Re: Linux vs Windows
> Hi group,
>
> I'm not looking for a flamewar, nor do I want this thread to become an
> outlet for all kinds of ass* opinions. I am being very serious about
> this. Really.
>
> So, apparantly, apache holds about 60 percent of the internet server
> market and microsoft's iis only about 30. Furthermore, apache is faster,
> more stable and more secure. Furthermore, un*x (with for example qmail)
> can handle more mails per day with a lower system load and fewer (read
> none) mails are being lost. Basically, un*x (or just the BSDs and linux)
> is faster, more stable and more secure. AND free. Or so I am led to
> believe...
>
> According to www.unixsucks.com (why did I go there in the first place?),
> which has a lot of reference links, this is all not true. I could've
> LOLed,
> flamed this guy and ignored his site, but I didn't. I looked up the
> references. I'm particularly bothered about the Fortune 1000 net survey
> and the mindcraft benchmark of redhat vs winnt. I read the whole story,
> they did three tests. And what's more, win2000 seems to be stable.
>
> Any thoughts on this? Or (perhaps) better, a site with a lot of
> reference links which 'proves' the opposite?
>
> (a slightly bothered) David
>
> PS: Don't get me wrong. I will probably be using debian into the next
> millennium.
>
Having done zero research on the particulars...
MindCraft has been well established as nothing short of a HOAX put on by
Microsoft. IIRC it was a test between two servers, one of which was
configured by the best minds in the business. The other configured by
following the minimalist installation options with no effort for
optimization. Given that, it's not a surprise to anyone that MindCraft
showed MSFT kicking butt.
As for the Fortune 1000 survey. You might be communicating with the IT
types who are very reluctant to use a product where they might be
personally accountable for. With MSFT, you can either attempt to sue
them, or at least blame them.
W2K may be more stable than Windows 98, but I do not believe it is more
stable than Linux.
I've not had a BSOD on W2K, but I've had a lot of applications die.
I've had much better overall success with Debian/Linux.
Reply to: