On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, erx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wasn't looking for a response to Microsoft. You're right, they could care
> less what the linux community thinks. What I was looking for was a response
> for those who might be trying to make a decision about whether to invest in a
> Microsoft SAK based product, or whether to try using a Linux+Samba based
> solution.
>
> The fact that we *could* demonstrate these things (but haven't) is not
> sufficient. Not to me, not to those who might be deciding.
Good. Will you contribute what is needed? It is welcome.
> As far as truth goes, I couldn't disagree more. Truth is relative; truth
> changes over time. It is affected by what you see, hear, read, and believe. I
> can affect your truth; you can affect mine. If it weren't true, there would be
> no point at all to marketing.
Truth is absolute. Either there is gravity or there is not. No matter what
you think when you jump off a tall building, whether you believe there is
gravity of not - you are still subject ot it. Now understand, gravity has
never killed anyone, but if you jump off a tall building the truth is that
hitting the ground might kill you! :)
Relative? Really? Please do not try jumping off a tall building, the truth
might hurt! Your perceptions of truth might change, but truth stands firm.
> So you know of nothing, then, that counters Microsoft's arguments?
Why don't you write what you would like to see on the Samba web site. We
do not disciminate you know. All good contributions are always welcome.
Since you asked about counters to the MS link, here are a few:
SSO: Winbindd provides integrated single-sign-on for PAM enabled
Unix/Linux systems.
Quotas: Commercial Linux systems support Quotas - Samba implements this
and the samba-team work with Linux vendors to keep this functional
- thus this does NOT require an OEM to do anything else. The
comment about risk is pure hyperbole.
ADS: Samba (not Linux) can be an Active Directory member (true for
samba-2-2.x). Samba-3.0.0 will be able to natively join and ADS
domain.
Samba-2.2.x and upwards DOES support inter-domain trusts.
Performance:
When it comes to benchmarking - you can prove what you want.
The real issue is: How does Samba on Linux compare with Win2K AS
in a real workspace environment. We know for fact that it works
better with fewer resources. There are a number of published
reports that demonstrate this.
Journaling File Systems:
There are reports that show how poorly NTFS performs with Win2KAS.
The same reports show that a Linux reliable file system
infrastructure can outperform Win2KAS with NTFS.
With Linux administrators have a choice of journaling file systems
- not so with Win2K/2003.
Integration:
MS Windows 2000/2003 is just as much made up of many technologies
that have been integrated, just as is Linux. When you buy a
product like Red Hat Advanced Server or United Linux - the
integration work has been done for you - just like when you buy
a Microsoft product.
RAID and Reliability:
Most RAID storage vendors provide driver support for Linux as they
do for MS Windows NT/2K/2003. Red Hat and United Linux BOTH
integrate the vendors' drivers into their products AS DO
Mircosoft. So to say that this requires more tweaking by an OEM
is utter nonsense!
Certification of Drivers:
Come on! Really? Have Microsoft checked with United Linux or Red
Hat directly. How many of the listed certified drivers on
Microsoft's site are truely current and up to date?
And that is just a rough list. I am sure you can do a better job. I look
forward to your contribution.
- John T.
>
>
>
> ERX
>
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: John H Terpstra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:11 PM
> >To: erx
> >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba vs Windows SAK
> >
> >
> >On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, erx wrote:
> >
> >> Has anyone seen this:
> >>
> >http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Embedded/sak/evaluation/compare/adva
> >ntage.asp
> >>
> >> And has anyone from the Samba team posted a response? It seems like some of
> >> the information presented there is contrary to what I know about Samba.
> >
> >Why reply to Microsoft? What will it achieve?
> >As things stand we can demonstrate that they are not in touch:
> > - Not with their own customers
> > - Not with Samba capabilities
> >
> >As to 'Truth' - customers make up their own minds on that one. No one can
> >prove 'Truth' to anyone.
> >
> >- John T.
> >--
> >John H Terpstra
> >Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
John H Terpstra
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
