Paul, if nothing else you are amusing!  Well, at least I think so.

Everyone else, please give Paul a hand here!  I know the OS expertise is
getting thinner every year here, but someone out there should be able to
point out a mistake or two of mine, or at least help Paul out with his
contention that the Linux kernel is HORRIBLY inefficient.  There must be at
least some little used corner of the kernel that is noticibly inefficient.
Though not technically part of the kernel, I know there are some inefficient
drivers that could use some attention, though not sure they could qualify as
HORRIBLY inefficient, but you don't know until you analyze the code.

Peter

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *