[NTLUG:Discuss] [Fwd: [WTLUG:discuss] Microsoft FUD]

[Alton Pouncey]

Hahahaha.  I can't believe MS put this nugget on their website:

"There are no OEMs that provide uptime guarantees for Linux, unlike Windows NT where Compaq, Data General,
Hewlett-Packard, IBM, and Unisys provide 99.9 percent system-level uptime guarantees for Windows NT-based
servers."

The marketing boys haven't done their math.  99.9% uptime equates to 4 minutes of downtime *per day*.  Who
wants a system that is guaranteed to crash once a day?

Alton Pouncey

"Jay F. Cox" wrote:

> oops, as you can see I havent read slashdot today.
> http://slashdot.org/articles/99/10/05/1714254.shtml
>
> Here is the original link if my forward didnt work for you.
> http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/msnw/LinuxMyths.asp
>
> And Mandrake's remarks.are apparently at http://mandrake.net
> Here they are for all to see.
> ------
> 1.Reality: Linux Makes no Sense at the Desktop.
>       We'll start with this point, since I find it the most amusing one,
> personally. I don't think
>       they've been paying attention to the world, do you? look at all
> the various works that are
>       being done by various parties, be it the GNOME camp, the KDE camp,
> enlightenment,
>       windowmaker, etc. Just because it doesn't act like windows, and it
> doesn't look like
>       windows, that doesn't mean it's not usable.
>       Maybe they should spend some time investigating how difficult it
> is for people to use
>       windows before they start harshing on other systems.
>     2.Linux does not provide support for the broad range of hardware in
> use today
>       Well, maybe we don't support all the hardware out there, but
> because of companies like
>       microsoft it becomes increasingly harder to support some hardware
> because you make
>       people feel they have to hide how everything works. The REALITY of
> the situation is that
>       linux really DOES support the bulk of hardware out there -
> exception maybe being modems,
>       since winmodem is about the poorest idea that anyone has come up
> with.
>     3.Application support is limited
>       Okay, this is just total crap. Sure, the same applicatiosn aren't
> found on linux as are found
>       under windwos, but the reverse is also true. I can't use a lot of
> the familiar X applications
>       under windows, either. So what's your point? You talk about ISV's
> supplying software for
>       windows (93%) but then you forget about all the rest of us who
> don't write software that you
>       have to pay money for. Maybe you should investigate this further,
> too
>     4.cumbersome nature of existing GUIs
>       Right, you must be talking about windows here. makes sense, it's
> difficult to maintain
>       windows boxes, so the inverse must be true, eh? ick.
>     5.Linux security model is weak
>       because it's based on the unix security model? that's your
> argument?
>     6.a user who needs any administrative capability must be made a full
> administrator
>       that's crap and you know it! haven't you ever heard of SUDO? oh, I
> forgot, you windows
>       people don't really understand permissions delegation if it's not
> in a point-and-click gui.
>     7.windows nt security is easy to set up and administer with tools
> such as the security
>       configuration editor
>       right - this tool is going to keep your box actually safe from
> stuff. GIVE ME A BREAK! you
>       can't configure all the services that users add onto their system
> from it, keeping THEM from
>       having buffer overflow problems, etc. PLEASE do some research
> people!
>     8.total cost of ownership
>       You never ONCE explain where all these bizarre linux costs came
> from. oh, wait, you made
>       them up. you didn't bother taking into account all the free help
> out there for support, including
>       web sites, community, newsgroups, etc. I hate it when people make
> up numbers like that to
>       make themselves look good.
>     9.Linux needs real world proof rather than anecdotal stories
>       there are LOADS of linux realworld success stories, not just
> anecdotes. Feel free to contact
>       any of the customers of VA (and now companies like dell, penguin
> computing, etc) and talk to
>       them for yourselves. don't take MY word for it.
>    10.Windows NT 4.0 outperforms linux on common customer workloads
>       if you don't bother configuring your linux system you're asking
> for just as much trouble as if
>       you don't bother configuring your windows NT workstation for
> testing and benchmarks. I
>       would show you benchmarks to prove things the other way, but
> microsoft has lots of clauses
>       where they don't allow you to publish benchmarks against them,
> unlike free software. we're
>       not perfect, and we'll admit to it, but we don't try to hide
> behind a wall of beaurocracy until
>       we have some tailored benchmarks biased against our competitors
> before we let some be
>       published.
>    11.largest file size is 2gb
>       oh come on - that's a system dependant limit - on a 64 bit system
> you don't have this
>       problem (and iirc ufs doesn't display this problem als, even if
> only read-only ) NOTE: I
>       clarify this due to some emails I received.
>    12.swap size limited to 128 mb
>       that's not true with the systems you even tested with (2.1 removed
> this limitation iirc) even
>       before that you could have multiple swap partitions
>
> >I'm going to stop here, because I just don't have time to go muhc further than this. I hope that
> >microsoft does some more research before they put up more pages like this one. If anyone from
> >microsoft is reading this, and wants to explicitly give me the rights to put up benchmarks of their OS,
> >fileserving, webserving, SQL server, etc... I'll beat you at your own game. If not, then you're just
> >lying chicken behind the same wall of crap you always do.
>
> >Oh, and to those people owndering why my site is so slow right now, unfortunately I do not a)
> >control the bandwidth to my site nor b) can I increase the number of processes that my web site is
> >allowed to run at once. if I controlled the machine I would have more luck tuning my server (my
> >apologies, I don't get hit from slashdot and linux.com every day). I will likely move my server to my
> >current employer thanks to the overwhelming crushing that this article has caused my server to
> >take. (nice hideous runon sentance - but I'm no english major, either)
> ------
>
> Jay Cox
> --
> Riches cover a multitude of woes.
>                 -- Menander
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss