Linux vs. NT transcript

What follows is a transcript of an online forum hosted by Network World Fusion, starting 11/15/98. Although the two starting participants were only online that week, we've kept the forum open to continue the discussion, at www.nwfusion.com/forum/1116faceoff.html. You can also download a ZIPped version of this file

Linux is gaining a vocal following of users who say it's reliable, scalable and easy to use. But is it a viable alternative to Windows NT? We asked Bob Young, CEO of Linux vendor Red Hat, to say why Linux is the best for the enterprise. And we asked Ed Muth, group product manager for Microsoft's Enterprise Marketing Group, to explain why NT is the best NOS. Read their opening statements, then come back with your own comments. Young and Muth will be here this week to reply and debate.

Why Linux is better by Young
Why NT is better by Muth

Click To top to see the thread from the beginning.

McGovern, Farrell
11/15/98.21:07:56

Greetings:

Mr. Muth, if Microsoft was producing decent quality software, I doubt that you would be in as much hot water as you are now. I am tired of daily reboots, incompatiblites with widely used standards and technical support that can cost you more than the price of your already pricy product.

I've installed hundreds of systems using Novell Netware, OS/2 LanServer, and NT. As a consultant, I cannot recommend NT server to my customers since it's average uptime is at most, weeks. Some of the Novell servers that I have worked on have been up for excess of 3 years...that is, *no downtime* in three years.

Now Linux has come along, and, admittedly, it has some problems. But, for the most part, these are small problems. The only big problem, tech-support, has been solved. For a multi-purpose server, Linux beats NT hands down. For a fast, reliable file server, Novell Netware beats NT hands down. For interoperabilty, Novell and Linux beat NT hands down.

The only way I can recommend NT as a server for clients is if they have an application that only runs on NT Server.

For a stable, fast office setup, I recommend Novell Netware for file serving, and Linux for just about anything else. You just can't beat reliablity...something that, unfortunely, NT does not have.

ttyl
Farrell

Richter, Ryan
11/16/98.03:26:04

Mr. Muth:
I must say I am somewhat dissapointed to see that you chose to include misleading information in your statement. 2 things strike me as particularly erroneous:

1. While the claim that NT may be the single most dominant web server platform may be true, it is certainly quite misleading. The reason for this is, of course, that Unix comes in no single variety, so the comparison is unfair. You will notice that the Apache open source web server is used on more than half of all web sites. In fact, Microsoft's IIS server is third behind Netscape's. This information is all available from the same source you cited.

2. You claim that NT offers superior "Availability." Compared to most any Unix system, including Linux, NT's availability is poor at best. I define availability of a server as the percentage of time it is able to perform its desired function. NT loses in this regard because 1)Many simple configuration changes require a _reboot_ of the server, and 2)An NT system, on average, is only able to stay runing for perhaps 2 or 3 weeks before _crashing_, regardless of the administrator's competence or ability, whereas Linux can often stay up for years at a time, even under heavy, constant load. It is rare for a Unix system to be brought down by anything other than a hardware failure or prolonged power outage. NT can make no claims to this kind of reliability.

Anonymous 11/16/98.03:57:52

I find it amusing that you claim security as an advantage of NT over Linux.

You make a very vague statement that NT provides a "public key infrastructure." What does this mean?

In terms of the use of encryption for securing server connections, you say that NT provides a better out-of-the-box implementation than Linux. This is demonstrably false. Linux can provide secure remote connection servers for file transfer, remote administration, web serving, etc. out of the box through such applications as ssh, sftp, apache-SSL, etc. All of these provide public-key authentication and encrypted connections. NT doesn't even come with any usable form of remote administration, secure or not.

As for the security of the operating system itself, Linux is also a better choice. I refer you to L0pht for assessments of the security of Linux and NT. You will find many more exploitable vulnerabilites in NT. Most of these are well documented in your own Microsoft Knowledge Base.

Also compare the time it takes for a security problem to be fixed in Linux and NT. Important Linux security problems are often fixed within days or even hours of their discovery. Many NT bugs have remained outstanding for years--many aren't even fixed to date. The quick fixing of bugs is guaranteed by Linux's open nature.

Your claim that NT has superior security simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Treczoks, Christian
11/16/98.05:21:02

Ed Muth says:
Windows NT meets traditional customer
requirements for enterprise operating
systems, such as scalability,
interoperability, availability and
manageability

What is the color of the sky in your world, Ed? Stakes are high that it is not blue.

Scalability I: Multiprocessor. A traditional way to get more power, *the* point where scalability counts. How does NT behave here? "Not good" would be a compliment. With a quad-processor Intel machine, you roughly get the performance of three processors. Professional OSs perform *much* better when it comes to SMP.

Scalability II: With NT, clustering is primary for failover in the (very likely) event of a server crash. Chances are though, that a nice syncronous NT cluster takes down *both* machines in one instance. With Linux, where stability is not a problem, or with VMS or other unices, clustering is mainly to increase performance by spreading tasks across a network of computers. With NT, nobody in his mind would even start a project like the Linux Beowulf cluster. You would too soon get to the point where you need one person for the sole purpose of powercycling the machines that just "left" the cluster.

Avail-a-what? with NT? You're kidding. Propably to be read as "Available until next crash". Our first job in the morning is to find which NT machine went belly-up that night. Nobody looks at out Novell or Linux servers, they just don't crash (i.e. "just don't" means: the reason to down such a machine is power failure, or hardware or OS upgrade, and one crash of a novell machine where the hardware died. We stopped counting crashes of NT servers long ago, and don't count in downs to non-obvious reasons, like minimal changes in networking parameters).
And yes, we know what we are doing, and yes, it'm more or less the same hardware the other systems run on, too.

Manageability? The No.1 remote administration tool for an NT server is a car. Plain and simple. Have you ever tried to change network parameters remotely, or started a service, or something else, without a load of third party tools (and even *with* such tools, no success guranteed)? Have you ever tried to guide a secretary through an NT server just because it died mysteriously, and you can't just fly across the continent to fix it?
I can administer my Linux servers from my PalmIII handheld, from wherever I get a connection, e.g. from the beach. Even take it down and up again. Even installing a new network service/protocol/network driver etc. without rebooting the machine and the users ever knowing it.

Another point is Security. What worth is closed-source security that does not even dare to get a peer review? MS "security specialists" "optimized" proven cryptographic protocols without knowing what they were doing in the NT password transmission sequence. A short glance in a standard book for cryptographers, like Bruce Schneiders "Applied Cryptography" would have shown the obvious weak spot of this protocol. And if those "security specialists" don't even know about such basic principles, how do they perform when issues are getting complex, like managing a public key infrastructure?
If I were to change something in/around the Linux OS which would compromize security, chances are that I would be "caught" by others within a short time (hours!), and get a whole buch of complains about it. And If I weren't to fix it, others would do it.

If this is what the customer wants than you propably need another reality check. At least it is what he *gets*, and thats the problem.
Propably one of the main issues is that NT is sold to Management people, and not to the people who actually have to do the job.

NT4 is ages behind any professional OS in regard of these key features for an (enterprise) server OS. NT5/Win2000 will propably be no win, either (Pun intended :-)

Lewis, Peter
"
11/16/98.05:46:25

I don't know where Mr Muth gets his numbers on the NT should be the no.1 webserver-OS at Netcraft. All I found was that Apache has 53.02% of the web-server market, with MS-IIS at 23.22%.
Real-world figures on what OS is running web-servers can be found at http://www.hzo.cubenet.de/ioscount/ where they query real internet-servers (750.000 servers queried). The result shows that Linux is the number one platform for all tasks (www, ftp and news) with 26.3% of the WWW-servers. Windows 95,98 and NT all together only run 23.4% of the WWW-servers.
Add BSD and Solaris to Linux in the Unix camp, and it is clear what is running the Internet.

Moen, Rick
11/16/98.05:56:58

What I find particularly amusing was that, although the question was "Is Linux a viable alternative to Windows NT?", Mr. Muth's piece did not address this in any way.

One would be tempted to conclude that Microsoft is scared stiff to actually compare Linux with NT on their respective merits -- or even to mention Linux at all, if possible.

Rick Moen

rick@hugin.imat.com

Irish
11/16/98.06:09:49

Mr. Muth says:

Windows NT Server provides a long-term application architecture for developers and independent software vendors.

Really? How long? NT has only existed for a few years. UNIX applications have been being written for decades. I might also point out that development under NT can cost thousands just to aquire basic tools to get started. Under Linux a developer can get started for nothing.

Mr. Muth says:

Windows NT Server has the benefit of wide industry support. Microsoft invests more than $1 million per working hour - more than $2 billion per year - on research, development and channel programs to enhance the enterprise capabilities of its products.

How much do developers cost? It doesn't really matter, because you can never spend enough to equal the force of Open Software. Wake up call time for Microsoft - you can't buy the kind of R&D known as The Real World.

The most interesting part of this is WE are making the comparisons of Linux vs. NT, because Mr. Muth was apprently not informed enough to do so. Interesting that we are being asked to believe that NT supports the future from a person who cannot see past his own nose. How very much the party line from Microsoft.

Gaffin, Adam
11/16/98.09:02:57

The most interesting part of this is WE are making the comparisons of Linux vs. NT, because Mr. Muth was apprently not
informed enough to do so.

I must step in here with an apology. Ed was not explicitly asked to compare Linux and NT for his opening statement. We asked him to explain why NT is the best NOS for the enterprise. It's a subtle difference, perhaps, but let's not blame him for my mistake in mis-writing the opening statement in this forum (which I've adjusted to better show what we asked the two gentlemen).

Ryan, James
11/16/98.09:58:35

It seems clear both Linux and NT are still evolving and coming into their strengths, so neither is perfect, but they both have promise. Right now, for me, Linux is more attractive due to its built in interoperability and stability promise. Source code availability provides a nice measure of long term stability as well, since there are multiple sources for Linux and they all compete with one another. Support for open and widely available protocols is very important for me because we will ALWAYS be a multi-platform shop, we will never standardize on a single vendor for anything. IMHO this is simply too dangerous an approach.

Really, I'd like to hear their arguments over the benefits and drawbacks of the open vs. closed source development models they each stand behind, as well as what they can tell us about the future of their products and how they plan to co-operate with other major vendors like Sun, IBM, etc. This way we can judge them to see if they are heading in the direction that we, as network systems managers and such, can judge appropriately.

