Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:20:03 -0500 From: John <papalia@udel.edu> To: "Morten A. Middelthon" <morten@freenix.no>, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cnn.com - "King of the network operating systems" Message-ID: <4.1.20000126121045.00974640@mail.udel.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001260900240.43421-100000@asimov.freenix.no >
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hey all, So, I read that whole article, and I thought about formulating a letter to the authors. I was hoping that someone with more experience would do that though... below are the reasons. I know you have to pick your battles carefully, and given that I'm relatively new to this "battle", I was hoping someone could shed light on whether or not it's truly worth the effort - When you read the article, it reads (IMHO) as a blatant advertisement for W2K, with only afterthoughts put in to the other 3 OS's. Everything is "W2K" can do this, but XYZ os "can't do this". - Last time someone pointed out an "NT vs Linux" comparison, it was revealed, if I recall correctly, that MS engineers were invited in to tweak the NT box, while the Linux box was left as "out of the box". - The indicate for their r/w performance test, the used Samba on the Linux box, but don't indicate why or what version. I don't understand why they'd do that? Could someone explain? Is it just because their test software was windows based? - They rate the admin and other tools, and it seems (again, IMHO) that if something was not a "simple point and click interface", it was no good. Well, I guess that yes, GUI makes things easy, and if they had to tweak a .conf file they'd rate it as "poor", but is this really a true rating of the OS? - They're overall rating and explanation at the end (wrap up) tells almost nothing informative... The problem here is that the general public will read this, and the "masses" out there are the point-and-click Bill Gates generation of users... so... how to diseminate better information? Just my thoughts.... i have a hatred of misleading information (hence I stopped watching the news - on a regular basis at least - 6 years ago ;-) ) Thanks for listening, John >http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/01/24/NOS.idg/index.html > >In this article the two authors tests four different "network operating >systems", or NOS, RedHat Linux, MS Windows 2000, Netware and SCO Unixware. >The authors claims that these are the major NOSs on the market today, but >I feel FreeBSD should be on this list too, especially when there are so >many larger companies and organizations using FreeBSD. I sent an email to >the authors telling them about FreeBSD and I got this reply, > >"Good point... Definitely a consideration for the next review. >Thanks for the feedback!" > >So if others would like send a similar comment to them >(john_bass@ncsu.edu, james_robinson@ncsu.edu) maybe they will include >FreeBSD in their next article. > >(btw, Linux came out last in the test, W2K first). > >-- >Morten A. Middelthon >Freenix Norge >http://www.freenix.no/ > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.20000126121045.00974640>