On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Robert G. Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Timothy MacDonald wrote:
>
> > The local NT-head ( and decision maker ) here in the office is basing his
> > opinion of linux off a sidebar in Windows NT magazine. I think that his
> > information is biased and misleading, if not wrong, but I really don't know
> > enough about the Linux kernel to argue against it. I have included parts of
> > the article below. If someone more knowledgable than I could take a look and
> > tell me whether it is correct or not I really would appreciate it!
>
> This article sounds like Microsoft's standard FUD tactics, now applied
> to linux. It is really something of a joke, and we should all maintain
> our sense of humour as we read it instead of getting incensed. After
> all, until a few years ago, Microsoft couldn't even run its own website
> on an NT system. Linux, on the other hand, is the darling of the
> ISP/website provider community because it scales marvelously well under
> rather large loads and is for the most part rock solid stable, as in 100
> day uptimes under full load are a rather routine occurence. NT, on the
> other hand...
goes down more often than Monica Lewinsky.
Sorry Alan, but you make a good straight-man. I simply couldn't
resist, having several dozen NT boxes here. Our average Linux box
is up 100 times longer than our average NT box, 'on average'. :)
-
Linux SMP list: FIRST see FAQ at http://www.irisa.fr/prive/mentre/smp-faq/
To Unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe linux-smp" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
