On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Roberto Armenteros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I need your help to move the word... > > At my company I am teaching a large group of employees > the great advantage of linux and unix in general over > the M$ Operating System when we talk about performance > and reliability in Corporate MainFrame applications, > webserver, and all kind of internet applications. I am > asking for your help because I would like to have > valid proff and plenty of it due to the great number > of Microsoft contractors in the company, who are > always saying one thing or another. One of them > actually challenged me by saying that MS and Unix in > general share about 50% the main frame business each. > I doubt that. So, please guys give me a hand on this. > The more reliable the sites the better.
Mainframes or ordinary x86 servers? Microsoft has exactly zero percent of the mainframe market. Windows just can't scale that well. Even GNU/Linux, at present, runs on IBM mainframes in virtual partitions on top of z/OS. As for x86 servers, Windows only dominates at the low end. This high end is populated by the Unicies. GNU/Linux is a relatively new entry to the corporate IT world, and so has some catching up to to. Nevertheless, it is the fastest-growing OS out there. Netcraft.com have statistics on Web servers. The last time I checked, Apache had two-thirds of that market, and many Apache installations are on GNU/Linux. MS IIS had about a quarter. Remember, an important element in system reliability is security. Gartner have always been very pro-MS. Then why do they recommend that people _not_ use IIS (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/21853.html)? Unlike Windows, GNU/Linux is highly resistant to virii and worms: http://www.roaringpenguin.com/mimedefang/anti-virus.php3. If Windows is so good, why aren't Microsoft using it themselves? Many of its busiest servers, including the Hotmail servers, run on FreeBSD (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/23348.html). Several attempts have been made to switch them to Windows, but they have all failed. Even MS's wehavethewayout.com anti-UNIX campaign servers were initially running on OpenBSD (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/24681.html). A number of parody sites have been made in response, including http://wehadthewayout.com/ and http://wehavethewayin.com/. Many good business cases can be found at http://www.mandrakebizcases.com/. Here's a basic TCO study: http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2001/1018.tco.html. Samba is a reverse-engineered open source version of Microsoft's SMB/CIFS protocol, and is faster than Microsoft's own implementation: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,17201,00.asp. You want lots of real statistics? Try this: http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html. Note that I have made several links to The Register. They have become well-known for being anti-Microsoft, but they do not lie or twist the facts. I would consider them to be a credible source. -- Sridhar Dhanapalan "Honestly, security experts don't pick on Microsoft because we have some fundamental dislike for the company. Indeed, Microsoft's poor products are one of the reasons we're in business. We pick on them because they've done more to harm Internet security than anyone else, because they repeatedly lie to the public about their products' security, and because they do everything they can to convince people that the problems lie anywhere but inside Microsoft. Microsoft treats security vulnerabilities as public relations problems. Until that changes, expect more of this kind of nonsense from Microsoft and its products." -- Bruce Schneier, Founder and CTO of Counterpane Internet Security, 2002-01-15
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
