From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Mar 2 17: 1:37 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from dervish.mail.pipex.net (dervish.mail.pipex.net [158.43.192.70]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8D26837BF81 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 17:01:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: (qmail 14463 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2000 00:57:38 -0000 Received: from userau42.uk.uudial.com (HELO marder-1.) (62.188.137.244) by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2000 00:57:38 -0000 Received: (from mark@localhost) by marder-1. (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA01204; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 00:33:36 GMT (envelope-from mark) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 00:33:36 +0000 From: Mark Ovens To: Joseph Scott Cc: Jonathon McKitrick , Kris Kennaway , freebsd-chat Subject: Re: any news on w2k in the world? Message-ID: <20000303003336.B327@marder-1> References: <38BEC002.5AD7CE8@owp.csus.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <38BEC002.5AD7CE8@owp.csus.edu>; from joseph.scott@owp.csus.edu on Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 11:24:50AM -0800 Organization: Total lack of Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 11:24:50AM -0800, Joseph Scott wrote: > > Jonathon McKitrick wrote: > > > > Setting security aside for the moment, what about other issues? > > Overall stability, speed, hardware support, administration, > > scalability, etc. > > Given that the product hasn't been out for the general public for a > month yet it's probably a bit overboard to closely examine how well it > will do. Let's put it this way, FreeBSD 4.0 gets released on say 10 > March, at the rate we are going we would know all there is know about > the impact of 4.0 by 2 April. Not very realistic. > > Back to your question though. Admin : windows needs good scripting > ability, NT 4 definitely didn't have it. Does 2000? Don't know. > Case in point : try adding 500 windows accounts, point and click all > over. In the unix world you'd just script the creation go to town. > Speed : MS has never been known to concern itself over running well > on minimal resources. I'm sure you can make 2000 run fast, but it > will take more hardware to do it. If that's not the case then it will > likely be a first for MS. This goes along the same lines with > scalability. Well, we just installed it on what M$ state as minimum spec hardware (P133, 64MB - although it will install with 32MB according to the box) mainly so we would have an idea what to recommend to customers when they ask if they can/should upgrade(?). It runs like a dog and, immediately after booting, has already swapped out 15MB. -- Microsoft: Where do you want to go today? Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow? BSD: Are you guys coming, or what? -Poster at LinuxWorld 2000 ________________________________________________________________ FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/ mailto:mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org http://www.radan.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message