Linux-Advocacy Digest #594, Volume #25 Sat, 11 Mar 00 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: In the middle of it all... (Kool Breeze)
Re: Giving up on NT (Dave)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Chad Myers")
Re: The Windows GUI vs. X (Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: In the middle of it all... (mlw)
Re: Mandrake=Poison? (Robert Morelli)
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
("Drestin Black")
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (George
Marengo)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Drestin Black")
Re: In the middle of it all... ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
(George Marengo)
Re: Mandrake=Poison? (Robert Morelli)
Re: In the middle of it all... ("Drestin Black")
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) ("Davorin Mestric")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kool Breeze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: In the middle of it all...
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:12:09 GMT
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:03:54 GMT, Kool Breeze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Very few people posting to this group have real evidence of a REAL
>WORLD application to compare NT and Linux.
>
>Not me. I am in the middle of it all.
>
>Our company has a Linux based system comprised of 6 applications. Of
>course, we have a Win32 Client part to each of these apps that
>connects to our Linux box which does the real work. BTW: We could not
>sell this application without a Windows front end a few years ago,
>hence the Win9x/WInNT client side to our app.
>
>The Linux based system took 2 programmers 2 years to finish. That's 4
>man years. BTW. I am one of the two programmers.
>
>Our company was purchased at about the same time the buyer (now parent
>company) had an NT product ready to deploy. They have had 5
>programmers working for 5 years and they have ONE of the 6
>applications ready.
>That's 25 man years for 16% of a total (comparable) system.
>
>For up to 50 simultaneous users:
>We run our 6 Linux based applications on ONE PII 350 with 128Mb RAM.
>There ONE application requires 6 (yes SIX) NT servers to run.
>
>The MINIMUS REQUIREMENTS for EACH of the SIX servers:
>PIII 450 + 256Mb EACH.
>
>Guess what. The one NT product does not yet have all the features our
>(comparable) product has. The one thing that they had on one
>application over ours took me about two weeks to add to our product.
>
>Guess what else. The NT based product's install program contains as
>many lines of code as our TOTAL server side.
>
>Guess what else. Their support staff for their 20 clients is the same
>size as ours. We have been supporting over 150 clients for several
>years.
>
>Guess what else. Our profit margin has dropped from a nice 40% to a
>measly 20%. (Much of this is our cost for the NT Sever Licenses and
>hardware).
>
>This is the kicker, the NT-based system has had more down-time in EACH
>client than ALL of our 150 clients combined over 2 years. BTW: This
>system IS mission and time critical.
>
>So no one will EVER convince me that there is better performance, less
>down-time, lower cost of ownership in NT.
>
>BTW: Preliminary benchmarks have shown that Win2K does perform about
>30-40% better so we will might be able to drop one of the 6 servers
>out of our NT-mess.
>I
Oh I forgot, we used to be able to install 3 systems a month. We are
now down to one client a month.
I think MS will run us into the ground due to increasing costs (more
employees, programmers + support) with a decreasing margin per system
and a higher customer dissatisfaction.
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 11 Mar 2000 11:26:08 -0600
Mark Ritchie wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >BTW, check comp.os.os2.setup.misc for the rundown of my trials and
> >tribulations installing OS/2 4 on an IBM Thinkpad 600E laptop. At
> >least the people there are friendly and willing to help. This group
> >is composed of the most bigoted and closed-minded people I've run
> >across in a long time.
>
> On behalf of all, I'd like to welcome you to *.advocacy. I see you've
> already picked up on the major theme of most threads. Just sit back,
> grab your favorite beveridge and enjoy the mayhem.
Oh I've been in advocacy groups for a long time. OS/2 advocacy is just
particularly filled with children.
BTW, I finally got OS/2 installed and co-existing with Win2000 on this
Thinkpad 600E laptop. There is a workaround for the "Win2000 killing
Boot Manager" problem. See comp.os.os2.setup.misc for details. The short
version is you need a file from an RC2 version of Win2000.