Karageorgiou, Angelos
11/16/98.10:33:26

Let's put things into perspective. NT is a wonderfull version of 95 on steroids. It is fine for a small office to do some hard disk and print sharing , but that's about it. And do not forget that it is not really a multiuser OS, it is a MultiTasking OS, well most of the time

Linux or UNICES in general for that matter are real scalable systems. They scale easy from a single user to thousands with code readily available for just about anything you can thing off.

Linux is also an optimists OS. Remember a few years back that someone said "If you built a computer for morons only morons will use it. Well Linux takes a bit of brain power to use and thus it reminds us that humanity does still have a few thinking individuals in its ranks :-)

Signing Off from wintry Athens Greece.

PS. I am fairly convinced that NT became a platform of choice for the web only after PERL was ported to it. Perl is an OPEN SOURCE product :-)

Lohman, Richard
11/16/98.11:16:53

My 2 cents:

What I'm looking for as an IT prof.:
* control over my resources
* stability
* open architecture
* support
* ease of use for my users

What my bosses are looking for:
* price

On-Control:
While NT is a great leap for Microsoft, it sadly was developed in an environment of 'we know what's best for you' (strictly my opinion here), and hence removes local control away from IT, and into the hands of the vendor.

On Support:
My biggest fear of getting into Linux was the lack of support (because there is no single vendor) - then I found the newsgroups and list servers. Not only is there an abundance of support, but it comes:
a) free
b) from users who have likely gone through the same problems
c) when I need it - not just from 9:00 - 5:00.

On Stability:
I recently installed an Apache web server on Linux to display election results for my county. It went up in about an hour, runs on a 486DX2-66 with 8Mb, and has been up ever since. It serviced all requests promptly (we received great praise and no complaints). Oh yes, and did I mention it's a 486 with only 8Mb ;)

On Open Architecture:
Four words: Linux includes source code.

On Ease of Use:
Let's face it. We here are IT professionals. If you want easy, open a craft store. If you want to be a problem solver, you're going to have to work at it. So, why not work with the tools - source code, peer support, stable kernels, etc. The trick, as I see it, is not to make the OS "easy", but to make usage for my users - that is, my 'customers' easy.

On Price:
Linux & NT both require Time to learn, install, manage, etc. They take up some bandwidth to download add-ons, support packs, modifications etc. They both require large capital investments - oops, my mistake ... Linux is free.

Just my opinion, and it's worth what you paid for it.

Trader, W. Craig
11/16/98.11:21:29

Mr. Muth claims that NT Server is a better server OS for the enterprise because of its user-friendliness. I feel that this answer is completely off the mark, unless Mr. Muth has a different definitions of "enterprise" than I use. I define an "enterprise" as an organization with more than 100 client computers and/or more than 10 server computers. A dozen PCs and a file/print server does not comprise an enterprise in my mind.

The "user" of a server OS in an enterprise, is the server's administrator, who one presumes should know something about the operating system. Graphical user interfaces assist novices much more than they assist experts, and an enterprise would presumably be hiring experts to administer their servers instead of hiring novices. Thus a graphical UI should not be a primary consideration for a server OS. On the other hand, since most enterprises include geographically seperate resources that need to be managed jointly, remote administration is a primary consideration for a server OS. Note that Windows NT with its fancy GUI cannot be remotely administered, while any Unix OS can be remotely administered, often from a dumb terminal connected to a modem or a terminal server.

Mr. Muth claims that Windows NT Server hosts more websites than any other single operating system. This may be true, but he doesn't provide any facts to back up his claim. In my experience, Windows NT Server is hard-pressed to serve up a single website while any of the Unix operating systems is suitable for hosting dozens of websites simultaneously.

Mr. Muth claims that since Windows NT Server is "an integrated server platform" it is more suitable for use as a Server OS. If this were truly so, then perhaps he could explain to why it is impossible to load both the MS Internet Mail Service (5.0/5.5) and the MS Internet Information Server 4.0 on a single machine and have both run? (Hint: See MSKB article Q177770 -- there's a DLL conflict between these products.) I've never experienced any problem using both a mail server and a web server on the same Unix server.

I am forced to conclude that while Mr. Muth may talk a good game, he does not provide facts to back up his assertions, and he does not address the actual concerns of the enterprise IT professional.

McCarthy, Bill
11/16/98.11:33:33

Mr Muth states:

"Windows NT Server hosts more Web sites than any other single operating system."

I don't know who he's been talking to, but AFAIK Apache runs on %50 or more of the servers on the web, and I believe Sun has a hefty chunk. Since Apache for NT is real new - didn't IBM JUST announce a port - I can't take what he says as containing any truth. This type of bald-faced, ummmmm, misstatement is typical of the hype behind NT.

Mr. Muth's above statement invalidates, or at the least calls into question, the rest of his claims for NT.

Zoebelein, Hans
11/16/98.11:54:59

Mr. Muth: "Windows NT Server hosts more Web
sites than any other single operating
system".

I'm pretty sure that Mr. Muth doesn't know
The Internet Operating System Counter at www.leb.net/hzo

Kowtha, Sitaram
11/16/98.12:03:41

Why not Choose both?

With incredibly inexpensive hardware costs,
the enterprise should choose to employ both
and ride the right application on the right
server. With IP as the king, IMHO the choice
of enterprise OS has been made dumber, or
am I missing something?

Miller, Brian
11/16/98.12:17:48

I am in concordance with the majority of views expressed here. There's simply no real reason to run Windows NT in the enterprise.

At the company I work for, we used Windows NT as our file and print server for a year. Switching that server to Linux 2 months ago made us an entire Linux-based shop. We couldn't be happier.

We've got 6 web servers running Linux, and our File/Print server running Linux. Sure, you'll find Windows NT workstation at the office. Heck, we've got 7 or 8 workstations running that OS. But we've also got 7 Linux workstations, 12 Win95 work stations and 4 mac workstations. Homogeneity is anti-productive, and Linux as a server platform simply integrates better and easier into our network (with a nice easy learning curve).

Plus...like most smaller companies, (30-35 employees) cost is a huge issue for us. Our web server are all Pentium 200s or less. Our file/print server is a Pentium 233. With Linux, we can use cheap hardware to achieve huge uptimes, and still serve our web pages at speeds that keep our customers happy.

Finally, we do have one NT-Server box. We use it to build sites for people that are going to serve sites on their own Corporate NT servers. This machine, a Pentium 200 w/128 Megs of RAM is slower, less reliable, and a pain in the butt to work with. It's rarely up for more than 2 or 3 weeks w/out a reboot, and it only serves a few test sites.
Conversely, our main web server serves over 150 virtual hosts, and is only a pentium 200 w/64 megs of RAM.

I just don't see a reason to buy NT. There are few if any advantages.

Losee, Wulf
11/16/98.12:33:03

For those of you who are still unconvinced of the inferiority of NT as a server OS, I suggest you point your browser at...

http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/

Although he evaluates various flavors of UNIX against NT, his evaluations make a strong case for Linux.

Maximus, Codifex
11/16/98.12:40:37

Once again, Muth shows himself (or whoever writes for him) to be the propoganda KING! Linux is by far the better system! NT's vaunted ease of administration is a myth - you still need a highly paid admin to do the job right; local and remote admin of a Linux box, though, is a given and a piece of cake. NT may have 250,000 trained and certified MCP's but what percentage of those MCP's are MCSE's? Linux has millions of highly trained administrators (many of them from YEARS in UNIX). With Linux, you have a rock solid core or kernel that you can bolt funtionality onto to create a special purpose machine (not that you have to but that you can). Linux's capabilities range from handheld machines to servers to laptops to supercomputers to desktop machines - Linux scales well and will even better with the upcoming 2.2 kernel. There isn't a more portable system available today than Linux; witness the ease with which UNIX programs port to Linux - sometimes just by typing make! NT programs, on the other hand, are hopelessly intertwined and tangled in the WinAPI mess and notoriously difficult to port - no doubt by Microsoft design. Lock 'em in - load 'em up - move 'em out... Microsoft! Hyah!

It's sad, but as servers go... Microsoft just takes technology that is free and open, packs it in a pretty package (the box) and sells it back to you.

Ridder, Bavo De
11/16/98.13:04:43

As I see it, the disadvantages of WinNT are still its price and hardware demands. A plain WinNT server doesn't come with decent software, so you still have tospend large amounts of money, to get the machine up and running.

Linux currently has a few disadvantages too. Authentication on a network wide base is not easy in Linux, you have to rely on third party software like NIS, Banyan, ... there should be a standardized interface to all these authentication implementations. I have no doubts that this will happen within the year. NT 2000 has this option :-)

Uptime/Downtime: I do wonder why NT keeps crashing, ... to me this seems like a fundamental problem not just a bad habit. If an OS constantly crashes or hangs, then you can be sure there are some really serious flaws somewhere in the kernel or low level supporting libs. Don't forget: they are working on version 5.0, not 2.0 !

Ease of use: this means: wherever I am, I can control a Linux machine. NT can only be really controlled from the machine itself.

My choice: Linux! Why? Currently it is better than NT, and the gap will widen!

Travis, Gregory
11/16/98.13:13:14

Everything that Muth ascribes as an NT advantage is already present in Linux. For
security, we have PAM. For an integrated GUI, we have KDE 1.0. For office suites,
we have Wordperfect 8.0, Staroffice 5.0,
and Applix.

We finaly tired of the obnoxious license restrictions, frequent crashes, and abysmal performance of our applications under NT. Having said "enough is enough," we're now migrating an enterprise application from NT 4.0 to Linux with Sybase (on the same hardware). Our in-house tests showed better performance, reliability, and much lower TCO for the Linux solution.

To co-opt a tired Microsoft buzzword, the
"rich" experience is already here. It's called Linux and it's free.

Gregory Travis

p.s. Both netcraft and www.leb.net/hzo show Linux as having more web server seats than NT. I don't know where Muth gets his info.

Reed, Tracy R
11/16/98.13:17:18

How on earth does Microsoft get away with such blatant misinformation?!?! I find the idea that NT hosts more web sites than any other OS to be entirely laughable! I have never even heard it contended that NT hosts more web sites than other OS's. Isn't Apache king of the hill? I seriously doubt many people are running Apache on NT. This leaves NT/IIS with only a minority share of the web server market.

