How do you compare Linux and NT

How do you compare Linux and NT

Post by Chri » Sun, 11 Jan 1998 04:00:00



I currently run linux (slackware) and have been pleased with it over the
last
couple of years.

I am now going to network my linux computer to another computer.

I am considering using NT for the operating system for my other
computer.

Does anyone know of any advantages of using NT vs Linux?
I don't know anything about NT.  Moverover I plan on using that
second maching as a server for the internet.

Any comments will greatly be appreciated.

Chris

 
 
 

How do you compare Linux and NT

Post by Pug » Sun, 11 Jan 1998 04:00:00


Quote:> I am considering using NT for the operating system for my other
> computer.
> Does anyone know of any advantages of using NT vs Linux?
> I don't know anything about NT.  Moverover I plan on using that
> second maching as a server for the internet.

Windows NT is the perfect choice, it's slower, buggier, and even costs
more.

And slowness and bugs are GREAT for servers!

The ever faceitious,
     -Pug

 
 
 

How do you compare Linux and NT

Post by Joseph Sloa » Sun, 11 Jan 1998 04:00:00



> I currently run linux (slackware) and have been pleased with it over the
> last couple of years.

> Does anyone know of any advantages of using NT vs Linux?
> I don't know anything about NT.  Moverover I plan on using that
> second maching as a server for the internet.

If you are already Unix literate then I can think of no advantages to using
nt, but there are a number of disadvantages to nt compared to Linux -
stability, performance, cost, flexibility.

Maybe you should try Red Hat Linux instead - the GUI management tools are
quite nice.

I am seeing people migrate from nt to Linux for internet services, usually
for reasons of cost, but then later they come to appreciate the stability
and performance, not to mention the remote system administration
capabilities which are part of Unix. Anything can be managed remotely via a
terminal connection or an X GUI if available. web based front ends such as
webmin are also handy, and make remote Unix admin a matter of mouse clicks
in an html form.

jjs

--




 
 
 

How do you compare Linux and NT

Post by billw » Sun, 11 Jan 1998 04:00:00



t>...

Quote:>I currently run linux (slackware) and have been pleased with it over the
>last
>couple of years.

>I am now going to network my linux computer to another computer.

>I am considering using NT for the operating system for my other
>computer.

>Does anyone know of any advantages of using NT vs Linux?
>I don't know anything about NT.  Moverover I plan on using that
>second maching as a server for the internet.

>Any comments will greatly be appreciated.

>Chris

I'm in the exact opposite situation.  I've been using WinXX and NT for the
past 8 years as a software consultant providing "anything for a buck" but
concentrating on metal cutting  manufacturing data distribution and
production control systems.  I'm trying to get a Red Hat 5.0 system working
on my NT network mainly to practice using Unix and trying to get a feel for
what's so different.

I think, all flames aside, NT is a pretty reliable system with a lot of
corporate customers.  Particularly for the medium scale database
client/server market.  NT SQL Server is inexpensive and performs as well as
Oracle and Sybase on Sun stations for medium ( 50 - 250 seat) applications.
For that reason alone, it's good to get familiar with it if you intend to
make any money in the corporate client server business or want to try to
sell any software that you produce.  Same argument for Win95/98 except that
its use in corporate database applications is less desirable.

If you're only interested in pleasing yourself, particularly with Web
servers, there's a lot of controversy.  To be legal, I think you need NT
Server, and that's pretty expensive.  NT Workstation is relatively cheap,
but I don't think you can use it for a Web server legally.  I may be wrong
on this, but I saw a couple of postings that said so.  Supposedly, Linux
with Apache is cheap and both legal and effective for this purpose.

 
 
 

How do you compare Linux and NT

Post by Joseph Sloa » Sun, 11 Jan 1998 04:00:00



> Here's my opinion, which is correct no matter what the Sloanman says:
> -- Use Linux for networking, because it works and it's cheap, and
> doesn't require lots of hardware resources (unless you run something
> like Enlightenment or CDE).
> -- Use NT Workstation if you want a reliable platform that has excellent
> application support and is easy to use, and if you have the hardware to
> support it.

Let me get this straight, you are saying that Linux is not a "reliable
platform"? I have found it to be one of the most reliable platforms
available, and I bet my job on it time after time - never been burned yet,
by the way.

windows nt? no thanks...

jjs

--




 
 
 

How do you compare Linux and NT

Post by Roadkill On R » Mon, 12 Jan 1998 04:00:00



comp.os.linux.advocacy:

Quote:>I currently run linux (slackware) and have been pleased with it over the
>last
>couple of years.

