Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 13:03:16 +0100 (BST) From: Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk> To: "Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com" <michaelv@MindBender.serv.net> Cc: dennis <dennis@etinc.com>, Alex Belits <abelits@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us>, isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD and NT Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970723124444.1813C-100000@dylan.visint.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199707222142.OAA03553@MindBender.serv.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com wrote: > NT by itself (and NT with tons of development tools and such open) > runs for weeks at a time without reboots, for me, and thousands of > others. Modern NT servers (as opposed to "workstations", which you > described) are every bit as stable as Unix servers, with months of > uptime. FYI... I wouldn't be the first or the last if I said that NT sucks and is the worst operating system on the planet, and I won't because it does sell and it probably is due to slightly more than marketing hype. The only problem with what you are saying is that no matter how many people continuously state how stable NT is, there are still people commenting on it's instability. The two arguments seem to be : 1) NT can be unstable. (N.B. "can be unstable", not "is unstable") 2) UNIX can be difficult to use/setup. (N.B. "can be" vs. "is" again) I've seen very nothing the other way round, no-one seems to be shouting that NT is difficult to setup, and no Microsoft fan ever seems to shout about how unstable UNIX is. Really both of these alternatives seem to be stupid. So, I'm led to beleive that NT is *possibly* unstable, and UNIX will be difficult to use. Most people here will argue that UNIX is easy to use, just not if you're a complete idiot... (I don't entirely agree) and that NT just sucks and is bought to you straight from hell. (A rather rabid fantical style of argument, to say the least!) Now, assume "NT can be unstable" is wrong, then it's okay to go with it. Assume "UNIX is difficult to use" is wrong then it's okay to go with it. If "NT can be unstable" is true then it's not okay to use NT. However if the arguments against UNIX are true then all it means are that you will need a competent intelligent sysadmin. So, really all the arguments so far in favour of NT seem to be about the competence required to use NT vs. the competence required to use UNIX. Rather than the more sensible discussion/debate/fanatical arguments of which actually does the job properly. Chose for yourself, and if NT works for you then fine, but the closer you look at the arguments the NT side is fighting mainly on the premise of "we're too stupid to use UNIX". Oh, and I'll happily use NT if I need to, but currently our servers cope just fine on UNIX, cost a lot less and I'm clever enough to be able to use UNIX. (is that arrogance or is UNIX really not so difficult?) -- Steve Roome - Vision Interactive Ltd. Tel:+44(0)117 9730597 Home:+44(0)976 241342 WWW: http://dylan.visint.co.uk/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.970723124444.1813C-100000>