Mr. Muth also mentioned integration. One nice thing about Linux is that integrating services and API's into the OS is FAR easier than it is with NT. We don't HAVE to pour millions of dollars into our OS to get public key infrastructure working right. We just have to install a library or two. And thanks to sane library versioning schemes, we don't have DLL conflicts! Linux is the most easy to use server platform I have ever had to administrate. Our local NT dude (who runs our ONE NT system, among a dozen or so Unix/Linux systems) wishes he had the sort of peace of mind I have.

I also find the open source code to be very useful. Thanks to peer-review, I can sleep at night. I don't have to worry about sloppy coding practices and backdoors such as those that have resulted in IP stack bugs and unauthorized access in certain operating systems and networking equipment over the last year. And the speed at which those bugs that are found do get fixed goes without saying. Microsoft simply cannot compete.

And of course the questionable ethics that go along with endorsing Microsoft products turns me off on principle alone. (Witness Halloween, Astroturf, Gate's convenient forgetfulness in testimoney, "To hell with Janet Reno", blatant Java corruption, etc. etc. etc.)

http://www.ultraviolet.org/ms.html

Crowley, Paul
11/16/98.13:18:40

"User friendliness" - NT has prettier icons, but Linux tells you what's going on and gives you the power to do something about it. I'm sure that Microsoft consider "A network error has occurred. Please contact your network administrator" to be friendlier than "something.something.com - host was unreachable, failed", but network administrators everywhere disagree.

"Security" - Bruce Schneier, author of Applied Cryptography, described Microsoft's crypto as containing "kindergarten mistakes". In general, only open source software can deliver the highest levels of security since the source code receives the greatest scrutiny.

"$1 million per working hour" - The billions that Microsoft spent on NT development would be more impressive if the product worked.

"best price/performance" - Linux is not listed on the TPC Web pages, so it's hardly relevant to a comparison of NT with Linux.

"Windows NT meets traditional customer requirements for enterprise operating systems, such as scalability, interoperability, availability and manageability" - so it's striking that SIAM is listed as one of NT's key failings against Linux in your own internal documents, as witness Halloween II.

C'mon, you have to be able to think of some measure by which NT wins out. Unless you consider expense to be an advantage, or you're fond of the colour blue.

Pryzby, Greg
11/16/98.13:26:44

In the first paragraph from Muth I am told to look at www.netcraft.com to see how NT is the #1 web server. Huh, I guess I need to go back and learn how to read words and graphs. I saw no mention of #1 hardware. I did see that Apache is the number one server though. IIS was #2.

Since the mistruths started in paragraph 1, I found it hard to take anything else in the comments from Muth as truthful.

Schlough, Mark
11/16/98.13:32:50

Isn't *anybody* able to defend NT?
...with facts about NT's ability to deliver?

Bueller?........

Wales, Jimmy
11/16/98.13:42:02

I'd like to challenge Mr. Muth to back up
his two cited statistics. It appears from
comments here (and from looking into the two
websites he references) that he was wrong on
both counts.

1. As far as I can see, www.netcraft.com
does not report what OS various websites are
running, but instead what web server they are
running. The results are overwhelmingly in
favor of apache. It strikes me as very unlikely that there are very many Apache/NT
boxes out there, at least as compared to Apache/Linux and Apache/FreeBSD. Can Mr. Muth point to a URL to confirm his stats?

2. www.tpc.org reports price/performance
benchmarks, but as far as I can see, they
did not test Linux at all. So this is hardly
a relevant point in a Linux vs. NT debate.
Can Mr. Muth point to a URL which shows NT
to have a higher price/performance index
than Linux?

Gaudio, Aaron
11/16/98.13:54:16

Muth has a point (one point) and that is user friendliness. Windows definately one-ups Linux on this issue. When you're talking about millions of people who are buying their first computer, they're going to have a hard time using Linux from the get-go.

Unfortunately for Muth, what is a powerful desktop advantage (user friendliness) is less of an important issue with network managers. These folks know what a computer is and how it works and are less interested in snazzy icons and dialup wizards than in stability, scalability and connectivity. While the Windows' GUI-centric view makes it easier to perform very basic tasks (for instance moving files from directory to directory via drag and drop), it is so severly limiting in advanced features that it becomes unusable. Even those folks who needed Windows for basic things soon learn to detest Windows when they have a problem which is impossible to resolve themselves because Windows just doesn't have the facility to do so.

So, in terms of ease of use, I'd say Windows clobbers Linux (now, anyways) for basic things; but for the advanced stuff, Windows forfeits because, no matter how difficult it may be in Linux, it's impossible in Windows (even on NT).

Dugdale, Ken
11/16/98.14:47:43

Mr. Muth;

You say, "250,000 Microsoft Certified Professionals are trained to support..." and today I just happened to read (In The Toronto Sun) that Microsoft claims there are 41,000 jobs available for MCP and MCSE technicians (presumably in Canada) and that "Businesses are screaming for Microsoft-trained technicians".

To my way of thinking, this is not goodness; it means that companies who have implemented your software find themselves needing more help than they had planned for. So much for Windows NT ease-of-use.

Those of us who are technical in nature and who have been in the business long enough, get to chose our own career path, select our own platform, and our job. Those of us in the know, do not choose MS solutions for the good of our employer. While I'm the first to admit that management may never wake up and listen to techical staff, they are certainly now waking up to TOC, and if MS wants to succeed in this new world, FUD and BS are no longer viable weapons. This new world requires technically sound solutions for the sake of lowering the TOC, and Windows NT does neither.

Walker, Rick
11/16/98.16:51:30

Netcraft doesn't measure OS usage it measures Web Server usage. Apache (an Open Sourced Software) is clearly in the dominant position, with NT trailing by a large margin.

However, the Internet Operating System Counter does measure OS usage. The September Survey shows Linux with 171623 hosts, or 26.3% of the net, and Microsoft NT/95/98
trailing with 152682 hosts, or 23.4% of the net.

If we include the 22.6% share of the various free BSD/UNIX OS's, then NT is a factor-of-two less popular than the free alternatives.

Losee, Wulf
11/16/98.16:55:29

Where are those network professionals who support NT? Why aren't they contributing their arguments to defend Mr. Muth?

Hmmm. Could it be that having had hands-on experience running NT networks (as I have), they all know that NT just doesn't scale to the Enterprise?

Losee, Wulf
11/16/98.16:57:21

To the NW Fusion editors:

Network World has an NWFusion Focus mailing list on NT. How about putting together one on Linux (since Linux seems to obviously be the wave of the future)?

Notsay, Idrather
11/16/98.17:05:58

Before I started using Linux for my business and network needs, I tried NT (I bought a used copy for $100) for simple things like IIS, lack of crashing, and so on. It was horrible on so many levels. The video driver it installed by default didn't work. Granted, it was an ati rage II chipset. But it was really slow, and whenever it crashed, it left a copy of my memory on my hard drive. What really annoyed me though, was that when it crashed, it would crash hard. At least I could watch my movies and have my sound properly routed to my stereo without interruption when win95 crashed. And it's a horrible gaming platform! Linux has better dos emulation than NT. What else? ... Oh yeah, ever try to remove an NTFS partition with windows 9x? IT'S NOT POSSIBLE! fdisk doesn't know what it is, but it won't get rid of it because it's an MS partition. It's kinda funny and sad at the same time. Interoperability my butt!

Srivastava, Anand
11/16/98.17:13:13

Mr.Muth, it would be advisable to check the links before making any claims about your OS. On the Net its pretty easy to hit the link and find that you don't know what you are talking about. If you check the talkback here, everybody is commenting on your netcraft fiasco. Lets hope your future claims would be based on facts, however wierd. Last but not the least please give data only relevent to comparison between linux and NT, because there is no point saying that tpc.org lists you as the best, when linux wasn't compared.

Muth, Ed
11/16/98.17:17:02

The public key infrastructure in Windows NT includes an integrated X.509v3 certificate server that is tightly integrated with the web services as well as the Windows NT security services. Both the integrated browser on the Windows clients as well as the Web services are fully enabled for SSL with client authentication. We can see the benefits of this in a typical customer scenario -- the customers sets up a web site using IIS, they can automatically setup the certificate services at the same time. (they don't need to understand or take a course in the mathematics of PKI) They can immediately (by clicking a few check boxes) start issuing digital certificates for SSL, S/MIME etc.., they can use the "digital certificate to Windows NT account mapping" feature to setup extranet security.(1-1 or 1-many or many -1 mapping) This can be completed with a few clicks of the mouse and they can immediately start using digital certificates for authentication, encryption. Now if they has a special vertical workflow application that needed digital signatures, their application can use the Cryptography API (CryptoAPI ) provided in Windows NT to sign (and encrypt) the documents using the issued digital certificates (and associated Private key). If then they wanted higher security for their legal dept using this application -- they can take advantage of CryptoAPI's provider architecture and replace the software based cryptography with a hardware crypto module (all without changing the application). Note that customers are now using public key credentials for authentication, encryption, digital signatures without ever having to take an in-depth course in security -- this allows the customer to focus on their business and not have to become a security expert.

Windows NT provides a number of features for securing communications at various levels -- again these are integrated with the systems and don't need installations of complicated crypto module or applications. From a customers perspective -- the security is enabled in the context of the users task as opposed to an out of context enablement. Some of these include RAS security for authentication and encryption, Point to point tunneling protocol that enables the use of the Internet as a VPN (saving customers $$ over leased lines). PPTP includes a dial up connection manager that makes the task of customizing and setting up VPN connections possible in 1 click of the mouse. Applications developers can use the DCOM security for object call level security -- this is again enabled thru simple DCOM calls. Of course the HTTP clients and servers are enabled to use SSL. Further if customers are developing custom applications (for their particular business) they can use SSL for authentication and encryption thru a simple API call -- thus they do not have to re-code the entire SSL protocol for their app.

As for the security of the operating system - it is a computer science fact that operating systems will have security issues from time to time given the nature and state of software engineering. (see http://www.cert.org for a list of security issues with every OS including Linux). Microsoft has a lot of processes in place to reduce the probability of such occurrences including detailed code reviews, design reviews, penetration testing etc.. Microsoft has a well documented process in place for customers to report potential issues, Microsoft to address and release fixes for valid issues. Finally good security goes beyond technology, it includes education, processes, vigilance and technology -- the broad marketplace and many organizations/companies have very affordable products and service offerings that Windows NT customers can leverage to security deploy Windows NT.

