It reminds me of an MS supporter who once told me the only reason Linux
was the only OS running at a descent speed on my system was because my
system was too slow.
I've seen the odd real point in these types of reports from the
NT camp. I don't think we need to wait for them to remove the plank from
their eye before we remove our slivers. ;)
Gerhard
On Sat, 1 May 1999, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, 1 May 1999, BROWN Nick wrote:
>
> > >However, I think there should be a _public_ place where this
> > clarification is available.
> >
> > I have corresponded briefly with Mark Russinovich on NT-related issues in
> > the past, and he has always seemed a very fair-minded individual. He
> > certainly isn't in Microsoft's pocket, for example. I would hope that if
> > asked, he would contribute some follow-up to this forum. Of course, he
> > makes his living from NT - both its strengths and its shortcomings.
> >
> > Nick Brown, Strasbourg, France (Nick(dot)Brown(at)coe(dot)int)
> >
>
> Arguing WIN/Linux will always be counterproductive. If you have
> a closed OS, you can always state that it has some "advantage" that
> an open OS doesn't have. You can even do this truthfully. I note
> that Mark's comments were mostly about "scalability". This is
> a buzz-word that doesn't mean anything at all. If Ford said that
> their cars were more scalable than GM, it would probably mean that
> it was easier to put in a larger engine. Something that few, if
> anyone, would ever do. Scalability is largely irrelevant.
>
> What one needs in an OS is reliability, usability, and compatibility
> with some standards that provide a portable platform. Performance
> must be considered, but it is secondary in a Commercial Environment.
> Scalability is not a commercial requirement, even when defined to
> actually mean somehting. It is too essoteric.
>
> Machines used commercially will run until whatever they are doing
> completes. For instance, most commercial database programs are very
> inefficient by design. They are, however robust. They were ported
> to WIN-NT because it was available, not because it was good or even
> acceptable.
>
> Nothing Microsoft has done in its entire history is robust. Even
> Microsoft's tools such as Compilers are riddled with bugs. Microsoft
> has never designed anything for reliability. Instead, they simply
> exist. They continue to exist because they make cheap software,
> including cheap Operating Systems. Companies that made reliable
> tools such as compilers are unable to compete with Microsoft because
> they provide supposably equivalent tools at much lower prices.
>
> Linux can win against WIN-NT if we push reliability. Microsoft
> doesn't have the development environment necessary to produce
> reliable software. Reliability testing is simply left to the customers.
> And the customers have to pay for the bug-fixes if they ever get
> fixed. Within a few hours of a development release of Linux, there
> are, roughly, 10,000 testers in the field. Within a few days, the
> number exceeds 100,000. Microsoft can never do that.
>
> What Microsoft has been able to do is produce a "fuzzy" Microsoft
> Environment by charging customers for "technical training", producing
> a clique of so-called "experts". They then advertise that, if you
> don't have Microsoft-trained persons on your staff, you are risking
> everything. This will continue. I suggest that the major Linux
> Distributors and VARS do the same thing. This will add a "presence"
> that does not yet exist. It will allow VARS to make a bit more money
> and give customers the warm fuzzy feeling they are used to getting
> from Microsoft. These customers might learn a bit more than they
> would from Microsoft because the training would involve more than
> learning to recover from continual Windows crashes.
>
> Cheers,
> Dick Johnson
> ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
> Penguin : Linux version 2.2.6 on an i686 machine (400.59 BogoMips).
> Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology.
>
>
> -
> 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/
>
-- gmack@imag.netAs a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.
- 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/