FYI: Windows NT Magazines Exposes Serious Linux Limitations

FYI: Windows NT Magazines Exposes Serious Linux Limitations

Post by Jorge Padro » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



FYI: The new issue of Windows NT magazine has an informative article that
explains some serious Linux 2.2 limitations has in multi-processor
"enterprise" environments. They demonstrate why NT 4.0 and some UNIX flavors
are a better choice than Linux.

BTW, I'm only pointing to this article, I have no idea whether what they say
in there is all accurate. One thing is true though, this article will
encourage MIS professionals to continue using NT servers instead of farting
around with Linux.

Anyway, don't shut the messenger !!!

Jorge Padron

 
 
 

FYI: Windows NT Magazines Exposes Serious Linux Limitations

Post by Joseph T. Ada » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


: FYI: The new issue of Windows NT magazine has an informative article that
: explains some serious Linux 2.2 limitations has in multi-processor
: "enterprise" environments. They demonstrate why NT 4.0 and some UNIX flavors
: are a better choice than Linux.

Wow.  A Windows NT rag "dissing" its chief competitor in the small
server market.  Imagine that.

Linux SMP support is weak compared to commercial Unices, but *not*
compared to NT.  A Linux server's performance is limited by network
bandwidth, not CPU; Linux running on a 486 can often outperform NT
running on a PII.  Also, Linux is both much more reliable, much less
expensive to maintain, and much easier and cheaper to cluster.

NT is an OK workstation OS, but it sucks very badly as a server, and no
one uses it for mission-critical work for the very simple reason that
it can't do the job.  Not even Microsoft uses NT for its internal
mission-critical tasks.  They use real computers, running, among other
things, Solaris.

: BTW, I'm only pointing to this article, I have no idea whether what they say
: in there is all accurate. One thing is true though, this article will
: encourage MIS professionals to continue using NT servers instead of farting
: around with Linux.

Anyone who picks NT over *any* other alternative, for garden-variety
enterprise file, print, and network servers, is not worthy of the
title "professional."  Mostly it is bureaucrats, not IT professionals,
who read those kinds of rags.  They call the shots, and that's why NT
gets put into so many places where every IT professional knows it
doesn't belong.  And typically they're the same *s who rag on
the network admins anytime a server goes down.  It's almost straight
out of a Dilbert cartoon, only much, much worse.

: Anyway, don't shut the messenger !!!

Well, what's your point in repeating this kind of garbage, if you by
your own admission don't have any way of knowing whether it is
accurate?  I would suggest that you learn something about NT *and*
*nix, and then you'll be in a position to contribute much more to this
or any similar discussion.

Joe

 
 
 

FYI: Windows NT Magazines Exposes Serious Linux Limitations

Post by ? - Infinity Rising - » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> Wow.  A Windows NT rag "dissing" its chief competitor in the small
> server market.  Imagine that.

Ditto.

Quote:

> Linux SMP support is weak compared to commercial Unices, but *not*
> compared to NT.  A Linux server's performance is limited by network
> bandwidth, not CPU; Linux running on a 486 can often outperform NT
> running on a PII.  Also, Linux is both much more reliable, much less
> expensive to maintain, and much easier and cheaper to cluster.

True.  Anything can outpace NT at SMP, even OS/2's SMP editon from 1992!

Quote:> Not even Microsoft uses NT for its internal
> mission-critical tasks.  They use real computers, running, among other
> things, Solaris.

Where did you get this information?  I would not be surprised if they used non-MS
stuff (they use Macs for logo and ad design, my how hype and sterotype override
quality and reality...), but a single source of proof would be nice.

Quote:

> Anyone who picks NT over *any* other alternative, for garden-variety
> enterprise file, print, and network servers, is not worthy of the
> title "professional."

Once again, blame hype.  OS/2 purportedly beat the snot out of Win9x and even NT
in SOME ways (not all, by a long shot...) but the people preferred the hype.  I
don't recall the source, but there was a mag which pointed out that OS/2 Server
with 1 CPU outperformed NT with 4 CPUs...  I never read the article so I still
don't fully believe it. You either ignore what you don't understand or "go with
the flow".  Well, that sadly sums up humanity, what's for dinner?  No, I have not
been a staunchy OS/2 supporter since Feb 1998.

Quote:>  Mostly it is bureaucrats, not IT professionals,
> who read those kinds of rags.

Exactly.  America is for the corporations, by the corporations.  It's as simple as
that.

Quote:>  They call the shots, and that's why NT
> gets put into so many places where every IT professional knows it
> doesn't belong.

