|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] Microsoft's statement about Solaris-based Hotmail (old)
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, Adam Turoff wrote:
> 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.
Good comparison; however, I do think that this comparison might be
weighted in Linux' favor (I will NOT, however, call it "unfair"). The
reason is that, IIRC, Perl on NT uses the POSIX subsystem, which runs
on top of the NT kernel, whereas, POSIX is actually a part of the Linux
kernel. Doesn't explain all of it, but it explains some.
I'd say that it's due to the, necessary, Swiss-army knife design of the NT
kernel. In NT, because you can't recompile the kernel, you need to have
it all set for anything its supposed to do (and God help you if you need
to add on functionality -- AGP under NT *shiver*). Also, there's alot
more (not always useful) things going on in the background on your average
NT server compared to your average Linux server.
> 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.
Yup, that job. What about an enterprise level databases? Okay, granted
we can jump over to a full-blown Unix. But, can we run it on an Intel
box? Is it easy to setup and easy to administer?
I'm not trying to trivialize your points (they're perfectly good). It's a
matter of tradeoffs. But tell me, are the people here really interested
in hearing why I find setting up and maintaining an MS box easier than a
Linux box?
> 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.
Your example doesn't support "10x what it absolutely needs to be". Let's
try to avoid hyperbole. Yes, MS's networking model (multiple servers) can
be a bitch. They acknowledge that, and this is what AD is supposed to
help solve.
> 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.
> Fine, but these are problems that address NT's quirks, not areas where
> NT excels above the competition.
Let me repeat: you asked about Win2k. Win2k was just RELEASED yesterday.
The only pre-release production cases I've heard of has been
desktop/laptop uses of Professional edition. The discussion has been
primarily server-related, so I didn't address it.
> I don't want a better NT than the last release, I want a better OS.
Fine, from everything that I've seen, so far, yes, it is a better OS.
It's not just another version of NT, like Win98 was of Win95, like you
make it out to be.
I beg your forgiveness for not being able to provide ancedotes about an OS
that was release yesterday being used in real world situtations. I can
tell you this, however. I've worked with NT4 in a variety of classroom
situations, and have seen some very heinous things done to it in the name
of training. While I haven't seen Win2k in as wide a variety of
situations, I have seen enough to make it look promising. And THAT is my
professional opinion. Is it perfect? Hell no. Is it better than Linux?
It depends. Linux has a better cost factor. Can't say anything about
stability, yet. Win2k is a far cry easier to install and configure.
While I would lump in "maintain" with "install and configure", this too is
also something that takes time to determine.
> 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.
Duh. It's based on LDAP. It's also alot like NDS. Instead of just
saying it's a marketing ploy, learn a little bit about it.
> I *really* want to see how they get EmbeddedNT off the ground. :-)
I've heard that WinCE is disturbingly slim. I've heard the remark "why
isn't NT like this??"
> (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?)
I hear the Sega DreamCast is selling well. You're right about the Palms,
though.
Michael W. Ryan, MCP, MCT | OTAKON 2000
mryan@netaxs.com | Convention of Otaku Generation
http://www.netaxs.com/~mryan/ | http://www.otakon.com/
PGP fingerprint: 7B E5 75 7F 24 EE 19 35 A5 DF C3 45 27 B5 DB DF
PGP public key available by fingering mryan@unix.netaxs.com (use -l opt)
______________________________________________________________________
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
|
|