Dave (Warping)
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:38:01 GMT
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Note that it was also given in this thread's precursor that any OS
> would have to be adjusted, 'even' W2K.
Hmm... who said that? The whole point I was trying to make is, that
Win2K is scalable enough it wouldn't have to be modified (in it's core,
meaning the filesystem or the TCP/IP stack) like Solaris was.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows GUI vs. X (Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:27:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > And that's where most Xt based toolkits (specially Motif) suck,
IMHO.
> > I've seen people use Motif for 3 years and be sooo proud of creating
> > a custom widget. On Qt you start doing that, easily, 2 hours after
> > first use.
>
> That's where a lot of the Motif "ugliness" is at; it's not a Motif
> problem per se, but rather an ugliness with Xt. It looks like most of
> the toolkits that are being created today aren't Xt-based, but rather
> sit directly on top of Xlib. Even XView, which is an old tookit,
> doesn't use Xt.
>
> But, I think there's still advantages with Xt-based toolkits. For
> one, the API is predictable.
What's unpredictible about the Qt or Gtk+ API? Is QButton randomly
refusing to accept it has a setGeometry(int,int,int,int) method?
Or you mean that the API of all Xt toolkits is similar? That's a
non-advantage, since there are about two toolkits (Xaw, Motif), and one
is widely recognized as a proof of concept (Xaw).
So, you end with Motif's API being, well, like Motif's. Big thing, that
;-)
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: In the middle of it all...
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 12:46:37 -0500
Kool Breeze wrote:
I had a similar experience. We developed a DICOM server based on NT. We
did the math, MS SQL EE and WinNT Server EE cost (at the time) 2x$3998,
that's almost $8000. We had to have a dual Pentium Pro with 128Meg ram
(Back when 128 meg was a lot of memory). We were proud of the system, it
was smoking fast.
For kicks, we rewrote the code for Linux. It took us just a few days.
Running it on a single processor Pentium MMX 233, with 64Meg ram and
Linux (RH, 2.0.3x), using apache and PostgreSQL, we got better
performance. We were shocked! We could use lesser hardware, get better
performance, and make more money. What's not to like.
That company is still struggling with what they want to do with it. The
medical industry, true to form, is just now moving to NT as everyone
else is re-evaluating their previous decisions.
>
> Very few people posting to this group have real evidence of a REAL
> WORLD application to compare NT and Linux.
>
> Not me. I am in the middle of it all.
>
> Our company has a Linux based system comprised of 6 applications. Of
> course, we have a Win32 Client part to each of these apps that
> connects to our Linux box which does the real work. BTW: We could not
> sell this application without a Windows front end a few years ago,
> hence the Win9x/WInNT client side to our app.
>
> The Linux based system took 2 programmers 2 years to finish. That's 4
> man years. BTW. I am one of the two programmers.
>
> Our company was purchased at about the same time the buyer (now parent
> company) had an NT product ready to deploy. They have had 5
> programmers working for 5 years and they have ONE of the 6
> applications ready.
> That's 25 man years for 16% of a total (comparable) system.
>
> For up to 50 simultaneous users:
> We run our 6 Linux based applications on ONE PII 350 with 128Mb RAM.
> There ONE application requires 6 (yes SIX) NT servers to run.
>
> The MINIMUS REQUIREMENTS for EACH of the SIX servers:
> PIII 450 + 256Mb EACH.
>
> Guess what. The one NT product does not yet have all the features our
> (comparable) product has. The one thing that they had on one
> application over ours took me about two weeks to add to our product.
>
> Guess what else. The NT based product's install program contains as
> many lines of code as our TOTAL server side.
>
> Guess what else. Their support staff for their 20 clients is the same
> size as ours. We have been supporting over 150 clients for several
> years.
>
> Guess what else. Our profit margin has dropped from a nice 40% to a
> measly 20%. (Much of this is our cost for the NT Sever Licenses and
> hardware).