Hmm, my higher-level coworker likes NT, hates Internet Explorer, knows it's
embedded in win2000, and is high-heeled to install the *y thing once it gets
released.  She occasionally rags on microsoft, but I have no idea where her
loyalties lie.  Hell, if she is so paranoid of IE now (IE installed is not a
problem.  It is a problem only when the browser is actually used.), wait until
Win2k when she'll never be able to have it removed!  Point being, these IT
"professionals" may be unprofessional, but they are unprofessional for the wrong
reasons, perhaps.

Quote:> And typically they're the same *s who rag on
> the network admins anytime a server goes down.  It's almost straight
> out of a Dilbert cartoon, only much, much worse.

The Netware(tm) server at my employment seems to go through its share of
problems.  Whether Novell is incompetent, or if the overpaid network administrator
(who's a real jerk) is incompetent.  I call the latter, Novell 3.12 was fairly
decent so 4.x is undoubtedly better.

Quote:> Well, what's your point in repeating this kind of garbage, if you by
> your own admission don't have any way of knowing whether it is
> accurate?  I would suggest that you learn something about NT *and*
> *nix, and then you'll be in a position to contribute much more to this
> or any similar discussion.

Don't you mean *n*x?  LInUx or UnIx?  Merge them both and call it "LIUUI".  Sounds
best when you pronounce it when you're drunk.  :-)  I concur, you need to find one
source of information to rely on.  Everyone sometimes reads up on the wrong
information or just has a bad experience with the product, but always have
information to back up your statements and say them during your arguement.

--

http://www.veryComputer.com/~timanov  --> New and improved, with only 25 percent
recycled material!

 
 
 

FYI: Windows NT Magazines Exposes Serious Linux Limitations

Post by Anthony O » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


On Thu, 01 Apr 1999 19:48:18 -0600, ? - Infinity Rising - ?



>> Wow.  A Windows NT rag "dissing" its chief competitor in the small
>> server market.  Imagine that.

>Ditto.

>> Linux SMP support is weak compared to commercial Unices, but *not*
>> compared to NT.  A Linux server's performance is limited by network
>> bandwidth, not CPU; Linux running on a 486 can often outperform NT
>> running on a PII.  Also, Linux is both much more reliable, much less
>> expensive to maintain, and much easier and cheaper to cluster.

>True.  Anything can outpace NT at SMP, even OS/2's SMP editon from 1992!

Come on! It's not that bad! Is it??

Quote:>> Not even Microsoft uses NT for its internal
>> mission-critical tasks.  They use real computers, running, among other
>> things, Solaris.

>Where did you get this information?  I would not be surprised if they used non-MS
>stuff (they use Macs for logo and ad design, my how hype and sterotype override
>quality and reality...), but a single source of proof would be nice.

I'd be surprised as well, considering the harm it would do
if it ever leaked. Saying that, Hotmail is running on
Solaris, and I suppose that is "internal" now.

Quote:>> Anyone who picks NT over *any* other alternative,

What including DOS? ;-)

Quote:>for garden-variety
>> enterprise file, print, and network servers, is not worthy of the
>> title "professional."

>Once again, blame hype.  OS/2 purportedly beat the snot out of Win9x and even NT
>in SOME ways (not all, by a long shot...) but the people preferred the hype.  I
>don't recall the source, but there was a mag which pointed out that OS/2 Server
>with 1 CPU outperformed NT with 4 CPUs...  I

Hmm. That isn't very good.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:> never read the article so I still
>don't fully believe it. You either ignore what you don't understand or "go with
>the flow".  Well, that sadly sums up humanity, what's for dinner?  No, I have not
>been a staunchy OS/2 supporter since Feb 1998.

>>  Mostly it is bureaucrats, not IT professionals,
>> who read those kinds of rags.

>Exactly.  America is for the corporations, by the corporations.  It's as simple as
>that.

>>  They call the shots, and that's why NT
>> gets put into so many places where every IT professional knows it
>> doesn't belong.

>Hmm, my higher-level coworker likes NT,

What for? File serving? Client machine?

Quote:> hates Internet Explorer, knows it's
>embedded in win2000, and is high-heeled to install the *y thing once it gets
>released.  She occasionally rags on microsoft, but I have no idea where her
>loyalties lie.  Hell, if she is so paranoid of IE now (IE installed is not a
>problem.  It is a problem only when the browser is actually used.), wait until
>Win2k when she'll never be able to have it removed!  Point being, these IT
>"professionals" may be unprofessional, but they are unprofessional for the wrong
>reasons, perhaps.