The goal for Windows NT is to provided integrated security that is comprehensive and easy to use."> 11/16/98.17:27:53

There seems to be quite a few questions regarding the Netcraft claim. Let me try and clarify. Netcraft tracks different information, including both Web server and Web server operating system usage on the Internet. If you go up to their site, you'll notice a survey that reports the number of various Web servers used for hosting sites on the Internet. Netcraft has other reports that are NOT available on their Web site. According to the data supplied in the operating system report, more Web sites are hosted on Windows NT Server than any other operating system. You can contact Netcraft for more detailed information on this reports.

Chmara, Ron
11/16/98.17:33:37

Having set up and maintained, on duplicate hardware, both NT and Linux, for a dual boot configuration, let me say this about ease of use, as it pertains to setup, etc.:
To install NT: 2.5 Hours, three reboots.
To install RedHat 5.1: One hour, 25 minutes, one Reboot.

To add a user to NT: 3 clicks, enter data.
To add a user to RH 5.1: 4 clicks, enter data.

To change desktop environments in NT: Two clicks, re-log on.
To change desktop environments in RH5.1: Two clicks.

To install a low level (kernel) OS upgrade in NT: Reboot off of safe media, install kernel, reboot (again).
To install low level (kernel) OS upgrade in RH5.1: Install kernel, edit one line of text, reboot.

To move a file in NT: Open explorer program. Open two windows, one for source,one for destination. Drag file, drop.
To drag and drop in RH5.1: Open one program.
(tkmc) Open source and desination. Rightclick on file->Move Press "Okay"

Apparently I missed the great "ease of use" argument somehow....hmm...maybe it's in here somewhere? Let see....

To install Appleshare IP on NT: Not Available.
To install AppleshareIP on RH5.1: Download software. Type one 8 letter command.

To edit source code on NT: Not available.
To edit source code on RH5.1: "cd /src"

Brand new user to both, with experience in
tech support for 95, MacOS:
Basic navigation and configuration on NT: Took her 3 weeks to learn.
Basic navigation and configuration on RH5.1: Took her 3 weeks to learn.

To install software upgrade on NT: in command line, type: run "name of upgrade file/path"
To install software upgrade on RH5.1: Type in
rpm -U "name of upgrade/file path"

To add 350 users to NT: Purchase addtitional licenses, maintain documentation, 8 clicks, add users.
To add 350 users to RH5.1: Add users.

To remove 250 user license from NT: 8 clicks.
To remove 250 user license from RH5.1: 0 clicks.

Where is this "ease of use" coming from?

Hmm..maybe it's simpler things....

To change NT desktop background: 3 clicks.
To change RH5.1 background: One click.

To change host name in NT: 4 clicks, reboot.
To change host name in RH 5.1: 4 clicks. no
reboot.

So please, tell me, what am I missing?

Schaeffer, Joshua
11/16/98.17:56:18

To say that Windows NT is entirely without merit is ignorant. From reading months of commentary, it seems that many (though definitely not all) of the problems some users have with NT are direct consequences of them simply not knowing how to operate NT. Then, in a fit of rage, they start using Linux and bad-mouthing NT.

Do you know why Linux (and Unix variants in general) is so stable? Because it doesn't do anything new! There's no will for improvement, only fewer bugs. No motivation to improve usability and lower the learning curve. No pressure to rethink old stigmas. Innovation on Linux? Are you joking? What compares to Microsoft's efforts with IntelliSense? COM? DCOM? COM+? OLE2? Web-shell integration? Application componentization and programmability? Here we see that Linux is reactive and not proactive.

Therefore, such an operating system as Linux cannot possibly be the OS of the future, much less an OS for the common man. Yes, a piece of source code will be stable if you only make modest adjustments and continually debug it for years on end! But the real world is far more dynamic.

And where IS this supposed mass of Linux programmers that is supposed to make Linux a universally accepted OS? How then do you explain the observation that NT typically adopts hardware standards far more quickly? And that MS cranks out applications and utilities for NT a mile a minute, often with superior and more comprehensive functionality?

For high-level application development, NT is supreme, and I would refuse to perform salaried work on any other platform.

Is there a Linux counterpart to the Office 97/2000 suite? None. WordPerfect and StarOffice are too underfeatured to even be considered. There isn't a word processor around that makes intelligent on-the-fly grammatical adjustments as well as Word does.

A componentized browser like Internet Explorer? None. Using features now inherent in NT, I could even write my own browser with minimal effort.

An Integrated Development Environment as complete as Visual Studio 6? None.

So you should note that ease-of-use isn't necessarily to make life easier for the idiots; it also helps to speed up the tasks of more advanced users.

But this isn't to say that I find Linux worthless, because multi-user and remote adminstration capability are a definite MUST, and Terminal Server doesn't quite cut it. And the fact that Solaris was chosen over NT for Hotmail also says a lot.

But be careful before you jump into a rage against NT, because there are a lot of subtle differences that you may not think of at first.

Kashani
11/16/98.18:19:29

Why Linux is so stable:IT doesn't feel the need to create useless technology to increase it's bottomline.

Stability is and should be the number one concern in the enterprise setting not pretty blinking lights. Well if you want to keep your job. As an ISP when servers go down I get paged. The less I get paged the more my girlfriend likes me ;)

Debug for years on end??? Linux and other apps (apache, sendmail, etc) work better out of the box then NT AND I can tweak them.

Not knowing how to use NT? I've gotten so much practise rebuilding it I could reinstall it without a monitor. Not to mention that I thought any idiot could use NT?

NT supports more hardware? When you can buy the specs I should hope so.

COM? DCOM? COM+? OLE2???????
Which works with proprietary systems and is non-portable. When Merced comes out I expect the command "make" to do 80% of the work.

"Ease of use" is no substitute for "actually works".

Where are the Linux programmers? Busy making our applications stable not shooting our mouths off (well maybe just a little). Does Linux lack in finished applications? Yes, but we are gaining.

Srivastava, Anand
11/16/98.18:51:08

I was relieved to find Joshua's mail, because it seemed that nobody is going to defend it. Now that he has done the unthinkable, let me try to blast him. 1) Linux does nothing new: You are right. NT allows remote management, NT allows configuring the system, without reboots, NT allows dynamically loadable modules to improve efficiency, and the sky is blue ;-). Actually NT doesn't even do the very basic things that Unix users have come to accept as the minimum. Seems like NT still has ways to go. 2) Users are ignorant ;-) you are absolutely right. And this Mr.Muth is trying to tell me that NT is easier to manage, while actually nobody gets it, not even the MCP's. 3) NT has great technologies like COM, DCOM, etc. which are actually replaceable by a single standard available for linux, the CORBA. Linux doesn't have Web-Shell integration, what does it do that PHP perl doesn't. I am all for intellisense but as long as it allows me easy overrides. I don't like being forced to find work arounds. By the way what has application programmability and componentization got to do with the server system. Do NT servers allow you to login and do your development work, on the server. I thought is was more of a file server. I know there are third party tools but that's not part of NT. 4) NT will never be stable because MS has the guts to add huge modifications every now and then ;-) my point exactly bye bye the server end. Seems like you are talking against NT on the server end. 5) NT supports hardware standards faster than linux - alas I have to use Windows 98 for my epson photo printer because both don't support it. You forget to tell that NT support that standards not because MS does it but because hardware vendors themselves provide drivers. 6) MS produces Applications for NT at an astounding rate. But are they anything new, they are usually inferior but cheaper version of third party software. Heard of Lotus, Wordperfect, etc. 7) You wouldn't develop software on any other platform because nothing is as highly developed. But that use is a desktop, and seems like you haven't developed anything that is not from MS, ever heard the name Rational Rose. 8) You mean to say that Word dynamically changes what I am typing if it thinks that my grammer is bad. What if I am from a different part of the country and trying to use local expressions. Writing a browser I could do that in 100 lines of code using Perl/Gtk/HTML Widget, and it will be incredibly light. So what's the point. Just wait for GNOME we will have what you are talking about here. Visual Studio, can I write Fortran, Perl, Pascal code in addition to C++, Java, and HTML, like in Emacs. Of course Emacs doesn't support drag and drop but then I don't write bloated software. 9) In the end just a pointer to innovations in the OSS http://www.enlightenment.org http://www.gnome.org http://www.perl.com . I am not including Web software, because as far as web is considered open source rules. I do see differences, but they are likely to be past before long, while the problems with NT are not going to be solved *ever*.

O'Cain, Iain
11/16/98.19:16:16

It's good to see people with experience using only one of these platforms coming here to comment and ask about the other. As a long time network administrator dealing with both, I know about the frustrations inspired by each of them.

There are a couple of points in today's Microsoft article that I'm interested to know more about. How does NT provide customers "a single, secure sign-on across their OSes"? I've had to set up a Linux server to support Sun's NIS (Network Information Service) and get third-party NIS support for NT in order to achieve this on a network with Unix, Linux, Novell, and Windows NT clients.

I'm afraid I don't see anything credible in Mr. Muth's article that would make me want to use NT over Linux, though. Comment #35 by Ron Chmara about ease of use was very interesting. I'd been accepting the idea that NT is easier to use and administrate, but if I think about it, that doesn't seem so obvious...

Reed, Tracy R
11/16/98.19:34:37

Mr. Muth:

Let's try to stick with publically verifiable facts. A url has been posted that shows that Linux is the most popular server OS. How can we be expected to accept your claim with no reference available?

Mr. Schaeffer:

Your suggestion that people badmouth NT just because they do not know how to operate it is at odds with the claims that NT is easy to use. Are you suggesting that the people who couldn't figure out NT then went on to use Linux succesfully and then badmouth NT?

I know why Linux is so stable. It is stable because very talented people work very hard on it thanks to Open Source software development. The operating system concepts are very different from the operating system implementation. There may be no new OS concepts in Linux, but it is an entirely new implementation. The bugs happen in the implementation far more often than in
the concept. Linux is not the same old UNIX code debugged for years on end. It is an entirely new effort and has had entirely new bugs. One big difference between Open Source developers and Microsoft is that Open Source developers don't charge people money for their bugs.

Linux has innovated (I am *SO* sick of that word. It has been rendered nearly meaningless.) Open Source OS development. I do not know what IntelliSense is, can you tell me why I might find it useful? As for COM etc. Linux has CORBA, a free and open technology. Linux has excellent web-shell integration and comes with many free tools for implementing your own. UNIX pioneered application componentization and programability and had it long before Windows was even conceived of. Many small tools all working together through interprocess communication has always been the UNIX way of doing things. It is Windows that has been reactive. A common quotation on the newsgroups these days is "Unix had taskbars and start menus since before Microsoft had a decent memory manager for DOS". And it is the truth.