>I am now going to network my linux computer to another computer.

>I am considering using NT for the operating system for my other
>computer.

Here's my opinion, which is correct no matter what the Sloanman says:
-- Use Linux for networking, because it works and it's cheap, and
doesn't require lots of hardware resources (unless you run something
like Enlightenment or CDE).
-- Use NT Workstation if you want a reliable platform that has excellent
application support and is easy to use, and if you have the hardware to
support it.

--
roadkill

"Start every day off with a smile and get it over with."
 -- W.C. Fields

 
 
 

How do you compare Linux and NT

Post by Roadkill On R » Mon, 12 Jan 1998 04:00:00



comp.os.linux.advocacy:


>> Here's my opinion, which is correct no matter what the Sloanman says:
>> -- Use Linux for networking, because it works and it's cheap, and
>> doesn't require lots of hardware resources (unless you run something
>> like Enlightenment or CDE).
>> -- Use NT Workstation if you want a reliable platform that has excellent
>> application support and is easy to use, and if you have the hardware to
>> support it.

>Let me get this straight, you are saying that Linux is not a "reliable
>platform"? I have found it to be one of the most reliable platforms
>available, and I bet my job on it time after time - never been burned yet,
>by the way.

Joe, Zippo's news service has been a little slow today, so we've already
had a couple of email exchanges on this. (I'd prefer to discuss in a
public forum only, so can the emails from now on, OK.)

In any case, as I wrote to you earlier, all I'm saying is that if you
want to (or have to) use applications like MS Word or FrameMaker or
AutoCAD or MSIE or Forte Agent or Becky! Internet Mail, and want to do
so on a reliable platform, NT is a good choice. I said nothing about
Linux reliability. I thought, in fact, that I praised Linux rather
highly. I wish the Linux projects well, and hope I will be able to spend
more time using Linux in the future. Just don't knock NT, because as a
desktop OS it does fine.

Quote:

>windows nt? no thanks...

No one said you have to use it, but don't bash it unfairly. It serves no
purpose except to make you seem like a bigot.
--
roadkill

"Start every day off with a smile and get it over with."
 -- W.C. Fields

 
 
 

How do you compare Linux and NT

Post by R Raskolniko » Mon, 12 Jan 1998 04:00:00



> Joe, Zippo's news service has been a little slow today, so we've already
> had a couple of email exchanges on this. (I'd prefer to discuss in a
> public forum only, so can the emails from now on, OK.)

I don't think it was out of line for Joseph to both post and email the message
-

Quote:> In any case, as I wrote to you earlier, all I'm saying is that if you
> want to (or have to) use applications like MS Word or FrameMaker or
> AutoCAD or MSIE or Forte Agent or Becky! Internet Mail, and want to do
> so on a reliable platform, NT is a good choice.

nt is great for people who like nt, but it is a little silly to recommend it
on a blanket basis as you did. Most people don't have a need to run a
specific, narrow list of "nt only" software

Quote:> I said nothing about Linux reliability. I thought, in fact, that I praised
> Linux rather highly. I wish the Linux projects well, and hope I will be able
> to spend more time using Linux in the future. Just don't knock NT, because
> as a desktop OS it does fine.

It sounded like you said "if you want a reliable platform, use windows nt",
which is a little misleading, you will surely admit!

Quote:> No one said you have to use it, but don't bash it unfairly. It serves no
> purpose except to make you seem like a bigot.

This is advocacy! Joseph is just countering the overwhelming nt hype!
 
 
 

How do you compare Linux and NT

Post by Roadkill On R » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00




>> Joe, Zippo's news service has been a little slow today, so we've already
>> had a couple of email exchanges on this. (I'd prefer to discuss in a
>> public forum only, so can the emails from now on, OK.)

>I don't think it was out of line for Joseph to both post and email the message

Especially seeing as how you've done the same.

Well, I don't like it for this reason: Joe and I are not going to
convince each other of anything by email. The point of Usenet is that
it is public, and anyone in the world can follow and/or join in the
discussions. Eventually, I get every Usenet post; so the email is
superfluous.

