[alug] Check this old bollocks out!
h089 at mth.uea.ac.uk
Fri Oct 8 03:04:10 BST 1999
Is this a troll? Hmmm...
On Thu, Oct 07, 1999 at 08:25:00PM +0100, Clive Haden wrote:
> The report is based on tests that would appear to be fair and carried out
> under independent arbitration by a respected 3rd party. The representatives
> of Linux had every opportunity to exercise their OS against NT and the
> conclusions made were based on benchmark evidence rather than rabid,
> anti-Microsoft drivel.
At least one of the references would appear to be to the
Mindcraft tests and another to ZD Labs, which are both hardly
independent or respected. "The representatives of Linux" do
not currently have "every opportunity", as the distributors are
far smaller than MS and unlikely to see the many thousands of
pounds of testing fees as a worthwhile investment.
Linux is tried and tested, proven in the field. Ask an ISP.
> Don't get me wrong I am not a die-hard Microsoft fan, far from it. I work
> for a company that runs both OS's but I'm not going to recommend my
> Directors to spend £x thousands of pounds on kit and software unless it
> meets important criteria of manageability, support and scalability.
Well, I'm not going to recommend my directors spend thousands
of pounds on kit and then install software on the basis of the
size of the marketing budget of the authors. (Those of you
that know which of my roles I'm referring to can have a merit
mark ;) ) Linux would seem to be far closer to your criteria
than NT with remote and automated administration, plentiful
high-quality support contracts (to supplement the excellent
free help) and Linux Cluster Cabal just around the corner.
[ This email came to you via the Anglian Linux User Group list ]
[ If you only wish to recieve event announcements, email the ]
[ SUBJECTs of "unsubscribe alug" and "subscribe alug-announce" ]
[ to listserver at stu.uea.ac.uk -- We do need your support, tho' ]
More information about the main