David Fisher wrote:
>
> > > > Gee. With NT, this would have been child's play!
> > >
> > Yea, but with NT, it would'a screwed up after a day or two, and
> > cost you thousands in unnecessery support calls, crashes, downtime, etc,
> > etc...
>
> How, then, do you account for the existence of all those NT
> installations in which the system runs without crashing, functions
> without support calls, and has virtually 100% uptime? Such
> installations do exist, and not only in our plant.
>
I have never seen an NT server go for more then 3 weeks without
crashing, mine or anyone elses. The logest I'd seen a Server up was 5
months, then it turned out it had been left in a back office unconnected
to the network, not running a program, on a UPS, playing a screen saver.
The network got pluged in, and it crashed with the B.S.o.D
Now, if your talking about double or tripple reduntant mirrored
instalations of NT, with auto failure switching - then yeah, near 100%
up time for the "server" however you now run 100-200% more hardware and
NT licenses.
MS calls 25 clients an "enterprise" class network - I call that a
single lab or office. A single Unix box can run a few hundred with the
same ram and processors that NT takes to crawl along with 25.
There is nothing wrong with NT as a peer networking OS, or even as a
File/print server for a small lan - which is what it was writen for in
the fist place. For out of the box quick workgroup style work sharing.
The problem everone has with it is - it's programmers never thought
about large networks or stability - because it wasn't ment for that
market. However the 40 ton gorrila that is MS's marketing department
dosn't know jack about anything they sell ( and frequently lie outright
about any features ) These are the people who desided to take on the
established Unix market since they had everything locked up save high
end servers. The fact that a free pice of software runs a MS protocol
network better on any flavor of unix is the biggest example of why unix
is the only viable large intergrated network OS. Companies that only
deploy NT as servers are going to blow large amounts of the operating
budgets hiring extra "2 week" MS admins to run things ( at 45k+ most
places ) when they could have one admin who actualy knows something
other than a GUI and spend that 45+ in hardware and hardware support
costs.
The fact that Linux is the most rapidly growing Unix, is updated
faster, and adhears to the unix standards better than a lot of the $
unix flavors - is why it is becoming the reference OS for a lot of
software. If it runs on Linux, it's a quick recompile on your sun or
dec. With a few changes to libraries it's even a shortended recompile
on 95/NT. Not to mention if you did that in JAVA, - well then there is
the Non-java-java MS uses in it's compilers, but you can get a better
one for 95/NT anyhow.
> Or, perhaps, you are such a Linux devotee that you cannot see anything
> beyond your own prejudices?
Most of us are not funimentalist Linux HowoTo bashers. I don't think
Bill is the anti-christ. What I - and I assume a lot of us - do dislike
is the attempt to shoehorn a decent peer networking OS into the role of
a enterprise level network environment for which it was not coded for,
nor should have been thought of being used in. The desision to sell it
as such was made not by programmers or admins, but by marketing people
who have no meaningful product knowladge - to company managers and
purchasing agents who are impressed when the MS sales rep can show up
and set up a 5 client 1 server network from a box of cables a hub and 6
systems with NICs. However the then tell them it works just as well for
25, or 2500
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Michael Keller | [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(c)1998 All rights reserved | http://www.radix.net/~jmkeller
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
