http://www.hotmailsux.com/ should do the trick. I stumbled upon it while
trying to do the same thing as you, Mike (i.e. convince friends how crap
Hotmail and Microsoft is). However, it states that Hotmail began with FreeBSD
(not Linux), and after a failed attempt at moving it to NT, it is now back on
FreeBSD. Also on that site are good links, including one to get free webmail at
microsuxx.com. I made an account, and I can say it's pretty good (and quite
speedy too).
I remember reading in a reputable computer publication (I don't remember
which one) a while ago that for a (very) brief time M$ had part of it's
microsoft.com site running on Linux with Apache, and some pages had Linux
links. This apparently was *fixed* as soon as word got out. This could well be
true, especially since Bill has been known to have held shares in Linux
companies in the past.
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000, Mike & Tracy Holt wrote:
> That's great to hear (!), do you possibly know of any reference to that on
> the web? I'd like to share that with some co-workers, but I'm afraid
> without proof it could seem sorta like an 'urban legend'. I tried searching
> both cnet and zdnet with no luck, it would be nice to find a page of 'little
> known facts' about Linux - anyone know of any?
>
> Mike
>
> > On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, someone wrote:
> >
> > >> > MS makes applications for Mac OS and others, but nothing for Linux.
> > >It seems > > especially strange considering that Microsoft choose Linux
> > >to run it's > > Hotmail webservers, instead of NT!
> >
> > I missed something of this thread, it seems. MS did try to make the
> > transition from Linux to Windows NT after they took over Hotmail, and they
> > put in a LOT of effort and money. The problem that they faced, however,
> > was that there was no combination of NT-computer/memory/disk and windoze
> > mailserver that could handle the amount of accounts (millions) and e-mails
> > (gazillions per day). They tried setting this up for 4 months, shadowing
> > the load of the Sparc's that Hotmail used to NT machines in each
> > conceivable configuration. It did not work.
> >
> > So they did not choose Linux, they were just doomed to continue using it,
> > in a way, since their own product was not able to make it work.
> >
> > The only thing that I know of that MS did for Unix (not even specifically
> > Linux), is build some things for Apache so that can support "BackPage"
> > extensions. (Who'd want that with PHP anyway.)
> >
> > I know about the limitations of win NT compared to Unix. At work we use a
> > bit of a database that continuously calculates processes (1.6 million
> > measuring points that are updated every 2 minutes). All attempts to make
> > this go on Win NT failed 10 out of 10 times. MS-Access cannot take it,
> > Oracle for Windows is way too slow.
> >
> > A nice basic Oracle database on an HP-9000, running HP-UX, has no problem
> > with it...
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Does anyone know what killed the Dead Sea?
> >
> > )0( [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] )0(
> > http://nlpagan.net - ICQ 147208
> > Registered Linux User 174403
> >
--
_____________________________________________________________________
Sridhar Dhanapalan
Linux is like a wigwam...No windows, no gates.
Apache inside.
_____________________________________________________________________
