From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Feb 3 8: 8: 1 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14DDD40D6; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 08:07:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3) id 12GOna-0003dO-00; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 16:08:02 +0000 Received: from localhost (jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14218; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 16:08:01 GMT (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 16:08:01 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: Jason Evans Cc: John Purser , chat@freebsd.org, freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: @home.com's e-mail problems In-Reply-To: <20000129143315.C73462@sturm.canonware.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Jason Evans wrote: >On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 12:12:02PM -0800, John Purser wrote: >I worked at Critical Path (CP), an email outsourcer, for over a year. >During that year, there were a quite a number of service outages. CP runs >its services on a combination of Solaris and FreeBSD boxes. That CP >doesn't use NT is a definite plus, but it couldn't begin to make up for the >real problem: business goals do not emphasize reliability. If reliability >were a goal, I expect CP could do about as well using NT as FreeBSD (though >not for the same cost). @home may be different, but I doubt it. Why do you say that? That if reliability were a goal, the compnay could do as well with NT as with BSD? -=> jm <=- "Do not taunt the Happy Fun Ball." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message