Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 10:31:46 -0700 From: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> To: "Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com" <michaelv@MindBender.serv.net> Cc: Jim Dixon <jdd@vbc.net>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NT vs UNIX Message-ID: <33984982.3723@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> References: <199706060625.XAA26875@MindBender.serv.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com wrote: > > Hit "next" now if you aren't interested in an NT thread... > ( I moved this to "chat".... ) > >Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com wrote: > > >> While it's true that NT will probably require more memory to get the > >> system up and running, and while it's also true that you will probably > >> have to buy software (although I'm sure Netscape and others would be > >> as happy to sell you a news server as Microsoft would), it's complete > >> and utter bull to assert that NT will "fall over" under a full news > >> feed. It show's that you simply have no clue what you're talking > >> about. In fact, I would bet that you have no experience whatsoever > >> doing anything demanding with NT. > > >Well...I imagine if you use a Compaq Proliant with 512M and lot's of > >SCSI disks and so on, even DOS will resist the load. In the real world, > >though, the performance of any UNIX will easily beat NT: > > http://www.lanquest.com/reports/lotus_notes/sco85a.htm > >I don't know NetBSD, but FreeBSD outperforms SCO (especially at high > >loads). > > Hmmm... where do I begin... > > The test was run on a previous major release of NT (3.5 vs. 4.0). > Major performance improvements have been made in that period of time. > Microsoft hasn't exactly been standing still on the performance front. > > They test on 4-processor machines with software that they admit only > supports two processors on NT. > I think it's fair..only SCO has such a closed mentality to keep marketing that old product with a different compiler. Hope I'm not talking like Terry either, but Unixware is a much better product. The NT version is old, but M$ has been selling vaporware from some years now, and many people still use this version: in the minds of the common user bringing in the W95 GUI is associated with unstability. > They use an older version of Lotus Notes, which at that point of time > was more of a Unix app recompiled to run on NT than a server product > that was written to work comfortably and natively with the way NT > works. The 2-processor limit is just one example why (hint: the > threading and processor affinity should be totally transparent if the > software was written correctly for NT in the first place). > This is a limitation of NT itself: while the UNIX sources are available for a price, NT's source code is one the best kept secrets. More than secret, they do whatever the want with it and don't tell anything to the major software developers (Lotus Notes) that could beat M$ products. It's fair to keep those limitations accounted for in a test. > Of course, this plays back into my assertion that Exchange kicks > Notes' ass. But I understand the value of using a common application > on both platforms. However, I think it was quite convenient for the > results of this report that Notes of that vintage just wasn't very > well written for NT (there are lots of other examples why, but I won't > belabor the point here). > Remember that there's no way to make this type of tests with Exchange. IMHO, this is the problem with the "abridge and extend" policy of Mini$oft; they only extend if they own the API's. I'm sure after you did your part someone in M$ replaced some API's here and there until they were sure Exchange kicked out Notes. To be fair we would have to see a version for UNIX. > You need to understand these types of studies are pretty much decided > before they are written. They are usually done entirely for the > purpose of showing to prospective clients. You can find another study > just as slanted that will show an area where NT totally kicks butt. > Either way, they're just corporate marketing. All the big companies > do it. > I agree that all tests can be slanted in some way or another, but the company that did this test is very serious. I haven't seen much tests around that were favorable to NT, would have to dig deeper in M$ web site, but the performance issue is dead around UNIX being faster but NT getting nearer and nearer. > > What makes the free BSDs so efficient is because they hold true to the > spirit of the original Unix much more closely than their commercial > counterparts. An OS written by and for the people who use it. An OS > written by hackers for hackers. A beautiful, clean, elegant, simple, > logically well-designed OS, unencumbered by marketing departments or > user-feedback studies. It doesn't try to be every thing for every > body. And, it expects you to accomodate it from time to time, not the > other way around. You gotta love an OS that makes no appologies. :-) > > I've been labled an "NT-enthusiast". Think of me more as a devil's > advocate. I'm just as much a BSD enthusiast as an NT enthusiast. And > if someone in an NT forum said something stupid about FreeBSD or > NetBSD, I would point out the errors just as candidly (and have done > so many times in the past). > > I simply think it's dangerous to go around gloating about something > based on a falsehood (only FreeBSD can support big news servers 'cause > NT would just fall right over). > > And even though I try to be candid, I about NT, Unix, and the BSDs, if > you say something stupid about Exchange Server I'll kick your ass, > cause that's my baby, and I firmly believe it's the "most powerful > messaging platform on the planet". :-) > > But to put this thing to rest: yes, FreeBSD and/or NetBSD running INN > still make about the best news server you can get for an ISP or any > other Unix-savvy site. The software is mature, and very well > understood. The BSDs are very efficient and resource-friendly, and of > course, they're free. > > However, there are other NNTP packages out there that are very capable > of handling a full feed. Exchange Server 5.0 is one of them, and it > does it pretty damn well for the very first release of an NNTP server > (i. e. the previous version had no NNTP connectivity). Balancing the > fact that it may not be quite as fast as Free/NetBSD + INN on a > well-tuned box, it is infinitely easier to configure and maintain. In > addition to Exchange, Netscape and Lotus would also be happy to sell > you news servers that aren't INN, and that run on NT. Of course, they > all cost real money. > Of course the great advantage, probably the only advantage, of NT is it's ease of use. I used Mac boxes before MS 3.0 was available and even then I firmly believed MS Windows was a winner. Now I find a conceptual difficulty buying M$ products..(in fact I don't buy them :-) ). "Don't buy DR-DOS, we will soon release MS-DOS 6.0 that will offer lot's of new features that will become standard, besides DR-DOS won't run win 3.1" "Don't buy OS2, we will release our 32-bit OS *VERY* soon and it will be very cool". M$ is still selling vaporware, the so-called improvements over UNIX are not evident. Many people are simply tied already to M$, they won't study any option that doesn't use NT. One of my previous employers ORDERED me to uninstall any UNIX box around and use exclusively NT. All my UNIX boxes survived; there were no official licenses for NT, and there isn't a version for IBM's Power processors. The same guy suggested we should remove all passwords from our boxes. Of course the day after I went away M$ found out we were using OS2 and made an additional discount on W95 licenses. My FBSD "development" box was erased with NT...when they want to go back to FreeBSD (they are already tired of licensing restrictions), they will have to pay a fee if the want to see FBSD reinstalled :). Just be honest with yourself and break the chains that tie you to Bill and his evil ways. Pedro. > Geeze... I'm getting almost as windy as Terry Lambert... > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Michael L. VanLoon michaelv@MindBender.serv.net > --< Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x >-- > NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac 68k, Amiga, Atari 68k, HP300, Sun3, > Sun4/4c/4m, DEC MIPS, DEC Alpha, PC532, VAX, MVME68k, arm32... > NetBSD ports in progress: PICA, others... > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?33984982.3723>