Re: [PLUG] Microsoft's statement about Solaris-based Hotmail (old)

[Adam Turoff <ziggy@panix.com>]

Mike Ryan wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > So, MS is trying to lull the networking public into a false sense of
> > accomplishment and security by defining "good enough" as something
> > that is as insecure or unstable as NT.  Being 20% better than NT isn't
> > any better, since it's still falling short.
> 
> Okay, hang on a sec.  Let's make this concrete (it's easier to discuss).
> How is it falling short?  It's a semi-rhetorical question (I'm not sure
> if the answer is germaine to here), but if we just say "Windows isn't good
> enough" without being prepared to state how, we run the risk of using the
> same FUD as Microsoft.

Good catch.  That was unintentional fud-bait on my part.

Here's a concrete example.  I used to have a 200MHz PPro running 
NT4 Server with 64MB on my desk next to a old frankenbox running I forget
which verion of Linux with 32MB, slower disk, slower motherboard and 
a Pentium overdrive CPU in a 486 socket.  Running the same perl program
on the same sets of files on both machines, the Linux box always started
later and finished sooner -- sometimes finishing in half the time.

That's just plain inefficient use of resources.  Enough problems like that
and all of a sudden you're recommending 1GB of RAM and 4-way Xeon CPUs when 
a slower Celeron with 128MB of RAM can get the job done more quickly.

Such expenditures may be acceptable here and there, but with NT, my
experience has been that such inefficiencies multiply, so that the 
IS budget is 10x what it absolutely needs to be -- sometimes when the
organization can least afford to spend that money.  Instead of buying
one $15k Solaris box that doesn't need pre-emptive rebooting, an 
organization starts with two $3K NT boxes (which soon become $7K boxes
when the upgrades come) and then expand to 5 or 7 boxes, and all of 
the problems that come about with managing a nest of servers instead
of just one or two.

> > For many uses, Windows/NT/etc. does not provide the bare minimum
> > requirements; other times it does.  But once the argument has
> > successfully shifted, those advocates of the better way (e.g.
> > linuxfolk) are forced to be defensive and address the 'overly perfect'
> > or 'overly pure' critiques, when perfection and purity aren't the issue.
> 
> Okay, assuming we're actually discussing something that could be turned
> into an "advantages of Linux over Windows" argument, we don't want to
> declare Linux to be the "better way" in such general terms.

Then let me be more specific -- gross inefficiency has a very real
dollar cost.  I'm not factoring in the $25 Linux CD vs. the $400/box
NT licensing fee.  We're not talking about hideously expensive RISC
boxes vs. under-engineered x86 boxes; we can talk about reasonable
comparisons against a pair of x86 boxes.

> > Mike has pointed out deficiencies in Active Directory for small businesses.
> > I'm sure there are other things that Win2k won't do, even if it makes
> > a better effort than NT.  
> 
> I didn't say "won't".  It's not even a matter of "too difficult".  It's a
> matter of requiring more up-front planning/design than a small business
> may want to devote.

Noted.

> > All of that aside, what is Win2k doing *well*?  Why is Linux not an
> > option for these uses?
> 
> Well, given that the only production deployments that anyone has really
> done so far are on laptops (it takes to a laptop like a duck to water),
> this isn't really a fair question.
> 
> Instead, I'll address the stanard WinNT gripes:

Fine, but these are problems that address NT's quirks, not areas where
NT excels above the competition.  

I don't want a better NT than the last release, I want a better OS.

> 1) 100,000 reboots
> 
> 2) Blue Screen of Death
> 
> 3) Driver Nightmare
> 
> 4) DLL Hell

Exactly.  Active Directory may be a step forward, but I'm unconvinced. 
It seems like they've packaged LDAP and sent a bazillion marketroids
upon the world to make it sound like it's a greater accomplishment
than sending a man to the moon.  

> 5) Cost
> 
> No real improvement here.
> 
> 6) System Requirements
> 
> Yeah, P-166/64MB is a bit hefty for a minimum.

I *really* want to see how they get EmbeddedNT off the ground.  :-)

(Yeah, the Wince devices had similar configurations, but how many 
of THOSE are selling?  How many Palm Pilots are selling?  How many
licensees are selling Palm devices?)

Z.


______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group       -       http://plug.nothinbut.net
Announcements - http://lists.nothinbut.net/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion   -   http://lists.nothinbut.net/mail/listinfo/plug