>
> This is the kicker, the NT-based system has had more down-time in EACH
> client than ALL of our 150 clients combined over 2 years. BTW: This
> system IS mission and time critical.
>
> So no one will EVER convince me that there is better performance, less
> down-time, lower cost of ownership in NT.
>
> BTW: Preliminary benchmarks have shown that Win2K does perform about
> 30-40% better so we will might be able to drop one of the 6 servers
> out of our NT-mess.
> I
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 11:20:51 -0500
From: Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mandrake=Poison?
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I obtained both Linux-Mandrake 6.0 and 6.1 and tried installing them on
> >several machines, two different laptops and 1 very standard desktop.
>
> What is the point of posting this now that 7.0 has been out for
> quite a while?
7.0 has been out for a couple of months -- hardly what I'd call quite a
while. It's also not a dramatic upgrade from 6.1 as far as I'm aware.
6.0, 6.1, and 7.0 were all released in quick succession, which
may in fact be part of the problem. In any case, I actually paid money
for one of the Mandrake distros, and I don't see it as remarkable to
report on a product that was obtained only a few months ago. In any case,
if there is any shred of truth in my conspiracy theory, it would apply
equally well to 6.1, 7.0, 8.0, ...
The real reason I've posted this now is that I'm intrigued, and a little
concerned, by the increasing popularity of Mandrake. If it had fallen
into obscurity, I wouldn't have bothered. What prompted me to post
yesterday was seeing a recommendation from Borland/Inprise for either
Red Hat or Mandrake for use with one of its development products. What
merits that endorsement, above say a fine distribution like Caldera's?
That bugged me a little. I wonder whether Borland actually has a reason,
or whether they're just following the sales figures. There are after all
precedents in the computer industry for lousy software becoming entrenched
for marketing reasons:(
I'm on no crusade against Mandrake. If my experience was an uncanny fluke,
so be it. But I'm no psychic, so the only way I can find out is by
alerting other people to my experience.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for
DumbAsses
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 13:08:59 -0500
"2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8actcn$5qu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'll be glad to chip in on buying Drestin Linux rather than Unix.
>
> The Linux OS only that is.
>
> 2 + 2
> the kind, generous and always willing to lend a helping hand
I already bought my copy of RedHat (yes, bought cause I wanted to see what
the $ paid for that downloading didn't and I wanted to sample tech
support:.. actual call:
Hi, I have a question about RH Linux I just bought
<shuffle>
Did you install from the CD?
Yeah, of course.
Did you do a custom install?
No, standard server.
Can you log in with root?
Yes, no problem logging in, my problem is how do I...
I'm sorry sir, we only cover installation troubleshooting.
Yes, it installed, I have no idea if it installed right because I haven't
really done anything with it, there isn't really anything to do with it
other than type shit at the CLI or fire up a browser in the windows-clone
GUI and be impressed that even if X crashes I can telnet in, kill the task
and try again!
<click>
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 18:22:42 GMT
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:38:01 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Note that it was also given in this thread's precursor that any OS
>> would have to be adjusted, 'even' W2K.
>
>Hmm... who said that? The whole point I was trying to make is, that
>Win2K is scalable enough it wouldn't have to be modified (in it's core,
>meaning the filesystem or the TCP/IP stack) like Solaris was.
>
>-Chad
The fact is that you don't know how much the Solaris stack was
modified. You originally made a pull-it-out-of-your-ass claim that
the stack was re-written, when in fact all Microsoft has said on the
matter is that it "had to customize the filestore service as well as
the IP stack." That's it... customize. They did NOT say that they
had to modify the source code.
What the hell does "customize" mean, in MS-Speak? I changed the
TCPReceiveWindow on my Windows98 and WindowsNT installs.
Have I "customized" the stack, in MS-Speak? I don't know, and neither
do you.
The claim that Hotmail simply hasn't ever been ported to NT, because
MS _never tried_ is equally disingenuous. Again, all that MS has said
on the matter is:
However, wholesale migration to Windows NT Server has not
yet been attempted.