>> And typically they're the same *s who rag on
>> the network admins anytime a server goes down.  It's almost straight
>> out of a Dilbert cartoon, only much, much worse.

*Snicker*.

Quote:>The Netware(tm) server at my employment seems to go through its share of
>problems.  Whether Novell is incompetent, or if the overpaid network administrator
>(who's a real jerk) is incompetent.  I call the latter, Novell 3.12 was fairly
>decent so 4.x is undoubtedly better.

It's supposed to be ok, nothing like the bad publicity NT
gets. The Novell HCL is supposedly a bible.

Quote:>> Well, what's your point in repeating this kind of garbage, if you by
>> your own admission don't have any way of knowing whether it is
>> accurate?  I would suggest that you learn something about NT *and*
>> *nix, and then you'll be in a position to contribute much more to this
>> or any similar discussion.

>Don't you mean *n*x?  LInUx or UnIx?  Merge them both and call it "LIUUI".  Sounds
>best when you pronounce it when you're drunk.  :-)  I concur, you need to find one
>source of information to rely on.

Usenet.... :-O

Quote:> Everyone sometimes reads up on the wrong
>information or just has a bad experience with the product, but always have
>information to back up your statements and say them during your arguement.

Regards

Anthony
--
-----------------------------------------
| And when our worlds                   |
| They fall apart                       |
| When the walls come tumbling in       |
| Though we may deserve it              |
| It will be worth it  - Depeche Mode   |
-----------------------------------------

 
 
 

FYI: Windows NT Magazines Exposes Serious Linux Limitations

Post by Gerard Motol » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




> > Wow.  A Windows NT rag "dissing" its chief competitor in the small
> > server market.  Imagine that.

> Ditto.

> > Linux SMP support is weak compared to commercial Unices, but *not*
> > compared to NT.  A Linux server's performance is limited by network
> > bandwidth, not CPU; Linux running on a 486 can often outperform NT
> > running on a PII.  Also, Linux is both much more reliable, much less
> > expensive to maintain, and much easier and cheaper to cluster.

> True.  Anything can outpace NT at SMP, even OS/2's SMP editon from 1992!

> > Not even Microsoft uses NT for its internal
> > mission-critical tasks.  They use real computers, running, among other
> > things, Solaris.

> Where did you get this information?  I would not be surprised if they used non-MS
> stuff (they use Macs for logo and ad design, my how hype and sterotype override
> quality and reality...), but a single source of proof would be nice.

Ummm... I thought the hype and stereotype WAS MacOS... The GIMP on Linux
is quality and reality...

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> > Anyone who picks NT over *any* other alternative, for garden-variety
> > enterprise file, print, and network servers, is not worthy of the
> > title "professional."

> Once again, blame hype.  OS/2 purportedly beat the snot out of Win9x and even NT
> in SOME ways (not all, by a long shot...) but the people preferred the hype.  I
> don't recall the source, but there was a mag which pointed out that OS/2 Server
> with 1 CPU outperformed NT with 4 CPUs...  I never read the article so I still
> don't fully believe it. You either ignore what you don't understand or "go with
> the flow".  Well, that sadly sums up humanity, what's for dinner?  No, I have not
> been a staunchy OS/2 supporter since Feb 1998.

> >  Mostly it is bureaucrats, not IT professionals,
> > who read those kinds of rags.

> Exactly.  America is for the corporations, by the corporations.  It's as simple as
> that.

> >  They call the shots, and that's why NT
> > gets put into so many places where every IT professional knows it
> > doesn't belong.

> Hmm, my higher-level coworker likes NT, hates Internet Explorer, knows it's
> embedded in win2000, and is high-heeled to install the *y thing once it gets
> released.  She occasionally rags on microsoft, but I have no idea where her
> loyalties lie.  Hell, if she is so paranoid of IE now (IE installed is not a
> problem.  It is a problem only when the browser is actually used.), wait until
> Win2k when she'll never be able to have it removed!  Point being, these IT
> "professionals" may be unprofessional, but they are unprofessional for the wrong
> reasons, perhaps.

> > And typically they're the same *s who rag on
> > the network admins anytime a server goes down.  It's almost straight
> > out of a Dilbert cartoon, only much, much worse.

> The Netware(tm) server at my employment seems to go through its share of
> problems.  Whether Novell is incompetent, or if the overpaid network administrator
> (who's a real jerk) is incompetent.  I call the latter, Novell 3.12 was fairly
> decent so 4.x is undoubtedly better.

