McEldowney, Michael MMcEldowney at deltaregional.com
Fri Apr 20 17:13:31 GMT 2001

First, I can't help you with Jeremy's email address.

Second, I reread the article, and I'm still not impressed with NT.
Don't listen to the anti-Linux hype.  A lot of the information in the
article is opinion, not fact, and what facts they do present are no
longer true, such as the memory and file size limits.  Whomever wrote
the article is very clever in masking NT's pitfalls.  For instance, they
claim that "Administrators are required to re-link and reload kernel to
add features to OS" for Linux.  True.  Same for NT, they just do the
relinking and reloading for you, and call it a Service Pack.  Another
point they try to make is "Historically, in order to perform optimally,
applications need to be recompiled when the OS is upgraded."  Hmmm, ever
see the "Minimum System Requirements" section on the side of a
shrink-wrap package for something that runs on an MS OS?  Notice the
minimum OS seems to be Win98 anymore?  Whatever happened to version
3.11, or win95?  Sounds like you'll have to upgrade.  Hmm.  Sounds
pretty similar to me.  I could pick apart more of it, but I think you
get the gist.

My bottom line is uptime.  The article has no mention of uptime
guarantees from Microsoft, just from OEMs.  That's interesting.

Just to note my experiences:

	1 high-end compaq NT server that _MUST_ be rebooted at least

	4 high-end Dell servers that need frequent restarts.

	2 Linux servers, low-end, that out perform the high-end boxes:
		one used for Samba (which has replaced 3 NT servers so
far, and more to come ;)
            the other for system interfaces (medical stuff)
		***Neither have failed or needed rebooted in over 2

That's why I use Linux.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Bradford [mailto:egb at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 8:20 AM
> To: samba-ntdom at samba.org
> Subject: Mindcraft
> 2 questions.
> 1. Do you have Jeremy Allison's email address?
> 2. A while back there was a big press storm over Windows NT 
> beating Linux
>    using the ziff-davis NetBench and WebBench benchmarks. The 
> Linux folks
>    cried foul and the tests were re-run but the results still 
> came out in
> favor of
>    Windows.
>    The latest Microsoft word I have found is:
>      http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/msnw/nt4vLinux.asp
>    Is this where things are today with respect to SAMBA versus Windows
> NT/2000 File services?
> Ed
> Your Windows 2000 Arborist and Linux Performance Comparisonist
> T/L 589-4410; Outside: 1-919-993-4410
> egb at us.ibm.com

More information about the samba-ntdom mailing list