lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRE: [OT] Comments to WinNT Mag !!
This whole thread has a distinct ring to it, since NT can't boast speed or
reliability the numbers have moved to "scaling". They show nice graphs
that show speed improvement when you stick more processors into a system,
but no actual speed tests. NT's increased latency should make it easier
for speed to improve with multiple processors. So technically he is right
it scales more.

It reminds me of an MS supporter who once told me the only reason Linux
was the only OS running at a descent speed on my system was because my
system was too slow.

I've seen the odd real point in these types of reports from the
NT camp. I don't think we need to wait for them to remove the plank from
their eye before we remove our slivers. ;)

Gerhard

On Sat, 1 May 1999, Richard B. Johnson wrote:

> On Sat, 1 May 1999, BROWN Nick wrote:
>
> > >However, I think there should be a _public_ place where this
> > clarification is available.
> >
> > I have corresponded briefly with Mark Russinovich on NT-related issues in
> > the past, and he has always seemed a very fair-minded individual. He
> > certainly isn't in Microsoft's pocket, for example. I would hope that if
> > asked, he would contribute some follow-up to this forum. Of course, he
> > makes his living from NT - both its strengths and its shortcomings.
> >
> > Nick Brown, Strasbourg, France (Nick(dot)Brown(at)coe(dot)int)
> >
>
> Arguing WIN/Linux will always be counterproductive. If you have
> a closed OS, you can always state that it has some "advantage" that
> an open OS doesn't have. You can even do this truthfully. I note
> that Mark's comments were mostly about "scalability". This is
> a buzz-word that doesn't mean anything at all. If Ford said that
> their cars were more scalable than GM, it would probably mean that
> it was easier to put in a larger engine. Something that few, if
> anyone, would ever do. Scalability is largely irrelevant.
>
> What one needs in an OS is reliability, usability, and compatibility
> with some standards that provide a portable platform. Performance
> must be considered, but it is secondary in a Commercial Environment.
> Scalability is not a commercial requirement, even when defined to
> actually mean somehting. It is too essoteric.
>
> Machines used commercially will run until whatever they are doing
> completes. For instance, most commercial database programs are very
> inefficient by design. They are, however robust. They were ported
> to WIN-NT because it was available, not because it was good or even
> acceptable.
>
> Nothing Microsoft has done in its entire history is robust. Even
> Microsoft's tools such as Compilers are riddled with bugs. Microsoft
> has never designed anything for reliability. Instead, they simply
> exist. They continue to exist because they make cheap software,
> including cheap Operating Systems. Companies that made reliable
> tools such as compilers are unable to compete with Microsoft because
> they provide supposably equivalent tools at much lower prices.
>
> Linux can win against WIN-NT if we push reliability. Microsoft
> doesn't have the development environment necessary to produce
> reliable software. Reliability testing is simply left to the customers.
> And the customers have to pay for the bug-fixes if they ever get
> fixed. Within a few hours of a development release of Linux, there
> are, roughly, 10,000 testers in the field. Within a few days, the
> number exceeds 100,000. Microsoft can never do that.
>
> What Microsoft has been able to do is produce a "fuzzy" Microsoft
> Environment by charging customers for "technical training", producing
> a clique of so-called "experts". They then advertise that, if you
> don't have Microsoft-trained persons on your staff, you are risking
> everything. This will continue. I suggest that the major Linux
> Distributors and VARS do the same thing. This will add a "presence"
> that does not yet exist. It will allow VARS to make a bit more money
> and give customers the warm fuzzy feeling they are used to getting
> from Microsoft. These customers might learn a bit more than they
> would from Microsoft because the training would involve more than
> learning to recover from continual Windows crashes.
>
> Cheers,
> Dick Johnson
> ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
> Penguin : Linux version 2.2.6 on an i686 machine (400.59 BogoMips).
> Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

--
gmack@imag.net

As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site