Where is the supposed mass of Linux programmers that is supposed to make Linux
a universally accepted OS? You are LOOKING at it! I see 30 Pro-Linux comments and your lonely Pro-NT comment. If NT adopts hardware standards more quickly it is because the vendors do not make their specifications public and MS can afford to buy them. This has nothing to do with the quality of the OS. Open Source developers are cranking out Open Source applications a mile a minute as well, with superior quality.

WordPerfect and StarOffice are definitely Linux counterparts to Office 97/2000.
They have all of the features I need and then some. There is nothing I have ever done in Word that I cannot do in one of the Linux office suites. Bloat and feature creep is often one of the biggest complaints about MS software. They need to be scaling Word down, not up.

What does having a componentized browser buy me? I've never needed to write my own browser, but if I do there is Mozilla.

Emacs is just as good an IDE as Visual Studio 6. It has certainly been good enough to produce an entire operating system which causes Microsoft to write things such as the Halloween documents. Do you think you could write your own operating system in Visual Studio 6? Even if you could, it wouldn't
surprise me if the license forbid you from doing so.

My company, a payroll company, uses Linux in quite a few places. It handles our firewall, mail server, file server, and we even ship the client side version of our payroll software on it to our clients. Systems that handle hundreds of millions of dollars are generally considered mission critical, right? Linux has done wonderfully so far.

At the weekly meeting just two and a half hours ago I got to listen to our single Windows developer complain about SQL Server. He's always having problems of one sort or another. We don't hear much about our dozen other unix machines. Another coworker complained about how he spent over two hours this morning trying to get Windows98 to work well with his new video card. Text scrolling in windows was *slow*. He eventually got the right drivers in, but it certainly wasn't straightforward.

The Linux machine on my desktop has been here for a year and a half without a single crash and reboots that can be counted on one hand. Take that literally, not as exaggeration.

Windows is a liability to this company IMO.

If remote administation and multi-user are a must, then by your own admission, NT does not cut it.

Zwolak, Jason
11/16/98.19:42:17

I am interested to know why Microsoft products cause apostrophes to show up as question marks on non-Microsoft products?

Is this a conspiracy Microsoft has. Is Microsoft trying to make their products look better by modifying some standard that makes other products appear to malfunction when it comes to apostrophes?

This topic may be a little off the subject. But I think it demostrates Microsoft's strategy. This strategy applies with NT as well as other Microsoft products.

Now to further my question: does NT extend standards in a way that is incompatible with other operating systems? Can you (Ed) justify this? If this is true, Why would a user want to buy an OS that is not compatible with other OS's?

Bitmead, Chris
11/16/98.20:06:18

Mr Muth's main arguments seem to be that NT is more consistent and more user-friendly. There is some truth to this when everything is running fine. But it becomes totally incorrect when disaster strikes. I've consistently found NT to be unable to be repaired when something goes wrong (and things go wrong all too often). On the other hand, short of total hardware failure, there is literally no possible way a Linux system
can be rendered beyond repair. The user is in control."> 11/16/98.20:26:17

TPC is a widely recognized, industry standard benchmark for testing the performance of various database solutions. Currently, Windows NT Server running SQL Server 6.5/7.0 provide customers with the best database price/performance solution in the industry. These results can be viewed at http://www.tpc.org/new_result/ttpp.idc. It's difficult to compare Windows NT Server performance results to Linux because there is very little, including no TPC, performance data available. Why aren't there any TPC results based on Linux?

Rommel, Erwin
11/16/98.21:01:21

Mister Muth, the subtext of your post reeks of the stench of the tactics that typify your corporation. Namely, stuff like attributing
the lack of benchmark results on Linux to
lack of industry support for benchmarks on
Linux.

Perhaps you would like to compare Windows NT
to Linux on fair grounds, such as benchmarks
that have results available for the latest
versions of both operating systems.

Licquia, Jeff
11/16/98.21:05:14

I am a three-year veteran administrator, assisting in managing a wide-area NT network spanning from California to Amsterdam.

Or, more accurately, was. I'm now an independent consultant specializing in open-source business solutions.

My reasoning for this was simple: NT didn't deliver on its promises.

This is apparent even in this article. To quote Ed Muth:

Broad support for standard hardware devices and consistent graphical user interfaces make it easy for users to set up and maintain Windows NT Server.

The reality, from my experience, is that Windows NT is one of the most finicky OSes when it comes to hardware. Stray from the Hardware Compatibility List, and you're asking for trouble. Not just trouble in that your device doesn't work, either: trouble in that your system will crash, even if the hardware in question isn't in use.

On the other hand, Linux is famous for handling marginal or even broken hardware and working around the problems as much as possible. At my old job, we had a box that would not run SCO UNIX, Windows NT, or even Windows 95. But on Linux, it proved a reliable small intranet and DNS server for several years.

Windows NT Server also offers integrated virtual private network services, which allow companies to use the Internet to connect remote users and branch offices securely and cost effectively.

Bruce Schneier, the head of Counterpane Systems, author of Applied Cryptography, and one of the most highly respected security experts in the world, recently published a critique of the Windows NT VPN solution (PPTP). His conclusion: PPTP is a shoddy, thrown-together system with major points of weakness and large-scale leakage of information. He recommended that Microsoft PPTP not be used for any system in which security was a goal.

By contrast, Linux has enjoyed very good VPN and security software support from the beginning. Additionally, open-source security software for Linux receives the same benefits of intense peer scrutiny and quick solutions to problems that the rest of the Linux community has gotten used to.

Windows NT meets traditional customer requirements for enterprise OSes, such as scalability, interoperability, availability and manageability, while enabling whole new classes of applications.

The reality is that Windows NT falls far short of customer expectations in these areas. Examples of this abound in many circles.

For example, I have several customers now attempting to roll out NT. So far, they have all (without exception) experienced higher support costs, greater downtime, and higher frustration among users who are unable to get their job done. One of these customers is using Linux as a stopgap to the many problems they are having with NT; my presence there is a direct result of their growing impatience with NT, as well as their continued growing respect for Linux as it "covers NT's butt" again and again. So, I am literally profiting off of Microsoft's incompetence.

Stories abound on the Net, and in my personal experience, of 486 Linux boxes outperforming multi-thousand-dollar NT Servers, and with higher reliability as well.

As for "whole new classes of applications", would Microsoft be meaning applications such as high-performance clusters or thin servers? These are both areas in which Linux both dominates and defines the category. What categories can Microsoft claim such distinctions in?

To conclude, Microsoft needs to start taking stock of the position they are currently in. Rather than provide fluff such as Muth's largely unsubstantiated article, or attack their competitors, they need to attack the one threat that might do them in: their own incompetence. It seems that this might not be possible, considering the product delays and rumored complexity management problems NT 5 (or "Windows 2000") is having."> 11/16/98.21:06:30

Windows NT provides an architecture and a set of system services that allow application developers to leverage the security in the platform. Hence once the users logs into a Windows NT domain, they get single sign on benefits to all applications that leverage the Windows NT security infrastructure. Every BackOffice logo'ed application will provide this benefit since they use the Windows NT security infrastructure.

Windows NT cannot solve the single sign on problems for all the other operating systems, but there are products and services you can use to get to a reduced sign on across your different operating systems. The SNA server product provides password and user account synchronization with the mainframe environment, the services for Unix provides password synchronization with some of the leading UNIXs, and services for NetWare provides logon synchronization with NetWare.

Ryan, James
11/16/98.21:12:04

Wooo, benchmarks! You probably don't want to go there Ed, just because there have not been any published TPCC or TPCD benchmarks done yet on Linux doesn't mean that Linux won't do well. If you don't buy this, then perhaps I should point out how badly Windows does compared to more entrenched competitors like IBM and Sun... Or perhaps you want to discuss the "Microsoft Terraserver" vs IBM's Patent Database which existed a few years beforehand?

My initial experiments with Linux show approximately a 50% disk throughtput improvement on identical hardware over Windows NT. I can also point to studies done by the IEEE showing the Linux TCP/IP stack being anywhere from 20 to 500 percent faster than the Windows NT stack. Your own internal research (as published and acknowledged in Holloween II) showed that Linux's Samba services fared extremely well compared to your "highly optimized" native services on Windows NT. Experiments I've seen with Samba running on other Unix variants show them faring similarily better than NT's native services. How could this be, Ed?

There are 2 Linux based systems in the top 500 Supercomputer list (see www.top500.org, #98 and #114). There are currently ZERO Windows based systems on this list. Why is that, Ed?

I'm hungry, I think I'll go innovate a bowl of soup.

Smith, Jeffery G.
11/16/98.21:39:57

Why aren't people posting to support Windows NT? For the same reason I almost didn't. After reading all of the standard Linux-is-a-religion-and-MS-(or-more-correctly-Bill)-is-the-AntiChrist tripe, it became apparent that most of the posters either had no real world experience with NT or were just plain lying. In that kind of forum no rational statments about NT would be beleived. With 10 years UNIX experience (Ultrix, HP-UX, IRIX, AIX, SPP-UX and Linux) and 5 years NT experience I can say that I have yet to see this famed UNIX stability if you haven't shelled out tons of cash for vendor support. I firmly believe that most people who "try" NT fail for two reasons:

Thinking all PC hardware is created equal.
Thinking an experienced UNIX admin is prequalified to admin an NT domain.

Make either of these mistakes and you will be one unhappy camper. I made both of these mistakes on my first NT domain and once I admitted that maybe the fault was mine and not Bill's I was able to solve all of the problems. Unfortunately, most UNIX hacks are more than happy to just blame MS for their own incompetance and give an "I told you so" to their mangement.

No-one has pointed out Mr. Young's incorrect implication that bug fixes from MS take "years". This is just plain wrong. MS makes all of its Service Packs and most of it's hotfixes publically available ina timely fasion which is more than I can say for most other UNIX vendors (Linux excepted). The few times I have had the pleasure of dealing with the NT support staff I have been thoroughly impressed with their ability and desire to solve my problem. In one case in particular, the problem turned out to be a bug in some open source UNIX connectivity software we were using and the NT support line still tried to help us find a workaround.

