I'm not sure what is meant by "least effective," but one thing I am sure
of is if its installation is smooth and it runs reliably, has a wide
variety of apps it works for me.
As I don't experiment, at least not yet, it is difficult to make real
comparisons.
Bob
Kaare Rasmussen wrote:
>
> ZDNet has compared Linux and NT as fileserver and webserver on
> identical machines.
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,4537,387506,00.html
>
> I quote:
>
> "You might think that Linux would operate at a disadvantage here, but
> Linux kicks NT's butt. Only at the lightest loads does NT hold any
> advantage over the Linuxes. Once the load moves to 12 clients, all the
> Linux platforms take commanding leads over NT."
>
> "Linux with Apache beats NT 4.0 with IIS, hands down. SuSE, the least
> effective Linux, is 16 percent faster than IIS, and Caldera, the leader,
> is 50 percent faster. "
>
> Hm, "SusE, the least effective Linux"???
>
> -
> To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
> Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
> archiv at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
-
To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
archiv at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