Quote:

>> In any case, as I wrote to you earlier, all I'm saying is that if you
>> want to (or have to) use applications like MS Word or FrameMaker or
>> AutoCAD or MSIE or Forte Agent or Becky! Internet Mail, and want to do
>> so on a reliable platform, NT is a good choice.

>nt is great for people who like nt, but it is a little silly to recommend it
>on a blanket basis as you did. Most people don't have a need to run a
>specific, narrow list of "nt only" software

Well, most people do use at least one or two of the programs I
mentioned, so Linux is at some disadvantage without them. This point
has been argued to death, and I know there are people who can find all
the applications they need on Linux or Macs or Amigas, but that
doesn't change the reality for the Rest Of Us. Besides, I wasn't
recommending anything on a blanket basis. I would rather accuse Joe of
recommending Linux on a blanket basis and panning NT on a wet-blanket
basis. I recommend either or both, depending on your needs.

Quote:>It sounded like you said "if you want a reliable platform, use windows nt",
>which is a little misleading, you will surely admit!

OK, it was misleading for anyone who is paranoid about what people
think of Linux. Again, I didn't mean to imply that Linux is not
reliable. It is, although many of its applications tend to be flakey.

Quote:

>> No one said you have to use it, but don't bash it unfairly. It serves no
>> purpose except to make you seem like a bigot.

>This is advocacy! Joseph is just countering the overwhelming nt hype!

He doesn't need to do that by misrepresenting NT. Advocacy is not an
excuse to twist reality.

--
roadkill

"Start off each day with a smile and get it over with."
 -- W.C. Fields

 
 
 

How do you compare Linux and NT

Post by William Hennin » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00




> > >I am considering using NT for the operating system for my other
> > >computer.

> This isn't necessarily a bad idea, but why do you want to use NT? You
> will probably want to try one of the new versions of Linux, since Red Hat
> and Caldera are providing better support for commercial applications.

NTWS is fine as a workstation. I use it to run Office 95 for mundane tasks.
Get at least 64Mb of ram, NTWS is not really comfortable in 32.

I just bought Applixware 4.3.7, and it looks like it would actually do most
of what I use Office 97 for - although the interface is a bit more primitive.
It was, however, much cheaper - Applixware 4.3.7 (including RedHat 5.0)
was $99 - whereas NTWS 4.0 + Office 97 will easily cost $1000+
on much cheaper hardware.

I would never use NTWS as a web server - the idiotic, unenforcable,
"10 connection limit" for TCP/IP services (someone should enlighten
the folks in redmond about UDP, where "connections" is fairly
meaningless.) HTTP is a stateless protocol, without cookies saying
"connection" with regard to it is fairly meaningless.

NTS is just too expensive, in terms of software, hardware and maintenance
to be used as a web server. And it cannot be easily fully remotely
administered,
without a fair ammount of optional software (telnetd, NTrigue etc.)

Quote:> Even CDE won't eat as much physical RAM as NT.  Linux is better at memory
> Management.

Very true.

Regards,

Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------------
William Henning                http://half-price.computer-books.com
Web Technologies               http://theROCK.bc.ca
http://webtech.door2net.com    http://antique-gallery.bc.ca
Affordable turn-key web sites! http://barts-life.door2net.com

 
 
 

1. NT NT NT NT NT NT NT MT

Why is everyone comparing whatever operating system with NT?

**************************************************************************
*     / - -                           /-----/ /                          *
*    /____  /   / /----/ /----/      /       /     /----/ /---/ /----/   *
*        / / / / /----/ /----/      /       /---/ /----/ /   / /----/    *
*   ___ / /_/_/ /____  /____       /_____/ /   / /____  /   /  ____/     *

**************************************************************************
---
 t MR/2 t

2. kermit on a PS/2 running AIX 1.1

3. LINUX, NT and DOS - LILO or NT boot pgm?

4. USB fixes for 2.5.73

5. LINUX, NT and DOS - LILO or NT boot pg

6. TurtleBeach Montego A3D 64 voice in Redhat 6.2??

7. Dual booting DOS/NT & Installing Linux on PC running NT,

8. OSR5 trashing CMOS/BIOS settings

9. NT vs. Linux - How do they compare?

10. NT compare Linux

11. Comparing Unix versus Linux versus Windows NT/2000

12. Reliability of samba linux file server compared to NT???

13. Networking tools ..Linux compared to NT