On the face of it, that implies that _some_ migration was attempted --
it just wan't the whole enchilada. It could be anything from realizing
that it was futile using NT4 to underestimating the costs necessary,
to any number of other reasons. But to say that it was never attempted
is false -- the only thing that wasn't attempted was "wholesale"
migration.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 13:16:20 -0500
"Arthur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > "Matt Gaia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > : How good is Linux's multiple monitor support? Oh wait, that'd be
> > > > useless,
> > > > > : I guess. I mean, how much benefit does watching the kernel
compile
> > > > > : on two screens really provide?
>
> > > > > Oh wait, why would you need Multi-Monitor Support on any system
except
> > for
> > > > > a multimedia system. Just another proof of Windows bells and
whistles
> > > > > vs. Linux functionality.
>
>
> > > > ahhh... feature envy denial... <grin>
>
> > > Linux has been doing multiple monitors LONG before Microsoft
> > > "invented" it.
>
>
> > you make it sound like linux actually invented something at all... linux
is
> > just another unix clone... anything it's got it took from someone else,
just
> > like the gui's - trying to look more like windows and less like what
spawned
> > them...
>
> And you make it sound like MS actually invented something, instead of
> stealing
> it's GUI from Apple who stole from Xerox, violating Stac's patents,
> hiring
> away Borland's key developers, and stealing more from Unix with each new
> version of NT which originally was a VMS clone, cloning CP/M for DOS
> and on and on.
No, I do not say those sorts of things.
>
> BTW, XFree86 4.0 was released yesterday and does multi-monitor support
> or will
> spread a single desktop over several monitors.
>
nice that xfree has caught up...
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: In the middle of it all...
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:22:03 +0100
can you be more specific about reasons the nt application took so much more
time than linux version?
were the target functionalities the same on both systems?
what tools did you use on both systems?
Kool Breeze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Our company has a Linux based system comprised of 6 applications. Of
> course, we have a Win32 Client part to each of these apps that
> connects to our Linux box which does the real work. BTW: We could not
> sell this application without a Windows front end a few years ago,
> hence the Win9x/WInNT client side to our app.
>
> The Linux based system took 2 programmers 2 years to finish. That's 4
> man years. BTW. I am one of the two programmers.
>
> Our company was purchased at about the same time the buyer (now parent
> company) had an NT product ready to deploy. They have had 5
> programmers working for 5 years and they have ONE of the 6
> applications ready.
> That's 25 man years for 16% of a total (comparable) system.
nice job on your side.
> For up to 50 simultaneous users:
> We run our 6 Linux based applications on ONE PII 350 with 128Mb RAM.
> There ONE application requires 6 (yes SIX) NT servers to run.
>
> The MINIMUS REQUIREMENTS for EACH of the SIX servers:
> PIII 450 + 256Mb EACH.
>
> Guess what. The one NT product does not yet have all the features our
> (comparable) product has. The one thing that they had on one
> application over ours took me about two weeks to add to our product.
> Guess what else. The NT based product's install program contains as
> many lines of code as our TOTAL server side.
i find this strange. what was this install program doing? how many lines
of code?
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for
DumbAsses
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 18:30:57 GMT
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 13:08:59 -0500, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>Yes, it installed, I have no idea if it installed right because I haven't
>really done anything with it, there isn't really anything to do with it
>other than type shit at the CLI or fire up a browser in the windows-clone
>GUI and be impressed that even if X crashes I can telnet in, kill the task
>and try again!
>
><click>
IOW, you did this with a chip on your shoulder. Just like the
LinVocates that you complain about who install Windows just
to find every problem they can with the install or the OS itself,
with no intention of actually using it with an open mind to see if
they might actually <gasp> like using it.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 11:47:55 -0500
From: Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mandrake=Poison?
