Re: Linux vs Windows
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 03:16:12PM +0200, David Fokkema wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for all the replies! Feeling a bit better now... On solaris:
didn't know it was called slowlaris, but at my university, we run this
OS and even 'top' consumes almost 3Mb of memory (just checked) and xmms
with ogg vorbis consumes 25 percent of CPU, whereas my 500Mhz AMD laptop
keeps it down to below 2 percent...
On the mindcraft survey: according to the article
(www.unixsucks.com/bitching.aspx) there were three tests performed,
where in the last two redhat guys were involved. Anyway... Kevin and Ron
mention that the tests were useful in highlighting problems and that
samba and 2.4 are now faster than ever and the tests are outdated.
Also, someone mentioned that he was not sure why I was bothered in the
first place: why does windows have to be less capable than linux to use
linux? Well, it doesn't, although I always thought that linux was just
better. Liked to throw that in in conversations, ;-)
Anyway, thanks!
David
Reply to: