Since the quote was from the co-founder of Sun, I'd be more interested in the comparison of Linux to Solaris, not to MS Windows. And this comparison should be compiled lines of code, not the total lines of code shipped in a package. -mk

Once again people who aren't programmers or super system admins are not stupid, dumb or dumber.

Their jobs require knowledge and skills other than what I mentioned above.

It's OUR job to make THEIR jobs easier.

Talking down to the vast majority of users who interests lay elsewhere isn't the most productive way to advocate the benefits of using OS's other than the drivel Microsoft puts out.

Can we at least agree on that?

To stay on the subject of this post the second part of the initial post was "how does this compare to the amount of lines in MS operating systems?" Or something to that effect.

Can't speak to Solaris total code lines but a competitive product, Compaq's Tru64 UNIX, has approx. 18 million lines of code. And that's pure 64-bit code. No 16/32 cores with 64-bit extensions.

p.s. I was the one who invited SuSEs programmer from Italy, Andreas to port their distribution to a 32 processor Alpha system code named "Wildfire" back in March 2000. I love Linux and took some heat from Compaq Houston for that.. Heheheheh.. too bad..

I would actually argue this point. The advertisments for XP definetely state 'may require additional hardware'. Linux, as far as I am aware, can have a decentish X window system on a P100 with 64ish Mb RAM. I would also like to see XP running on half of the systems that Linux has been ported to (68k processors, IBM mainframes...). It really pisses my off, actually. You read a book like 'Choosing your computer, for idiots' (you know the types) and it mentions Linux in maybe 1 paragraph, and it says 'Linux - an alternative OS. Not really ready for anybody, and doesn't support any hardware at all' - excuse me? It supports a damn site more hardware than any one version of Windows does!

Sorry for the ramblings - just come back from the pub.