Lange, Cole
"
11/16/98.23:02:33

It's understandable why there are very few benchmarks on Linux. It's doesn't perform. We've just evaluated Linux and NT for Web hosting. Must say that the performance of NT is much better. Even Web benchmarks show that Linux is a poor performer when it comes to host Web sites. Both PC Mag and PC Week show that NT is way faster than Linux as a Web server. But the real reason we chose IIS is because of ASP. Developing Web apps in ASP takes about 1/4 of the time compared to anything we saw in Linux. Three lines to get info from any database to a Web page:

RS = Server.CreateObject("ADODB.Connection")

RS.Open "DatabaseName"

RS.Execute("SQLString")

In saying that, we've been very successful using NT.

Brubaker, Marcus
11/16/98.23:33:21

In response to Jeffery Smith's post (number 48) I would like to point out that this forum was not created to compare NT to UNIX in general, but NT to Linux/OSS specifically. Most of the people here will make you no promises about commercial Unices and this, in corolation with the information about NT (the real stuff, not the marketing BS that Microsoft likes to throw around), simply goes to further the point that Linux and OSS in general is, and always will be, superior to anything developed in such a manner as NT.

As for your comments about Youngs article, you may be correct about there not being any bugs in NT that have lasted years, but I would like to point out that I have YET to see any security or stability bugs on stable release OSS software that has lasted more than 2-3 weeks, and most of them have fixes out within 2-3 days, or even hours.

To Mr. Muth, the reason there aren't many official benchmarks on Linux is that we are more concerned with developing good, stable and reliable software than running benchmarks. Also, I would like to see you get NT serving up webpages on a 486 w/ 8mb of RAM. I would doubt it could be done. I would be wary of even getting NT up and running in a usable manner.

I don't have experience setting up Linux as a server. I do have experience setting up NT as a server and as a workstation. I also have experience setting up and managing Novell Netware. I can say that as far as installation, management, setup, stability, performace, etc. etc. etc., NT looses hands down compared to either Netware or Linux.

I find it somewhat ironic that of the 49 or so messages that have been posted thus far, there have been 2 or 3 by Mr. Muth, and 2 by other users that are anywhere NEAR pro NT. I think that most definately shows something.

I guess I will end this by commenting on Microsoft's "innovation." They may add new "features" to their operating system(s), but how many users want, nor even use these features? Why on earth do I want browser integration with my desktop when it adds far more overhead and detracts from stability and speed?

For the record, I am an OSS Linux developer. I have worked with both Visual C++ and the Linux development tools. I'll take gvim, gdb and an xterm window or two to the Visual Studio development environment any day. Not to mention that I have saved myself many headaches by being able to look at the source code to the libraries I am working with instead of having to wonder if the bug I am seeing is in my OS, my widget set, or in my code.

Marcus Brubaker

spoon@elpaso.net

http://www.elpaso.net/~spoon

Kelson, Dax
11/17/98.00:07:15

The same old tired NT excuse, "Not all PC hardware is created equal" is a red herring, pure and simple.

One we had an NT server which would lock solid several times a day (no blue screen, just frozen solid). We suspected hardware, but we weren't sure. We fdisked NT and reinstalled all the applications/service packs (IIS, MSSQL) and low and behold, the machine stopped crashing; but only for about 3 months.

We went through this cycle about 5 times. MS operating systems just "degrade" with use. If don't actually try to accomplish any work besides file sharing, it probably won't degrade. Otherwise, MS OSs get flaky.

BTW, we replaced NT with Linux (keeping the hardware the same), and the box has been handling 1 million dynamic database web hits per day for 7 months!! with not one second of downtime (no reboots either).

Please drop that tired hardware excuse for good.

Instead, try saying "not all software is created equal"....especially software with 10s of millions of new lines of code in each new release.

Onda, John
11/17/98.00:26:39

And how do we know ladies and gents that Cole Lange is a MicroSoft employee?

* It's understandable why there are very few benchmarks on Linux.

the 'Smart Quotes', telltale sign of M$ software, must've been a glitch in

the exporting, as it wasnt converted to ?'s

* It's doesn't perform.

Not just ordinary FUD, but the type of comment we've grown accustom to

seeing lately from the M$ camp, outright, unfounded anti-truth.

* We've just evaluated Linux and NT for Web hosting.

* Must say that the performance of NT is much better.

^^^^^^^^

The shortened MicroSpeak.

* Even Web benchmarks show that Linux is a poor performer when it comes

* to host Web sites.

More A-T, stating a global 'fact' without any direct evidence,

and no, vague zine titles don't cut it.

(note the abbreviated Mspeak, if you consider Linux poor for anything,

consider it poor for 'hosting' not 'host')

* Both PC Mag and PC Week show that NT is way faster than Linux as a Web server.

^^^

And more MicroSpeak, 'way' is only an adverb to surfers and M$ employees.

* But the real reason we chose IIS is because of ASP. Developing Web apps in ASP

* takes about 1/4 of the time compared to anything we saw in Linux.

What exactly did you see on Linux? Anything? Everything?

From your statment, it could easily be assumed that you saw

50 different Linux gurus hacking at it and still coming up

short of what you were able to accomplish. I'm sure this is

what you would like people to assume.

I'm not gonna, I'll assume that all you saw of Linux was Red Hat CD cover

and made your comparision.

* Three lines to get info from any database to a Web page:

^^^

Finally, the 'everything accept anything that we don't have our paws on',

does an Oracle database count towards any?

So tallying up the responses, we've got a bushel from various independant,

professionals, employed by various companies, doing various jobs posting

about the failures they've had with NT, and successes they've had with Linux,

and a peck (2...3 is it?) from those employed by Micro$oft.

This is not a flame on the gentleman, it's a flame on the content, or lack of it.

I, and I'm sure many others, have become calloused to the M$ propaganda machine,

it's time for a new tactic, try content and useablity next time.

Kelson, Dax
11/17/98.00:26:48

By the way, I have a 10 user license of NT Server 4.0 and a 10 user license of MS SQL 6.5 for sale, CHEAP!

$200 each

dkelson@inconnect.com

Kirk, Kenneth
11/17/98.01:59:09

From what I have seen, heard and read so far it seems that there are a lot of anti-Microsoft people out there. I have installed Novell Netware, Banyon Vines, Micosoft NT and Linux on various platforms. Each installation presented it's own problems. However Linux was the only OS that allowed me to change the software to suit myneeds rather then change the hardware to suit the OS's expectations. But who other than Novell and Microsoft will still be around say 10 years from if I invest a million dollars in software? I think thats the big question for IT managers.

Thomason, Gregg
11/17/98.02:53:26

I would be interested to see Mr. Muth's response to the Kirch white paper; certainly it is something he has read.
I find also that the "oo-oooh look here" syndrome of MS's propoganda department to be particularly repellant. It won't talk about Hotmail (NT *failed* utterly), the Navy problem ("REBOOT THE EFFING BOAT!") or any other publicized, large-scale failure of NT. NT may be great for handling 5 machines, holding documents and whatnot, but lets talk fault tolerance.
Simple test: Which OS was on the Space Shuttle? Hint: Flightless waterfoul named Tux.
Another simple test: What OS was used by BG's hometown to handle the huge document load generated by his house? Hint: Its not NT.

PS: Note to ASP programmers- migrate 20 gigs of dBase data to an SQL database in 10 lines of ASP. Do it over no more than 3 machines, while each machine handles HTTP, FTP and local user traffic. Write front end for both Web and local (GUI or CLI) users; you have 1 day to do it. There will be test data, if you feel better. You have 2 days. You may switch to Perl if it will prevent suicide, so long as you abandon this ASP silliness for good.

Matter, Doesn't
11/17/98.03:12:22

Umm... hasn't this "debate" already been resolved before it even started?

Didn't a couple of Ed Muth's employees already write up detailed, intelligible explanations about why GNU/Linux >> NT?

Are we just generating ad revenue for NWFusion? (I haven't clicked on any of the banners yet)

Goldstein, David
11/17/98.03:32:00

I find it very interesting that only one person stepped up to the plate for WinNT. Of course, his points are valid for Linux, if he made these points one year ago. They are no longer valid today and he should probably give Linux another look.

Houle, Paul
11/17/98.04:16:09

When I got my PhD a few months ago, my school had just been paid by Intel and Microsoft to install a large number of NT machines. Fortunately we got them to allow us to install Linux on some of them.

I sat at an NT machine most of the time. Why? Because the NT machines were almost completely useless and usually every Linux machine would be in use. So, to avoid fighting, I'd run VNC on one of the NT machines to use it as a dumb terminal for a Linux box. So I could sit at the NT machine and use Linux. I was happy.

NT is easy to use? Ever try to answer people's questions about how to do something on NT? Linux comes with a bunch of easy-to-use utilities, if you need to convert a .bmp file into a jpeg, for instance, just type convert a.bmp a.jpg If you want to do that on Windows, you're going to have to pay somebody money and install some software, taking some risk of destroying your machine in the process.

I love hearing Muth's meaningless blubbering calculated to bring warm fuzzies to the minions of IT. Someday they're going to realize that he doesn't know what he's talking about and his dream world will fall.

Coward, Anonymous
11/17/98.04:33:04

In response to Kenneth Kirk's post several messages back, I just have to say one thing:

Who will be around in 10 years? Who knows! But I can guarantee that investing 1 million in proprietary software now will cost you at least 5 million and countless man hours in that 10 years' time. Why? Because you'll have to figure out how to work around bugs in the existing software, plus undocumented incompatabilities in new software, PLUS any new "features" the company that owns the OS decides to "innovate" into it.

Now, if you dumped a million into open software (99% of the stuff on a Linux platform), you'd end up saving money because there are NO undocumented "features", and all incompatabilites / bugs are fixed within the first 6 months (Libc5 to glibc), or the first two days (teardrop attack).

Besides, while Microsoft (or more likely Banyon or Novel) might go under, taking your precious OS with them, if Linus Torvalds, or RedHat Software cease to exist, there will STILL be armies of loyal Linux coders carrying the torch, and mountains of available source code to start from.

Budget, Research
11/17/98.04:56:39

I keep hearing about this $1-million-per-hour or $2-billion-a-year spent on R&D boasted by Microsoft.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall that company acquisitions were also thrown in this budget. Wasn't the purchase of WebTV accounted as an "R&D expense"?

Gomes, Luis
11/17/98.05:40:27

Almost everybody says Windows NT is no god. Obviously that is not correct. My NT systems simply don't give me any problems. I know a lot of companies that have Microsoft products (maybe all of them). I don't know any company that have linux installed. Don't tell me that all the IT managers are stupid!

