Is Linux inherently unreliable?
 

I'm always dismayed at Linux's ability to auto fail over time. I've tried several different distros on two different computers and it always seems to fail on it's own without changing a thing on the system. Even if you can get past the video, wifi and/or ethernet driver problems, programs stop working, internet connections fail and so on. I guess there's a reason they're all these different distros out there, yet Linux on the desktop is less the 1% globally. I just hope I can continue using WinXP Pro until they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Typically this is do to user error and not the fault of Linux. This may or may not be the case here.

You probably can, whether MS continues to support it or not. But, that's what choice is about.

The prospect of having you post further trolls like this one almost depresses me, too.

Linux is not for everyone. Apparently, that includes you. It's OK. Really. The world is really big enough to support everyone using the OS of their choice.

yep, inherently unreliable.

cheers,

Amazing, how people blame a OS just because they can't figure it out.
Boo hoo hoo... :cry:

There's no whining in linux...

What a great opportunity to get on the ole soapbox and sermonize........;)

I have now installed Linux well over 100 times on various machines. With a few spectacular exceptions, the installed system was just fine---until I started tweaking things. The latest round: Mepis 8 working PERFECTLY on HP laptop, including suspend and playing nice with the docking port. Then I decide to "make it better" and install the latest NVidia driver. OOPS....

The point: With Linux, you have an infinite range of choices---including the choice of a proven distro that "just works", versus a thoroughly optimized Slackware 23.7 setup that only you can understand. In most cases, the relative instability is closely tied to the actions of the person setting things up. Once--some time ago--I had PCLOS running without incident--supporting 3 users, including all my photo and panorama stuff. It was rock-solid for one simple reason: I didn't try to make it better.

The only other thing to say might be: Good luck with Windows.....

very unreliable.:D

In the face of such complexity as you decry, it's very very difficult to be reliable. Features and stability are always at odds; it takes time to move from new stuff to robust stuff. Especially when you don't have access to all the specs. Especially when the people doing it are working at home on the weekend and not getting paid. Also, things like your Internet connection failing may have nothing to do with the OS.

Now, here's the mean - no, make that "fair" - part: users who can't do anything but complain, who don't roll up their sleeves and help out are just making things worse. If you're not going to help fix the problems you're having, you better just accept them. People who work for free in their spare time are not interested in listening to you whine unless you're interested in taking some of the load off them. They're essentially moving mountains for you, if you just complain about how their work is basically for naught (isn't that what it means to be inherently unreliable) then you're not going to get any help at all.

I don't know if you've noticed this, but this is an inherent factor in
all "modern" OS'. Anything that can run modern apps has problems
eventually. It's called growth. Yes, we could call a rock a computer and
claim it has the most stable OS ever made. It would never fail at what
it does (sitting there looking like a rock), but where would that get us?

I've used XP, Vista, and multiple GNU/Linux distros and they have all had
the "programs stop working, internet connections fail and so on" on me.
Get used to it, fix it, or go back to Windows 3.0 or Unix.

How odd, I can't share that experience with neither the OP nor
with phohammer. My slackware installs are all stable as can
be (unless I manage to muck them up myself manually).



Cheers,
Tink

Glad to see I'm not the only one having problems with Linux. I've attended so many lectures from "Linux gurus" praising the OS to almost mythical proportions. Just another crock I guess.

There is always the possibility of Hardware related issues, in these instances it really doesn't matter what OS is running.

I have had Windows XP completely fail on what turned out to be a failing hard disk, installed Linux (can't remember the distro now) and it appeared to be working except for a few weird errors.

Replacing the hard disk resolved these completely.

I occasionally get issues connecting to the internet, but the usual culprit is my Broadband modem or my wireless router. Again, this doesn't matter what OS you are using. Rebooting the Modem/router fixes the issue.

In short, not every issue is down to the OS ;)

Ummmmm.....nothing much to share here. Got some squid servers running at couple of sites on really not so new hardware with no issues yet. And around 10 servers running windows 2003 server with half of them already re-installed couple for crashes.

I have no idea what's going on here.....is this somehow related to any of the responses you have gotten in this thread???

Are we supposed to be taking you seriously?

Yeah, my point is that Linux is not this drop dead reliable, free alternative to Windows that is constantly being promoted.