There's definitely something to be said for having a nice clean codebase.
While I'd absolutely love it if my PMs would speak a real routing
protocol (:) or have a command history buffer on par with cisco's,
they do the job they're designed for well.
Frankly, it's easy to say "throw more power at the problem and it'll go
away," but that's *not* how life works. A poorly coded product will run
slower on a hardware platform that's ten times faster in many cases.
Which isn't to say that IOS is poorly coded - but it's definitely
a REALLY big cow to drag around the inside of your routers. :) (But yes,
we do use ciscos exlusively for routers).
Just wish ComOS'd make me coffee in the mornings.
-Dave
> While I like Livingstons for their simplicity, IOS in all it's bloated
> granduer has features and power the Livingston's simply can't begin to
> match. It is rather amusing to hear you continually making remarks about
> "bloated OS's" in the 90's when :
>
> 1) CPU's are cheap.
> 2) Ram is cheap.
>
> If it takes a 68050 to do what your 386/40 does, who really cares, in the
> final analysis? End users for the most part do not care what chips you are
> running, or how streamlined the OS is. They care about price, performance
> and features. Livingston is definitely a good contendor(sp?) in price,
> and is performs well in the tasks that it is suited for. Cisco has, and
> will probably always have you beat in features and scalability.
>