Re: It's the economy, stupid

* The Wise One!!! <cardpro(at)zebra.net> writes:

[...]
> I believe strongly that eventually MS will conquer the problems that
> they built into NT and it will reach the point where it is a viable
> enterprise scale server OS. But it won't be this year, or from the
> looks of the latest beta (non)release of NT 5.0, even next year.

That assumes that U*ix will not be developed any further. This will not
happen. It also assumes that MS will for the first time ever produce a
program that is both bug-free and actively maintained. This will not
happen, either. If you want to sell a commercial product, you have to
add new "features" which will inadvertantly break the program. Following
the Cathedral Style of Programming, you will *never* be able to get rid
of the bugs or even reliably detect them before release. Free U*ices
follow the Bazaar Style of Programming and are "beta tested" by hundreds
of thousands of users - who can (at least theoretically, because the
sources are open) fix the bugs.

> There are pro's and con's to all OS's. 

This sentence does not have any meaning, does it?

> NT has its strengths and its adherents just as UNIX has its own set
> of strengths and adherents.

That, however, is incorrect. NT claims to be a replacement for U*ix as
a networking OS. Therefore, it *has* to have strengths where U*ix has
weaknesses and vice versa. What are these strenghts, Alan? I have used
many OSes and I have used both commercial U*ices and NT to a larger
extent (both as an admin in University and in my jobs). NT has no
advantages over the U*ices I've worked with except that the food they
server at their propaganda meetings is usually better than the crisps
and coke one usually gets at a Linux hacking run.

> For relatively small scale, non-enterprise applications, I feel like
> NT is a strong contender. 

*rotfl* REALITY CHECK 1-2-3!!![1] NT is competing with BSD and Linux - 
f-o-r-g-e-t it. Forever. NT is a third rate file and print server
that cost infinitly more money than both above U*ices - and will
inevitably lead to losses in productivity and security.

> How small is small? 

Does the word "scalability" ring a bell? Unlike in real life, size
doesn't matter in the Real Computer World(c). Give me hardware and
I'll give you power - *my* OSes are scalable.

[...]
> UNIX in all its flavors has a ton of advantages....open source code
> allows for strong customization. Stability is rock solid. Server
> performance scales vastly better than NT, at least for now.

Open sources guarantee security and stability. They also gurantee
progess. Remeber how "old" Linux is? Well, compare its current state
of technology to NT... SMB-Linux beats the living penc out of any NT
machine on earth. Seen Beowulf clusters at work? Scary, believe me...

> Is one system inherently better than the other? (Emphasis on the
> word "inherent" please!) Heck if I know. 

Get a clue, then. Install Linux and see for yourself. Read the advocacy
groups and check the U*ix-users' expertise against that of the NT-users'
- what a joke.

> But UNIX is definitely more mature at this point.

UNIX is a (tm). But all U*ices I know are.

Robin

Footnotes: 
[1]  Man, I *hate* shouting... :-(

-- 
The One and Only Robin S. Socha
<http://www.kens.com/robin/>
Cc: me and I'll kill -9 you

HWG: hwg-software mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA