From: Shane Dempsey (sdempsey at domain tssg.wit.ie)
Date: Tue 05 Oct 1999 - 12:36:27 IST
I'm sorry but I am still trying to digest their assertion that
NT is more stable than linux , partially cos it isn't based on '30 year old
technology'.
The really unfortunate thing is that for all window's advanced technology
vomit )
it still manages to hang in the most amazing ways and trivial ways.
WIn2000 is infinitely better than NT but it isn't perfect and
there have been so many surveys showing the amount of bugs that
a windows system will generate if just left around doing nothing that
for all their talk about NT reliability in real world situations, we all
know that
it crashes more than linux. It is a pity that Microsoft can't refine
some of the very nice features of their products into
something that actually works in a predictable and reliable manner.
It did bring up some important issues. Is the swap size still limited ?
I know that you can have multiple swap files. I think that NT
does it this way anyway transparently.
Is the memory limit still in place ?
This isn't much of a drawback on a desktop but I thought that
there were versions of lINUX that could handle more RAM than 2 gig ?
Aren't their sercure versions of LINUX ?
The only things that I'll agree with is that NT is notionally very nice and
that windows is more intuitive than LINUX.
...shane
----- Original Message -----
From: John McCormac <jmcc at domain hackwatch.com>
To: <ilug at domain linux.ie>
Sent: 05 October 1999 12:22
Subject: Re: [ILUG] Linux Myths. The truth can be told!
> Jeremy Smyth wrote:
> >
> > Pardon my ignorance... what does it mean?
> > > "Lights out datacentre" aka "LOD".
>
> Well in NT terms, the "sysadmin" can switch out the lights and walk away
> and leave things running. Of course to most NT "sysadmins" that means
> turning off the box and in reality only the light switch works. ;-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:04:40 GMT