Quote:
Originally Posted by greensgod
|
As someone who used Linux as my primary OS for almost 10 years before switching to Mac, my reaction is the opposite. The Linux people are very good at hype, but my experience was that Linux boxes were by far the most unreliable of any I've ever used over many years of using a wide variety of systems. I used many distros, and I never found one that had a respectable level of reliability.
I know the Linux culture inside and out and I know why so many people think Linux is so reliable. However, it's a different kind of "reliability" than Mac users expect. It certainly is NOT reliability in the sense that shipping products work as expected almost all the time and data loss and down time are rare. Part of the reason Linux users regard their systems as reliable is that they tolerate major disruptions and failures as a normal part of a system's operation, and they don't count them as real failures if they can be fixed by spending, say, a few afternoons reading mailing lists and applying patches.
Bottom line is, while greesgod may be surprised if SwissDisk has significant downtime or data loss, I'll be surprised if it DOESN'T. It will NOT be reliable in the expected sense. I'm not trying to start a flame war and I won't respond to any post that reaffirms the reliability of Linux. I just wanted to post an alternate point of view to balance the common (and I believe false) claim that Linux is reliable.