> > Well, what's your point in repeating this kind of garbage, if you by
> > your own admission don't have any way of knowing whether it is
> > accurate?  I would suggest that you learn something about NT *and*
> > *nix, and then you'll be in a position to contribute much more to this
> > or any similar discussion.

> Don't you mean *n*x?  LInUx or UnIx?  Merge them both and call it "LIUUI".  Sounds
> best when you pronounce it when you're drunk.  :-)  I concur, you need to find one
> source of information to rely on.  Everyone sometimes reads up on the wrong
> information or just has a bad experience with the product, but always have
> information to back up your statements and say them during your arguement.

> --

> http://www.veryComputer.com/~timanov  --> New and improved, with only 25 percent
> recycled material!

 
 
 

FYI: Windows NT Magazines Exposes Serious Linux Limitations

Post by Kenneth I. Crame » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




> : FYI: The new issue of Windows NT magazine has an informative article that
> : explains some serious Linux 2.2 limitations has in multi-processor
> : "enterprise" environments. They demonstrate why NT 4.0 and some UNIX flavors
> : are a better choice than Linux.

> Wow.  A Windows NT rag "dissing" its chief competitor in the small
> server market.  Imagine that.
> Linux SMP support is weak compared to commercial Unices, but *not*
> compared to NT.  A Linux server's performance is limited by network
> bandwidth, not CPU; Linux running on a 486 can often outperform NT
> running on a PII.  Also, Linux is both much more reliable, much less
> expensive to maintain, and much easier and cheaper to cluster.

> NT is an OK workstation OS, but it sucks very badly as a server, and no
> one uses it for mission-critical work for the very simple reason that
> it can't do the job.  Not even Microsoft uses NT for its internal
> mission-critical tasks.  They use real computers, running, among other
> things, Solaris.

Great, but all this isn't likely to be read by those to whom the article
is aimed at.

Quote:> : BTW, I'm only pointing to this article, I have no idea whether what they say
> : in there is all accurate. One thing is true though, this article will
> : encourage MIS professionals to continue using NT servers instead of farting
> : around with Linux.

> Anyone who picks NT over *any* other alternative, for garden-variety
> enterprise file, print, and network servers, is not worthy of the
> title "professional."  Mostly it is bureaucrats, not IT professionals,
> who read those kinds of rags.  They call the shots, and that's why NT
> gets put into so many places where every IT professional knows it
> doesn't belong.  And typically they're the same *s who rag on
> the network admins anytime a server goes down.  It's almost straight
> out of a Dilbert cartoon, only much, much worse.

I wouldn't say *any* other alternative.  Win95 would likely be much
worse, DOS worse still, and there are likely some legitimate reasons one
may choose NT over Linux (Such as hardware concerns, and undocumented
specs for newer hardware).  Linux is very good, but it is still a little
rough in spots.  

Quote:> : Anyway, don't shut the messenger !!!

> Well, what's your point in repeating this kind of garbage, if you by
> your own admission don't have any way of knowing whether it is
> accurate?  I would suggest that you learn something about NT *and*
> *nix, and then you'll be in a position to contribute much more to this
> or any similar discussion.

It looked to me more like he was just trying to say, "Look, here is what
M$ is saying about Linux. Whether it is true or not isn't really
relevant, as those who read it will likely believe it."

- Show quoted text -

Quote:> Joe

 
 
 

1. Windows NT magazine articles on Linux

Has anyone read the December "Windows NT" issue? They have a couple of
articles on Linux (not very flattering articles). Mark Russinovich makes
a number of comments about the different kernal structures between Linux
and NT. I don't know Linux's kernal structure that well, so I can't
comment, but I'm curious if anyone who does would care to comment.

This also brings to mind a question, where do you get that kind of info
about Linux's structure? I mean, most books are definately aimed at a
beginner's level, so books won't have that kind of level of detail in
them . Is there a How-To or document that describes the features of ext2,
the architechture of the kernal, etc?

 Charles M

2. ATT 3B2/400 System failure

3. Windows NT limitations?

4. network device drivers

5. NT NT NT NT NT NT NT MT

6. bug in Backup 4.1.2

7. fyi: nice table comapring Linux, NT, Solaris

8. uugetty or mingetty

9. fyi: research report: Linux vs NT comparison

10. fyi: research report: Linux vs NT comparison.

11. NT Web Server : Seeking beta testers for Windows 95, Windows NT Web Server

12. Serious Linux bug may force move to NT...

13. Is Linux serious -- or just a serious toy?