|
|
|
|
|
| I thought using drugs druing working hpours was against M$ policy! Windows more reliable than UNIX? Could this article have come from anywhere else but Microsoft? I hear Nintendo was edging out Novell as well. | |
|
| Who would ever want to run Solaris on a multi-processor x86 system? Solaris is designed to be used on SPARCs, the Intel version is nice for learning the OS, but I'd never use it on a production server. If you want an x86 Unix server, FreeBSD is a much better choice.
How could they even mention reliabilty? Look out how often MSN has been down since they switched from FreeBSD to Win2k.
I could go on and on, but I think most (if not all) of those who frequent this forum realize how ridiculous this article is. | |
| neuralfx 2001-11-07, 2:24 pm |
| ya know, i read it a couple times, and its like whoever started writing it, got tired and walked away .. they didnt really say anything, i mean at all, they didnt really have an argument .. hm weird, anyway, there's a short paper Neal Stephenson wrote i think you all should check it, can be found here ..
Hole Hawg UNIX
-neural | |
| ccieToBe 2001-11-07, 6:57 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by neuralfx
ya know, i read it a couple times, and its like whoever started writing it, got tired and walked away .. they didnt really say anything, i mean at all, they didnt really have an argument .. hm weird, anyway, there's a short paper Neal Stephenson wrote i think you all should check it, can be found here ..
Hole Hawg UNIX
-neural
That's a great analogy. | |
| rlrouns 2001-11-12, 8:51 pm |
| I dont think that MS can compare with Solaris. They should be doing a comparison with Linux, and answering questions like, How come we can only cluster 2 servers together, when with Linux, a university clustered 72 IBM Intel based servers together as one resource using free software? In a production server enviornment, I would rather spend my cash on hardware than an OS any day....
Roberto | |
|
| Not!!!  | |
| Warfare 2001-12-13, 12:49 am |
| I didnt bother reading the M$ article.
Their articles give me the creeps. I rely on third-party benchmarks that dont have any relations with M$ in any way (like bribes!).
MS site always convinces you their products always wins and its perfect without any cons. Thats not realistic.
The funny thing is even of MS tries to do a benchmark they pick the worst enviroments and conditions for the competing product with default configurations. Like solaris on x68, and the best enviroment with optimized configurations for their products with increased boosted feutures.
uhhh, I see there are 3 peeps who actually got brainwashed by the MS article
 | |
| bam40 2002-01-20, 10:22 am |
| Hi all,
I read in the 1/19/02 Washington Post Business section that AOL Time Warner are in "fluid" neogations with Redhat. It seems like the compettons might heat up for MS.
www.pilotit.org:) | |
| ccieToBe 2002-01-20, 10:49 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by bam40
Hi all,
I read in the 1/19/02 Washington Post Business section that AOL Time Warner are in "fluid" neogations with Redhat. It seems like the compettons might heat up for MS.
www.pilotit.org:)
Yeah, slashdot had a story on it too. I really hope this doesn't go through. RedHat's doing a great job of marketing Linux and I have a feeling that if AOL bought RedHat it would stagnate just like Netscape did after AOL's purchase. | |
| PremaSharma 2002-01-20, 11:10 am |
| It is very strange, especially considering that AOL uses proprietary protocols whereas Linux requires open protocols, and currently Linux users cannot even use AOL to connect to the net. This seems like a very odd partnership indeed. | |
| huntert 2002-02-20, 8:44 pm |
| M$ is just full of it and knows that it has a control on the desktop world.
Funny how MS thinks that they can try to make secure software.
MS is a joke.
 |
|
|
|