Sparks, Michael
11/17/98.08:22:52

In the industry that I am in (Oil & Gas) we curently utilize NT, Solaris, and IRIX. We are for the first time thinking about taking a look at linux on our desktop but the limiting factor for linux in our enterprise is its inablity to run Industry Standard Office Applications.

We have quite a few Solaris and IRIX desktops but we still have to use products like Wincenter / Windows TSE in order to be able to exchange information with the rest of our bussiness peers.

While I love the idea of open source, I also like the idea of dependability. Dependability is not just how stable the OS is but also it is how dependable the vendor is.

Right now linux has just not made the strides nessecary to be adopted in the Enterprise Work place.

Scheil, Dennis
11/17/98.08:23:12

Actually, this whole discussion is irrelevant. Operating systems exist to support applications. If a business application runs on Linux and not on NT, then guess which one is the better choice. If both OS's run an app, it is then a matter of which runs the app better. In some cases that will be Linux, in others NT. Hey, maybe you need NetWare! Who cares, as long as it works.

A properly configured OS, performing the tasks for which it was designed, will be reliable regardless of whose name is on the box. NT is not unstable, as evidenced by the millions of NT boxes out there which run reliably day in and day out. Linux is not to be scorned because of its freeware roots; it is as solid as any commercial OS out there. Either one is a good choice - it all comes down to the applications and which one is more useful for the task at hand.

NEITHER OS does everything well. Just pick the right tool for the job (and get of this useless "My OS is better than your OS" kick).

Billy
11/17/98.08:25:41

"This allows developers to focus on building applications without having to become security experts." - Muth

::$DATA at the end of an ASP URL reveals the source code, although patched many sites are still succeptable. This from MS' home website:



<%@ LANGUAGE="VBSCRIPT" %> 
<% if request("source") = "ProfWiz" then 
Response.Redirect       
("/isapi/referral/ReturnFromProfWiz.asp?Status=" 
& Request.QueryString("Status") & 
"&LeadID=" & Request.QueryString("LeadID")) 
        end if 
%> 
<%   '******************************************************** 
     '* This page will redirect all products pages referring * 
     '* to it from within Microsoft.com to their proper      * 
     '* resellers in their area after this transfers them to * 
     '* the PostalCodeProduct.asp 
     '******************************************************** 
%>

Costa, Todd
11/17/98.09:08:38

I am new to linux but I am impressed so far. I appreciate red hat's philosophy in open source code. Now my experience with MS products has always been a roller coaster no matter the project I worked. I believe that and have always said to my past and present managers that a strong mix of technology is needed in an IT shop. In my early days of IT I had a director that believed Novell would replace the big iron completely. When I asked why we could not convert the big iron into a big repository and use the LAN as a tool to gather and organize it I was instantly labeled as a non-conforment. Well big iron is still around and he is gone.

Now I believe MS NT is gonna fail largely in the internet arena and cascade onto its own efforts. Now this failure is because it is not a true multi-tasking system period. Secondly, there are too many bugs in each version released. Thirdly, their support is not worth the headaches.

Finally, on MS NT WRKSTN 4.0, I get the blue screen of death alot. I have yet to crash my linux station. Soon I am gonna roll out MS NT WRKSTN in the near future because of a department standard. Oh Boy!! Its job security for me right now. Lastly, to comment on the person who knows mostly NT shops. MS's biggest success is its marketing power to everyone on earth and especially those who control the purse strings. Most linux shops are poping up unannouced because IT people are tired of MS's short comings all because of MS products where pushed down their throats by execs everywhere because the execs were sold by MS flashy marketing and savy sales people.

Miller, Chris
11/17/98.09:16:56

All of this one NOS v. another is amusing to me. The discussion should be about which directory service will allow you to chose best of breed NOSs and include them in a comprehensive client-server system manageable from a single platform.

Linux v. NT? The answer is NDS.

Stephenson, Kevin
11/17/98.09:20:56

I want to know why Novell was not included in this debate. If you are going to include Linux in a NT debate, why in the world would you not include Novell?????

Skoll, David F.
11/17/98.09:29:04

Ed Muth writes:

>One key advantage of Windows NT Server is its user friendliness

Untrue and irrelevant anyway. NT is a far more complex operating system than UNIX and far more difficult to administer. For a SERVER, reliability and flexibility are important, not "point-n-click".

>According to Netcraft, Windows NT Server hosts more Web sites than any other single operating system.

Also according to Netcraft, Apache holds more than 50% of the web server market, and almost all Apache servers run on UNIX.

My company recently switched from NT4 to Linux for our web server. Why? We recently had a huge increase in traffic which killed the NT machine. As an emergency, we put up a Linux box on a slower machine with HALF the memory, and it's been running fine for over a month. As usual, NT let us down and Linux saved the day.

>For example, security services such as secure authentication, access control, data and communications, and public key infrastructure are integrated into Windows NT Server

NT has a very complicated, badly-documented and proprietary security model. Anyone who reads the ACM's column on computer risks knows this is a Bad Thing. Open-source systems are inherently more secure because they are subject to inspection and peer review.

>Microsoft invests more than $1 million per working hour

As a professional software practitioner, surely Muth knows that the absolutely LEAST effective way to improve a bad software project is to throw money at it. The hundreds of thousands of Linux peer-reviewers and coders are far more effective at developing robust software than billions of dollars.

>more than 250,000 Microsoft Certified professionals are trained to support and provide value-added solutions for Windows NT.

How can these professionals meaningfully support an operating system whose source code they have never seen? If I discover a bug in NT, how do I fix it?

>Windows NT meets traditional customer requirements for enterprise OSes, such as scalability, interoperability, availability and manageability

Nonsense. On the low end, Linux runs on 386's with 4MB of RAM. It's even been ported to the PalmPilot. NT cannot run on such small platforms -- it won't scale down.

On the high end, two Linux clusters made it onto the top-500 supercomputer list. NT won't scale up (except in price!)

Interoperability is a joke. NT operates with Windows 95, 98 and NT -- I suppose if you define that as "interoperability", you're right. Linux operates seamlessly with all versions of Windows, all UNIXes, Netware, OS/2 and AppleTalk.

Availability -- I won't comment. Our former NT web server's "availability" was pitiful.

Manageability -- also a joke. I administer my Linux boxes with telnet from anywhere. NT machines either need clunky add-ons or physical presence to do anything.

In summary, Linux provides customers with benefits that are simply impossible under the Microsoft marketing model: Control flexibility, enormous cost savings, reliability and adherence to standards. NT is a closed-source proprietary dinosaur which provides benefits only to Microsoft shareholders.

Lewis, Todd
11/17/98.09:35:35

Novell wasn't included because this is a
Linux v NT debate. Duh...

It's interesting to hear yet-another story
about resentment at Microsoft's being
imposed from above. Perhaps M$'s sales
force is becoming their own worst enemy.
It certainly does not bode well for their
long-term health that they are building up
such resentment in the IT community.

As for the debate itself, Linux wins hands
down, but I am lucky in that I can run
whatever I want in my shop."> 11/17/98.09:40:04

>If you are going to include Linux in a NT debate, why in the world would you not include Novell?????

We've actually been running that debate for several months :-). See our NetWare vs. NT forum.

Smith, John
11/17/98.09:41:16

I just installed NT. It came with IE 2.0.

Guess what? Microsoft's own site would not
let me download any Service Packs because of
too old browser. The pages all jammed.
I tried installing IE 4.0. Too bad, it required SP3.0. I had to download Netscape
to be able to download the stupid service pack, in order to be able to install M$ Office.

stagg, jim
11/17/98.09:57:36

We use Linux where Linux is needed and NT where NT is needed. But our saving grace is that we run most of our enterprise on AS/400s and Netware.

I'd like nothing more than to trash my NT servers and replace them with Linux machines. I think any "high-availability" NOS that ties itself to its display drivers as tightly as NT is suspect (not to mention the fact that the "friendly" GUI violates dozens of usability standards!).

But if you want to debate enterprise availability, don't leave out Netware (3 years, no downtime except for prolonged power outages). And if you want enterprise applications, build them on an AS/400.

Still, in a strict NT vs. Linux debate, I'll look high and low for the Linux solution before I go with NT.

Urban, Charles
11/17/98.10:15:03

This is a very interesting discussion. I agree with many of the previous commenters who said that everything depends on what you need. IT shops with high end server requirements buy Solaris, HP-UX, AIX and/or Digital UNIX. Those that need something with a little less horsepower, but similar bullet proof qualities (e.g. Will run for years virtually unattended if your UPS works) buy NetWare. Now that we've gotten past the systems that have actually proven themselves for years, there are NT and LINUX. LINUX shares many of the qualities of its UNIX heritage. It is also cheap! Therefore, a lot of OS savvy people appear to be adding some of the functionality of the high end UNIX OSs. This makes LINUX a good choice for educational institutions, growth oriented organizations with low budgets and large organizations who want to save money. It appears that what you really need is a staff that has an actual interest in computiong to maintain it. Windows NT/2000 is another story. It works well most of the time, but (and this is a big but) it seems to crash for inexplicable reasons and it's expensive. It appears to be best suited for shops where the intent is to have one vendor fit all and to direct IT training along a single path. (This can save some money in the long run too.)

Again, the OS choice simply depends on your requirements.

Finally, speaking of requirements, it looks like NT 5/2000 client won't run on older Pentiums (<200Mhz). What's the story with LINUX hardware requirements? This could be another decision point for organizations with large installed bases of relatively old but still useful hardware.

Ternosky, Bob
11/17/98.10:27:05

My $0.02...
One huge advantage to OSS that Microsoft will never overcome: being able to fix a bug.

I worked in a Windows shop for 2 years. On multiple occasions I found it necessary to call Microsofts $150 per call phone support only to be told that either

it was a known bug and we'll have a service pack sometime in the future or
We'll have that fixed in the next version.

Great! Its a bug, you know about it and its fixable. When can I have it? Sometime in the future! WooHoo!! In the meantime I'm stuck with the bug.

Needless to say, under OSS I have many options of getting a bug fixed:

Fix it myself (may not be for the faint of heart)
Send an email to the software maintainer and ask for a fix. This may take as long as the Microsoft Way - but it wont cost me $150 for a phone call.
Post to a newsgroup and ask someone to fix it.
Take that $150 for the Microsoft phone call and pay someone to fix it.

Next, Mr. Muth's comments about NT being more user friendly. We are talking about a SERVER here not a desktop, right? A user friendly GUI is not necessarily a good thing. For a server, you are looking for things that make an administrators job easy.

