307. Ravi Krishnamurty
January 7, 1999
bones@c-me.com
Unix is generally acknowledged to be more stable and a much better performer than PC operating systems at the high end. The main obstacle to the adoption of Unix has been high price and esoteric hardware requirements.
With the introduction by Sun Microsystems of low cost, PCI based Unix boxes, and the rise of Linux and BSD, the price and hardware obstacles are shattered. There is now no reason to make do with a PC operating system when you can now have the full power of Unix at a lower cost than Microsoft's top of the line PC operating system. We have worked with Windows NT, Solaris, Linux and FreeBSD, and Windows NT is by far the worst possible choice we have seen as a server, despite the constant, shrill advertising efforts emanating from Microsoft.

306. Rahul Dave
January 7, 1999
rdave@nospam.central.cis.upenn.edu
The Answer is simple, really.
The reason for using NT upto now was server side application support. Not performance. Their TCP/IP stack sucks, (Linux's was bad too(not as bad) compared to FreeBSD, but now the performances are closer), you cannot log in remotely to fix problems except by using some terminal server(more money for MS), you cannot use cheaper hardware. Cost conscious people are already using Linux. If you have money to burn, burn it on Sun's better IO buses, not on Intel. Bottom line is, Linux is highest on performance/price. And with all the DBMS vendors, php, coldfusion, etc lining up behind it, there is no issue as to what any halfway intelligent person should use.

305. Ian Grant
January 7, 1999 I.A.N.Grant@foodforspam.damtp.cam.ac.uk
NT or Linux?
Morally: If Mahatma Gandhi had had to use a computer, would he have used NT, or Linux? I think Linux.
Practically: The only reason to use Microsoft OSes is so that one can run MS packages which MS won't port to other OSes. If you don't need MS Office then you don't need Microsoft. ISPs don't need MS Office.
Technically: NT is inferior. It is single-user, networking is an afterthought, and it is missing the thousands of person-years of experience that have shaped un*x systems into reliable, secure and powerful OSes.
Financially: NT and Unix are expensive. You need to keep paying for upgrades, and you end up running and compiling masses of GNU and other open-source software anyway.
I can't see that this is a serious question. The answer must be Linux (or FreeBSD or NetBSD.)

304. Ernest Pecounis
January 7, 1999
Ernest_Pecounis@mail.ehnr.state.nc.us
Linux is a top performer. NT doesn't even get close. I am not interested to know who to blame when things go wrong, I just want to avoid crashes and get the best performance possible. From my experience Linux delivers more than it promises, Microsoft does the opposite. I understand that some people are more concerned about their investments in Microsoft rather than performance and reliability. However, our world is getting more complex and needs stable platforms, not vaporware. Linux, and Unix in general, can run mission critical applications without a problem... no one in his/her right mind would put faith and trust on NT, unless they don't, or simply don't want to, know better. To conclude, Linux/Unix will beat NT/2000 by a far margin, just give it two more years. Those who are happy with NT should stay with NT (less competition for us out there), the rest of us will head straight to the top. Happy Linux Year.

303. Nikunj Bansal
January 7, 1999
nikunj@prt-ipg.com
My vote is most definitely for Unix and Linux.
They are the OS of choice of ISPs in the US and in fact all around the world - Microsoft's/Meena Ganesh's flames at them notwithstanding.
And it is not without reasons:
Unix is the OS of the Internet. Internet was born and nurtured on Unix. Unix is built from the ground up around networking and multiuser requirements. Linux being the clone of Unix is all that Unix IS! Unix is no more expensive than NT in the long run and we all know that Linux is free!
So for higher end requirements, Unix is the choice OS with its high stability, scalability, multiuser features. While if the need is to spend less - Linux wins hands down over WinNT in every aspect. So Unix for the big ISPs and Linux for the smaller ones.

302. Scott Prive
January 7, 1999
sprive@xtdl.com
((Linux) + UNIX)

301. Alen Peacock
January 7, 1999
alp5@cs.byu.edu
Linux.
My on-campus provider recently switched to NT. Now, the network going down has become common place, especially over weekends or late at night, when there is no one there to hit the reset button.
NT doesn't scale well. It can't handle as many simultaneous users. It isn't reliable. It's got a nice GUI and some very, very nice ease-of-use features (PNP when it works), but that isn't of much importance on a server if the thing can't stay running for more than a week. Reliability is paramount.
And, Linux costs $0.0

300. Franck Coppola
January 7, 1999
coppol_f@epita.fr
Windows NT is the worst system I have ever seen. It crashes very often especially when there is a high workload and is slower than UNIX. Linux is not yet technically as good as commercial Unixes like Solaris, but it's improving quickly and it's a far safer choice than NT. (and also far cheaper !).

299. Silviu Chitroceanu
January 7, 1999
silviu.chitroceanu@sympatico.ca
Linux should be used because:
1. Less expensive than Windows NT.
2. More stable, reliable than Windows NT.
3. Can run on less expensive hardware than Windows NT.

298. Sexton
January 7, 1999
sexton@csi.com
Linux is technically superior to WinNT in terms of features, stability, and maintenance. WinNT crashes frequently. Usually, fresh formatted disk re-installations of WinNT are required every year or so. This requires considerable time and effort to re-install all the WinNT applications.
My bet is on Linux --- technically and cost-wise.

297. Avinash Nigudker
January 7, 1999
nigudker@vsnl.com
First of all Windows NT is not platform for ISPs as all ISPs conisdering the PC base server for Internet this first of all concept is wrong PC can work maximum 8 hours and it can not take milisecond backup of every movement in case Hardisk of the PC fail all the system will down. Thereofor only miniframe will be the choice and the OS will only Linux or UNIX

296. Partha Pratim Ghosh
January 7, 1999
vsatsxc@cal.vsnl.net.in
Surely Linux. Why ? (1) It is sturdy and robust. (2) All the required s/ws are almost available easily. (3) There is no nasty deal of copyright and most s/ws work under GNU Public License. (4) The source code being available can be tailored to ones own wishes and fancies --- at least these are NOT at the whims of a few in a company.  

Post  Upload your opinion

<<More Pages  20 19 18 17 16 More>>