Re: Mark Russinovich's reponse Was: [OT] Comments to WinNT Mag !!

Ricardo Galli Granada (gallir@atlas-iap.es)
Mon, 3 May 1999 22:48:15 +0200 (MEST)


> More succinctly: "An enterprise server does not crash."
>
> Until NT attains a difficult-to-measure level of reliability,
> its advocates would be wise to avoid mentioning it on the same
> page with the word "enterprise".

sun:~$ w
10:24pm up 70 days, 1:31, 1 user, load average: 0.12, 0.07, 0.02

sun:~$ free
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 127812 125636 2176 11932 38508 8784
-/+ buffers/cache: 78344 49468
Swap: 48380 92 48288

Just ask to NT fans for number like the previous ones in a old (3.5 years)
Pentium 133, 2.0.36, running:

- Firewall, masquerading, and routing (three 100 mbps ethernet)
- Squid
- secondary DNS (40 domains)
- secondary MX (40 domains)
- NFS server (gateway to SMB)
- SMB file server (Samba)

NOTE: Its uptime is *only* 70 days because I had to stop it to change an
ethernet. Last 70 days included an whole upgrade (with no reboot) of libc,
bin-utils, util-linux, nfsserver and nettools.

If you can get those numbers from a Windows NT, then let's follow the
discussions...

Ooooh!!! They complain about stupid UNIX text interface. Did they try to
add a static IP route using just the bogus "Advanced" TCP/IP control
panel? Of course they canīt, they have to learn the "old fashioned" BSD
like route command in a "modern" MS-DOS text interface...

Sorry, this is a stupid offtopic, but I cannot stand those people that
talk about "Enterprise" and "Reliability" and they can not even maintain
alive or configure a "really working" NT server for a couple of weeks (did
they try?).

AWK!!!!

--
Ricardo Galli

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/