Mark S. Bilk wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I obtained both Linux-Mandrake 6.0 and 6.1 and tried installing them on
<snip>
> Reluctant as I am to hold Bill Gates innocent of *any* form
> of evil, I'd say this connection still needs some work. For
> one thing, lots of people have had good results with Mandrake
> Linux. I believe it's compiled with the same compiler as
> other distributions, but using the options that cause pentium
> (586) instructions to be emitted. The 586 has some instruc-
> tions that the 486 lacks, that allows it to execute faster.
> Mandrake won't run on a 486 for this reason.
>
> If many others have had the problems you describe with Man-
> drake, I think we would have heard about it, so it may be
> caused by something you're doing in the installation (which
> may have different defaults than the parent Redhat). It seems
> unlikely that all three of your machines have flaky memory, or
> some other hardware problem.
>
> It would be good if you'd submit a detailed description of the
> crashes, including your machine configurations, error messages
> in logs, etc., to alt.os.linux.mandrake. See if anyone else
> has had the same experience, or if they can suggest a remedy
> for yours, or at least further steps for diagnosis.
Doing so would mean a serious sacrifice of time for me. I would
still be willing to do it, if the problems were not so serious.
I know a lot of people who've had to reinstall NT after getting
weird problems, and I think they're nuts for tolerating that.
The fact that people do tolerate it is probably why NT is still as
unreliable as it is. For my part, when I run into a problem that
serious, I say goodbye and good luck to the company, which is
probably in itself a helpful thing to do.
> Regarding the boot diskette, isn't there an image file on the
> CD from which it can be generated?
No. The documentation lists a specific location on the CD, but there
is no image file there. The Red Hat distro had such a file in that place
at once time, so it's probably a vestige of that. That fact that an
error so glaring could survive through two releases, in the scant
documentation provided by Mandrake, is quite surprising to me.
> As to the "poison" theory, the name comes from "Mandrake the
> Magician", a very long-running comic strip in the U.S., hence
> the drawing of the magician on the box. *His* name is ex-
> plained here:
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~beerta/leefalk.htm
> ...
>
> The name "Mandrake" was inspired by a poem written by the
> famous 17th-century poet, John Donne: "Goe, and catche a
> falling starre ... Get with child a mandrake root." [Lee]
> Falk [the creator of the comic strip] learned that a
> mandrake root was actually ginseng root and was commonly
> used in ancient (and modern) naturapathy. He thought it was
> an interesting yet simple word which admitted of just one
> pronuncitation, the perfect name for his comic strip
> magician.
>
> However, Falk was apparently the victim of a misconception
> that was current at the time (the 1930s). In fact, mandrake,
> a toxic plant related to nightshade, Jimson weed, etc. (the
> Solanaceae family) has nothing in common with ginseng (which
> is widely used to promote health and vigor, and does not
> contain belladonna alkaloids), except that both have roots
> whose shape resembles that of a person, or a penis (clearly
> it's a rather vague resemblance 8^). So the magician was
> meant to be named after a plant that's (considered to be)
> *beneficial* to health.
>
> Of course, Gates could still be using double reverse psycho-
> logy to destroy us; his evil truly knows no bounds! And,
> all kidding aside, Microsoft has fixated on Red Hat as the
> Linux distributor that's best known and most successful, and
> therefore most dangerous to it; that can be seen by the many
> lying, hateful attacks against it posted here by the pro-
> Microsoft propaganda spammers last year.
I'm aware of this poem and the association of manrake with magic,
though I've never heard of Mandrake the Magician. The double
association of a magician and poison is also consistent with my
theory. On the other hand, I see no evidence that anyone at
Microsoft is clever enough to think of a double association. This
is, after all, the company that touted plans for "Windows Millenium"
in a marketing blitz, apparently unaware that millennium is spelled
with two n's.
> I hope you'll investigate the problem with the help of the
> folks in alt.os.linux.mandrake, and report back here to
> c.o.l.a when you figure it out (or if you find that many
> others are having the same difficulty). You've certainly
> brought up an interesting question; I'm curious to see how
> it's resolved.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: In the middle of it all...
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 13:24:14 -0500
You do know that what you write has absolutely no supporting evidence and
sounds exactly like what someone could just sit down and write. I mean,
let's just swap linux and Win and repost the same text in the windows
advocacy group and it'll mean exactly the same thing.
Let me assume you are not making this up @hotmail and just say: you have
idiot NT programmers and great linux programmers. 5 guys fail to produce
1/16th what 2 guys do? how can you blame the OS for that? ANd I say to you
that I flat out do not believe there can exist any application whatsoever
that runs faster on a single PII350/128 versus 6 PIII450/256s (provided the
app can actually work load balanced across multiple servers or do you have 6
machines with one running the app and the others just sitting there idle, i
mean, given how stupid I think your win guys are I don't doubt that is the
case).
Someone dare to show me one single instance of a single PII350 beating 6
PIII450s at anything... pick the OS of your choice on either side. You think
if cdrom.com ran on a single PII350 with bsd that 6 PIII450s running IIS
would be slower?
i do not believe a word of it...
"Kool Breeze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Very few people posting to this group have real evidence of a REAL
> WORLD application to compare NT and Linux.
>
> Not me. I am in the middle of it all.
>
> Our company has a Linux based system comprised of 6 applications. Of
> course, we have a Win32 Client part to each of these apps that
> connects to our Linux box which does the real work. BTW: We could not
> sell this application without a Windows front end a few years ago,
> hence the Win9x/WInNT client side to our app.
>
> The Linux based system took 2 programmers 2 years to finish. That's 4
> man years. BTW. I am one of the two programmers.
>
> Our company was purchased at about the same time the buyer (now parent
> company) had an NT product ready to deploy. They have had 5
> programmers working for 5 years and they have ONE of the 6
> applications ready.
> That's 25 man years for 16% of a total (comparable) system.
>
> For up to 50 simultaneous users:
> We run our 6 Linux based applications on ONE PII 350 with 128Mb RAM.
> There ONE application requires 6 (yes SIX) NT servers to run.
>
> The MINIMUS REQUIREMENTS for EACH of the SIX servers:
> PIII 450 + 256Mb EACH.
>
> Guess what. The one NT product does not yet have all the features our
> (comparable) product has. The one thing that they had on one
> application over ours took me about two weeks to add to our product.
>
> Guess what else. The NT based product's install program contains as
> many lines of code as our TOTAL server side.
>
> Guess what else. Their support staff for their 20 clients is the same
> size as ours. We have been supporting over 150 clients for several
> years.
>
> Guess what else. Our profit margin has dropped from a nice 40% to a
> measly 20%. (Much of this is our cost for the NT Sever Licenses and
> hardware).
>
> This is the kicker, the NT-based system has had more down-time in EACH
> client than ALL of our 150 clients combined over 2 years. BTW: This
> system IS mission and time critical.
>
> So no one will EVER convince me that there is better performance, less
> down-time, lower cost of ownership in NT.
>
> BTW: Preliminary benchmarks have shown that Win2K does perform about
> 30-40% better so we will might be able to drop one of the 6 servers
> out of our NT-mess.
> I
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:31:27 +0100
my generalizations would be wrong if there were tools on linux comparable to
visual C, vb, etc. is there such a thing?
why would linux community work on something they perceive as a tool for
idiots? motivation for doing this is simply not there.
can you say that KDevelop is more powerful than vc ide? it looks to me like
they are very a shallow copy of other ides. you also list libraries and
api-s that are pretty much given on windows.
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your whole argument is based on a gross overgeneralisation. If it's
> really true that we're resting on our laurels, why is it that so mouch
> effort over the last two years has gone into development tools ( KDE,
> GNOME, QT and GTK ) ? I put it to you that the Linux developers are smart
> enough to realise that Linux isn't perfect, even if a few advocacy clowns
> do not know better.
>
> --
> Donovan
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
