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.
MJR
[ 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@stu.uea.ac.uk -- We do need your support, tho' ]