X-no-Archive:yes
I read the article and I also run Linux as well as Windows NT, HP-UX and MPE.
I respect Glenn's opinions and I would like to present another opinion,
perhaps not very different from Glenn's.
There are no "lies" in the article, there are opinions about some "myths"
flying around about Linux VS NT.
MS presents these myths and then tries to explain and debunk them. If one
chooses not the be convinced by their explanations, that is perfectly
acceptable. One would also expect MS to present a case favoring NT, just as
one would expect the Linux group to present a case favoring Linux. That is
also perfectly acceptable. This is why people look to independent test
results. The test results to which MS refers are some that I have read
recently in the various magazines listed.
Let's look at how MS responds to Linux claims.
#1: Myth: Linux performs better than Windows NT
MS says: Reality: Windows NT 4.0 Outperforms Linux On Common Customer Workloads
The reports that I have read in the last few months, from various sources,
indicate that MS' impression is closer to reality. There were extensive tests
performed after the originals claims were hooted at by the Linux group. I have
read these tests and the surrounding environment description. The write-ups
were very good, very thorough and professional and got both sides of the story.
I believe these reports. I also believe Linux should be able to crank up its
performance once the SMP hurdle is totally behind it. It will get more
interesting in a year or so. Read the reports. If you dismiss out of hand the
independent tests as "not being independent and being biased from the start,"
then there is no point continuing any discussion.
(This reminds me of a flap some months ago when Apple stated their iMac was
faster than any Windows-based system, no matter the price. Independent testing
showed this claim to be totally untrue. It turns out the iMac was actually
slower than a similarly priced Windows-based system and far behind the then top
of the line Windows systems. A later rematch, with increased video memory in
the iMac revealed the same results. It took a while to debunk that myth and
even now, I am sure there are still a lot of people who still believe that one,
or who refuse to believe the independent tests.)
It has also been my experience that on the exact same machine, Linux was fast,
in command line. Once the free GUI was used, the performance was terrible,
much slower than NT. It was suggested that I buy a GUI which would make the
system perform better. This sort of goes against my idea of a "free OS." (See
below.)
#2: Myth: Linux is more reliable than Windows NT
MS says: Reality: Linux Needs Real World Proof Points Rather than Anecdotal
Stories
Anecdotal evidence is both compelling and misleading. We have been talking
about "lies, damned lies and statistics." This should be amended to "lies,
damned lies, statistics and anecdotal evidence." With statistics, you can
prove most anything, but with anecdotes, you can prove anything and put a human
face to it. Very poignant, very compelling especially since in these cases,
the stories may very well be true. The politicians have been doing that for
years. This is why presidents have people stand up while they recount some
story during the State of The Union Show. They use this to illustrate anything
they want. You can refute statistics, you cannot refute anecdotes. You can
only come up with statistics and show other trends.
Here is an anecdote for you :). I have been running NT for several years and I
have always relied on the compatibility lists. I have never had a problem with
NT. When I installed Linux, Red Hat 5.2, I lost the entire system a week later
and had to totally reinstall.
Seriously, I must say that I am very impressed with NTFS, the NT file system.
I find it very reliable and very advanced. Yes, it does have some things that
need work, but overall, it is excellent. I always laugh when I read messages
that start with: "I am so glad I have installed NT on FAT. I recently had a
problem with my files and I was able to repair the file system using DOS. . ."
They would not have had the problem in the first place if they were on NTFS.
Also, NT performs better and is more reliable on NTFS. I use nothing but NTFS
on my NT systems, no FAT crap on my systems. As for the Linux file system. . .
So, on this one, I would say that if you have NT or Linux properly loaded up on
good hardware, the reliability is probably equivalent, but I would rather have
NTFS storing my data than the Linux file system.
#3: Myth: Linux is Free
MS says: Reality: Free Operating System Does Not Mean Low Total Cost of
Ownership
This is an extremely debatable point where anecdotes and statistics can be
brought to bear to show anything at all. The bottom line is that Linux
licenses are indeed free, whereas NT licenses cost money. I have found NT to
be much simpler to install and maintain compared to Linux. From a performance
point of view, if you do not use any GUI on Linux, the latter will perform very
well. However, if you use a GUI, the whole thing slows down to a crawl, unless
you BUY a proper GUI. The support costs are going to be fairly similar, I
would say that NT is easier to support but you can have more devices and
therefore more issues, Linux is more complicated to support, but supports a lot
less devices, thus lowering the overall support.
#4: Myth: Linux is more secure than Windows NT
MS says: Reality: Linux Security Model Is Weak
There have been several threads on this list over the years which basically
make the statement that UNIX Security was/is an oxymoron. Why Linux security
would be different is beyond me. I would say that if you set up NT and Linux
properly, you should have the same level of security or insecurity.
#5: Myth: Linux can replace Windows on the desktop
MS says: Reality: Linux Makes No Sense at the Desktop
This is something about which I totally agree with MS. From the first time I
installed Linux, this was painfully obvious to me. Later on, I installed
Windows 2000 pro and what a difference. Linux is arcane and whilst NT 4.0 is
not as simple as Windows 95 or 98, it is much more usable than Linux. Windows
2000 is extremely user friendly and a breeze to install, provided you have the
hefty system required. This means something bigger than 300 MHz Pentium II.
Thankfully, these systems are cheap, on the other hand, I have to bid farewell
to my trusty laptop. I have tried to run W2K on it. It runs, but it is out of
horsepower.
Kind regards,
Denys. . .
Denys Beauchemin
HICOMP
(800) 323-8863 (281) 288-7438 Fax: (281) 355-6879
denys at hicomp.com www.hicomp.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Cole [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, 07 October, 1999 5:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Linux
I debated between posting this with the "Linux" subject or with the "lies,
damned lies..." subject.
Microsoft has posted a page called "Linux myths", at
http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/msnw/LinuxMyths.asp
For example:
Myth: Linux is Free
Reality: Free Operating System Does Not Mean
Low Total Cost of Ownership
[plus associated "proof"]
Myth: Linux is more secure than Windows NT
Reality: Linux Security Model Is Weak
[plus associated "proof"]
Certainly TCO and weak security are things MS should know about.
I looked for a smiley :-) on the page, and I checked a :SHOWTIME to see if
it's April, but failed in each case.
--Glenn
|
