Also I think that some of the performance figures are disputed by rational
claims of the Linux front to offer certain levels of higher performance
given the exact same hardware platform. That is to say, I have seen
comparisons of web server performance where Linux severely outperforms NT
server.
It might be so that total cost of ownership in the enterprise setting for
Windows NT is less than Linux. IT largely depends upon the skillset of the
system administrators. NT offers a certain level of convenience that is
almost unparalleled. By the same token, if I am not mistaken it is so that
more ISP's use Linux.
The subject is interesting reading? Uh oh. Here's some links
http://www3.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim/,
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/trade-charter.html.
Have a nice day,
Ross
Geoff Smith wrote:
> I probably don't need to point this out to the intelligent readership of
> the Extropian list, but one can imagine there might be some biases
> involved when a company compares their own product to someone else's.
>
> Case in point, if you click on the link to a study that dispels the myth
> "linux is cheaper than NT", you will find it is actually a comparison of
> Windows NT to Sun Solaris -- which of course is a commercial operating
> system running on expensive proprietary hardware. More than a little
> deceptive ;-)
>
> Geoff.
>
> "Emlyn (onetel)" wrote:
> >
> > > Interesting reading!!
> > >
> > > http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/msnw/LinuxMyths.asp
> > >
> > > http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/exec/compares/ntlinux.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:21 MDT