On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Scott wrote:
> On 6/29/98, at 3:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> Stating that NT has a great deal of downtime is a pretty broad
> statement.
> >> I think it would be better to put that NT has a greater potential for
> >> downtime but it can be just as stable as Unix
On 6/29/98, at 3:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Stating that NT has a great deal of downtime is a pretty broad
statement.
>> I think it would be better to put that NT has a greater potential for
>> downtime but it can be just as stable as Unix. Linux/Unix do to its
>> maturaty has a greater
> > I've done countless NT installs (workstation and server) and about 15 RH
> > installs (on the same two boxes do to my inexperience with Linux) and can
> > say that Linux is not up to NT for ease of installation. Redhat is making
> > great inroads but the lack up pnp support and other harware
> Stating that NT has a great deal of downtime is a pretty broad statement.
> I think it would be better to put that NT has a greater potential for
> downtime but it can be just as stable as Unix. Linux/Unix do to its
> maturaty has a greater potential for uptime but it can be unstable. I have
>
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 6/26/98, at 2:55 AM, William T Wilson wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Tony Wells wrote:
>
>> For the client workstation ease of use and penetration of
>> application software is the driver. Win9x and NT are the clear
>
>Right. We all agree that there
-Original Message-
From: Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, June 26, 1998 3:18 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Should we be pushing Linux over Windows 95?
>
>*** BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE ***
>
>On 6/26/98,
*** BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE ***
On 6/26/98, at 10:41 AM, Tony Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>William (Bill?) T Wilson wrote:
>
>Considerable time and training is also required to set up a
>>Windows NT server for a corporate site that works at all; I don't
WRONG. I have NO
William (Bill?) T Wilson wrote:
Considerable time and training is also required to set up a
>Windows NT server for a corporate site that works at all; I don't
think
>it's possible to make a stable NT server, and the training
required for
>making one secure and efficient is at least as much as the
>
>BTW, "will result" is a small misstatement. These have always been
>business' needs, and that's why Microsoft uses 14 AS/400s to drive their
>business instead of a boatload of NT servers.
>
An old joke in IBM circles goes: "He makes his money with NT, but counts
it on AS/400's"
--
-Original Message-
From: Tony Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, June 25, 1998 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: Should we be pushing Linux over Windows 95?
>business needs for resilience will result in a demand for simple,
>self i
birna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Tony Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, June 26, 1998 3:54 AM
Subject: Re: Should we be pushing Linux over Windows 95?
>On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Tony Wells wrote:
>
>> For the client workstati
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Tony Wells wrote:
> For the client workstation ease of use and penetration of
> application software is the driver. Win9x and NT are the clear
Right. We all agree that there is less application software for Linux
than for Windows, there is no doubt about that, and that the
I am going to start from ground zero a little bit 0.
First: Linux make one heck of a back end server!
a> I does not crash. I should send BILL a check and a thank you
letter for as much as the NT boxes go down, do to software problems.
These are servers have only MS software installed.
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Tony Wells wrote:
> For the client workstation ease of use and penetration of
> application software is the driver. Win9x and NT are the clear
> winners here. Those client OSs will stay with us until another
> supplier provides a viable alternative. I'm not holding my breath.
On the server side, under ideal conditions, Linux could be a
viable alternative to other brands of server OSs for fileservers
and stuff. However I further argue below that Linux and Unix are
not the OSs of the future.
For the client workstation ease of use and penetration of
application software
-Original Message-
From: Michael Jinks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: Should we be pushing Linux over Windows 95?
>What if (and I won't be surprised if RH does this when the gnome
-Original Message-
From: Anthony E. Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: Should we be pushing Linux over Windows 95?
>In the first place, I don't think Linux vs Win95 is as appropr
-Original Message-
From: Rich Kulawiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: Should we be pushing Linux over Windows 95?
>Yes to the first, but no to the second. Granmda should have a Mac, s
Wonderful Idea!
So when do we start!
--
robert
Michael Jinks wrote:
>
> 20:35 6/24/98 -0400, Dale Leonard wrote:
> > >If RH makes X windows a little easier to configure, then MS will have
> > >NOTHING on Linux, as most people (esp. newbies) are uncomfortable with
> > >the command line interfac
20:35 6/24/98 -0400, Dale Leonard wrote:
> >If RH makes X windows a little easier to configure, then MS will have
> >NOTHING on Linux, as most people (esp. newbies) are uncomfortable with
> >the command line interface.
Here's a thought: There are already two "specialized" versions of Linux
coming
At 20:35 6/24/98 -0400, Dale Leonard wrote:
>If RH makes X windows a little easier to configure, then MS will have
>NOTHING on Linux, as most people (esp. newbies) are uncomfortable with
>the command line interface.
In the first place, I don't think Linux vs Win95 is as appropriate as Linux
vs
>> Further resolved: Linux isn't an appropriate OS for your grandma. Windows
>> 95 is.
>Yes to the first, but no to the second. Granmda should have a Mac, so that
>she can install and configure her own software a high degree of probability
>that she won't break the last piece of software she in
On Wed, Jun 24, 1998 at 04:20:23PM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> Resolved: We should be pushing Linux as an alternative to Windows NT Server,
> Novell Netware, and commercial Unixes that target x86 and comparable
> "desktop" hardware, but we should not be pushing it in anything like it's
> present
> Further resolved: Linux isn't an appropriate OS for your grandma. Windows
> 95 is.
Why not? My mother, a grandma, was able to install and use RH 5.0
herself. She did nothing but complain about Windows 95 before so I sent
her RH 5.0.
>
> And finally resolved: If you try to convince grandma
It's a good question. I'll enumerate my views as to why not more completely
as the thread continues, but in order to focus it I wanted to start this new
thread around this point:
Resolved: We should be pushing Linux as an alternative to Windows NT Server,
Novell Netware, and commercial Unixes t
25 matches
Mail list logo
