Date sent: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:33:26 +1100
From: Matthew Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [SLUG] Fwd: Where do you want to go today.
> Here 'tis:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/msnw/LinuxMyths.asp
A few points I found that aren't logical with this "scientific report":
> Linux lacks a commercial quality Journaling File System. This
> means that in the event of a system failure (such as a power
> outage) data loss or corruption is possible. In any event, the
> system must check the integrity of the file system during
> system restart, a process that will likely consume an extended
> amount of time, especially on large volumes and may require
> manual intervention to reconstruct the file system.
Isn't this called SCANDISK on Windows systems?? In any event, a sudden
power loss to any system that uses caching may cause data loss or
corruption.
> There are no OEMs that provide uptime guarantees for Linux,
> unlike Windows NT where Compaq, Data General, Hewlett-Packard,
> IBM, and Unisys provide 99.9 percent system-level uptime
> guarantees for Windows NT-based servers.
Does this take into account the difference in numbers between Windows
NT OEM's and Linux OEM's?? Remember, this page was posted in very early
October last year, some 6 months ago.
> The cost of the operating system is only a small percentage
> of the overall total cost of ownership (TCO). In general
> Windows NT has proven to have a lower cost of ownership than
> UNIX. Previous studies have shown that Windows NT has 37
> percent lower TCO than UNIX. There is no reason to believe
> that Linux is significantly different than other versions of
> UNIX when it comes to TCO.
Using this logic: There is no reason to assume Windows NT is
significantly different than other versions of Windows when it comes to
TCO.
> Linux is a higher risk option than Windows NT. For example
> how many certified engineers are there for Linux? How easy is
> it to find skilled development and support people for Linux?
> Who performs end-to-end testing for Linux-based solutions?
> These factors and more need to be taken into account when
> choosing a platform for your business.
1. Certified engineers mean jack unless they have the experience to
also allow them to solve the problems quickly. Being certified does NOT
mean you are able to do the job required, OTOH, not being certified
does not mean you are unable to the the job required.
2. Skilled devel and support staff for Linux are very easy to find....a
check at your local university will often yield a number of skilled
personnel.
> Linux system administrators must spend huge amounts of
> time understanding the latest Linux bugs and determining
> what to do about them. This is made complex due to the
> fact that there isn't a central location for security
> issues to be reported and fixed. In contrast Microsoft
> provides a single security repository for notification and
> fixes of security related issues.
Of course, these fixes provided in a central location are only those
fixes that Microsoft has deemed significant enough to actually correct.
By contrast, Linux has so many people working on it and with it that
fixes, however minor, are typically corrected quickly.
> Configuring Linux security requires an administrator to be
> an expert in the intricacies of the operating system and
> how components interact. Misconfigure any part of the
> operating system and the system could be vulnerable to
> attack. Windows NT security is easy to set up and
> administer with tools such as the Security Configuration
> Editor.
In my eyes, knowing how different programs interact with another means
you are MORE likely to notice and be able to correct errors. Relying on
someone else's opinion of what is secure ensures that you are at a
greater risk due to not having the fundamental understanding of the
security problems. A lot of people who purchase an anti-virus program
suddenly end up the victims of viruses themselves, usually through not
knowing how to properly control the program and ensure it's security
levels are sufficient for the person.
> Reality: Linux Makes No Sense at the Desktop Linux as
> a desktop operating system makes no sense. A user
> would end up with a system that has fewer
> applications, is more complex to use and manage, and
> is less intuitive.
Gees, that's really scientific. Surely Microsoft can come up with a
better and more valid reason to not use Linux on the desktop than this.
> Linux does not provide support for the broad range of
> hardware in use today; Windows NT 4.0 currently supports
> over 39,000 systems and devices on the Hardware
> Compatibility List. Linux does not support important
> ease-of-use technologies such as Plug and Play, USB, and
> Power Management.
Hmmm, odd. My copy of RH6.1 handles both Plug 'n' Play and Power
Management (that I recall). Doesn't support USB (that I know of), but
that's bound to change fast.
> The complexity of the Linux operating system and
> cumbersome nature of the existing GUIs would make
> retraining end-users a huge undertaking and would
> add significant cost.
Well, I'm comfused about this "proof", are microsoft claiming that
Windows NT is not complex yet Linux is? What about Windows NT itself
(the GUI)? Is Windows NT perfect, cannot be improved, no "gotcha's"?? I
hardly think so. While Linux and the GUI of the consumers choice IS
complex, I cannot claim that it is any more complex than Windows NT
GUI.
A thing I have noticed through this whole report is that both NT and
Linux are classified as an OS. Last time I checked, NT was NOT an OS,
only Linux was. Windows NT is an application that is run from the OS.
This sounds a lot like FUD from Microsoft.
While I will be the first to admit that Linux is not perfect, it must
be also admitted that neither is Windows NT. Linux does some things
very well but is a little worse in others than NT. Also, NT does some
things very well but is worse in others than Linux.
My 0.02
Aussie
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