An admin should be more knowledgable than your average user. So a bit of a learning curve is not a terrible thing to ask (and NT has learning curve, GUI not withstanding). Things that make an admin's job easier:

Stability
Remote administration

NT has terrible stability compared to Linux. NT has no remote administration without adding something like PC Anywhere...which happens to nuke your NT server unless you have the right service pack installed.

And the most annoying thing about NT? Reboots. You can't call an OS stable/reliable if you have to reboot for something like, oh, say installing 3rd party software.

Linux needs to reboot for three reasons:

OS upgrade
Hardware change
Crashes - if you have any :)

Linux vs NT ... no contest.

Grevis, Richard
11/17/98.10:44:10

I was hoping to see some 'meat' in the opening argument from the NT side. As I understand it, Microsoft says enterprises should rely on NT because:

1) It has a nice graphical interface (!).

2) Microsoft spends lots and lots of money on it.

3) Eventually they will throw everything in there that you will ever want.

4) And anyway, trust us, because lots of other big companies do.

hmm. Methinks there won't be a discussion worth having here.

Lewis, Todd
11/17/98.10:49:20

Someone asked about whether Linux will run
on <200MHz Pentium machines. The answer
is en emphatic "Yes".

I built an entire ISP, offering service in
several states, using 386 and 486 machines
running Linux. You can still run Linux on
a 25 MHz 386 with 4 MB of RAM. It's not
very much fun, especially if you want to
run Netscape or Word Perfect, but it will
do as a small DNS server or the like. My
home machine is a P-133 with 16 MB of RAM,
and it runs the latest, greatest Linux
kernels and utilities.

BTW, Linux is Y2K compliant. There are
even kernel patches which can work around
many common BIOS Y2K problems. Have a
machine that Windows won't run on after Y2K?
Don't throw it away; give Linux a shot on it!

In short, Linux runs great on lots of hardware, not just the latest & greatest
high-end box.

guest2
11/17/98.11:58:26

As several people have pointed out in this forum, the debate should not be about feature sets. You should use the OS that best serves the needs of your organization and your application.

But given that most of us don't have the time or resources to do the complete analysis of all the available alternatives, often the selection question comes down to: who do you trust?

The interesting answer with Linux is that you have a third option. Trust yourself. Red Hat Linux ships with complete source code and a license that enables you to do whatever you need to with the software. If Red Hat Linux doesn't provide the features or the support, or even the price that you desire, you have control. You can build or buy the features or support that you need when you need it.

It is the control they have been able to exercise over their use of the Linux OS that has so many of the posters to this forum so enthusiastic about improved reliability and performance of their Linux-based systems.

So if the bug you need fixed or the feature you need included only affects your application, you can resolve it, whether or not the supplier of the OS even knows you exist.

Don't trust Red Hat. Trust yourself.

Bob.

Anonymous
11/17/98.11:59:49

In NT's defense though, availability of security fixes from Microsoft is now quite good. If you go to http://www.microsoft.com/security/, many of the patches and hotfixes released through that site during the last six months were made available for download were made available within 24 hours of the problem being identified by Microsoft.

Robbins, Daniel
11/17/98.12:03:43

I administrate 70+ NT workstations, and we are anticipating the switch of our servers from NT Server to Linux. Why? Because Linux doesn't crash. I run Netscape, the GIMP (Image Processing), a fancy windowmanager, etc, etc, on our *server*, and even those some of these applications have crashed, they have never adversely affected our critical network services. We are afraid to touch our NT server for anything other than adding/removing users; we have even had Microsoft Word bring down our system, requiring a reboot.

After 1 year, number of "doh, it's dead, we need to reboot the server" incidents:

NT Server: 20
Linux: 0

I choose Linux.

Donovan, Ryan
11/17/98.12:11:20

While we are on the subject of hardware - I DO agree that Linux will run on very low end and older hardware quite effectively.

However, in terms of getting stable support for the latest and greatest hardware, it can be quite a different story. This is one area where NT has worked considerably better for several of my clients and myself. In some cases, introducing Linux into standardized hardware environments took six months to a year to get it going simply because "compatible" hardware was not stable enough for production use.

For example, I just purchased several DEC Personal Workstation 333i's - a relatively generic PII machine. Getting proper Linux support on these machines has been a long exercise in frustration. First, the on-board 10/100 DEC Tulip NIC won't work because of the PCI IRQ sharing problem present that even the latest 2.1.x kernels don't fix, requiring me to purchase additional NIC's and disable the on-board. The on-board QLogic ISP SCSI controller's drivers are also not stable enough to be used for production (panics under heavy disk usage) requiring me to purchase Adaptec 2940's for these machines. Finally, the 3D Labs Permedia II graphics chips requires a considerable amount of tweaking plus a download from SuSe to get XFree86 to run at all on RedHat 5.1, Slackware, or Caldera.

For a machine whose hardware is all "supported" by Linux this is not the kind of performance that will make it easy to get up and running for new users.

-Ryan"> 11/17/98.12:17:31

Also, as a consutlant that does about 50/50 support of Linux/FreeBSD and NT, I do have to put in my two cents worth.

Getting fixes out of Microsoft has been an issue in the past. Things are considerably better now - especially in the area of security. For several of the critical security holes discovered in IIS over the last nine months, most had hotfixes available within 24 hours, such as the ::DATA bug.

It should also be pointed out that any OS will require a considerable amount of tweaking to become totally secure - especially in an Internet/e-commerce environments such as what I am dealing with.

Many corporate IS people, such as the greater percentage of my client base, do prefer the NT route because the level of user required is much less to maintain the system (i.e. - they don't need to be paying me as much) and support/information is centralized (i.e. - http://microsoft.com/security/) requiring far less effor to research, setup and maintain.

-Ryan"> 11/17/98.12:30:06

Also, on the subject of crashes. I see many complaints about NT crashing and requiring constant reboots. My question to you is - what are you trying to do with NT and have you made any attempt to resolve the crashes?

I have several clients running their businesses on NT - file and print, ARCserve, SQL, Exchange, IIS 4.0, and FrontPage. These systems were designed from the ground up (hardware, software patches, etc.) to run on NT and they are having no problems. My toughest client (a major telecommunications reseller) has uptime of over a month on his two servers running his databases (ranging in the dozens of gigabytes), file sharing, (six Web sites - two external and three Intranet/Extranet) with all of his NT servers running fine with no crashes or reboots. The only downtime he has experienced since the final NT system was put into place is power and/or system maintenance. Just proves that it can be made to work and work quite effectively.

I will admit that considerably more planning and preparation went into the design and setup of these NT systems compared to most "typical" BackOffice deployments (we didn't just boot from the install CD and run). However, the the development time to build a comparable system on Linux or any other UNIX for that matter would have been considerably more expensive just due to the number of hours involved in system setup and additional development time for Web applications, etc.

In addition the ongoing outsourced system maintenance costs (they are able to maintain NT in-house, UNIX would have required retraining or outsourcing)would also have been considerably higher making Linux a more expensive long-term proposition despite its lower upfront hardware and software costs. We spent a considerable amount of time and did the math.

-Ryan

Ryan, James
11/17/98.12:50:32

Interesting experiences, however they are moot. We can probably all tell stories about hardware that Linux and NT may or may not work with. I could go on and on about my bog standard PII-400 that still has problems running Windows NT 4.0 with service pack 3. This system runs Linux flawlessly and in fact supports my video card (ATI Xpert@Work AGP) better than the Windows NT drivers, with support for multiple simultaneous resolutions and bit depts as well as desktop panning.

The fact of the matter remains though that while NT is a closed system with little to no flexibility in the numerous details of administration and setup, Linux is almost the exact opposite. Naturally this flexibility means complexity in comparison to NT, but claiming limited flexibility is a FEATURE because it reduces administration cost is a rediculous argument.

Total Cost of Ownership as defined by Microsoft seems to imply that simply setting up a system amounts to the entire cost of the system. I would argue, however that long term maintenance of a well done Windows NT network and a Linux (or any Unix and even Novell) based network presents the same cost of ownership. In fact due to the flexibility of Linux (source code availability, true multi-user support, stability eve with heavy application fluctuation, excellent and complete remote administration support from *any* source, support for "legacy" hardware, etc) I would say that Linux in fact may be cheaper in more ways than just initial purchase price.

Ockenden, Paul
11/17/98.12:56:50

We deal with many large organisations here in the UK, and have found that more and more it's the *customer* who is demanding that we develop solutions on NT.

Why? Because the platform is quite capable of doing everything they want from it, and although others might have a slight edge in certain areas, this is more than made up for in the reduced maintenence, administration and support costs of just having a single server platform throughout the enterprise.

So the question "which is best" goes way beyond the technical issues. It's all about TCO.

Olsen, Peter
11/17/98.13:21:48

At work I'm a user, not a network administrator. At home I run a small "family LAN" with IP Masquerading to the INTERNET.

At work, my NT Workstation routinely crashes and hangs. I'm an engineer and I've installed some engineering software that seems to want more than NT can provide.

I am now to the stage when even Microsoft applications won't play together. I can't run Outlook 98 after I've run Word 97; I click the icon and it looks like it's launching, but nothing ever appears on the screen. I can't reinstall because my local network administrator keeps the disks. I can't ask his help because his solution is to "strip to company standard" and remove my software installation privileges. He says it's "Too hard" to help users maintain NT workstations if they have installed anything else than the company standard. So much for user friendliness.

At home, my Linux IP Masquerade router (486DX33 with 8MB) was up for three months until the cat sat on the keyboard last weekend. (OK, I shouldn't have left it logged in as root.) My 386SX20 (8mb) Linux portable works well for general-purpose word processing and as a mail server. I have also used it to experiment with web serving. I have run XlispStat (a numerical data analysis and modelling system under X-Windows) on it and found the interactive response time (not the time for large calculations) to be as fast, but no faster, than the same basic software running under Win95 on a 486DX/4-100. Meanwhile, I have had to reboot my Win98 desktop (needed for work) and my wife's Win95 machine (needed for her work) almost daily.

For me, the conclusion is straight-forward. Windows (NT, 98, or 95) offers a simple user interface. This can be valuable if

Your users don't need or want to use any software that doesn't support the interface, and
You can keep them from doing anything you don't expect.

However, if your users want or need flexibility to do their jobs (and they can handle it), then Linux offers a simple, reliable, and powerful alternative.

Peter Olsen

Cross, Henry
11/17/98.13:34:11

Q1: Can any _PC_ OS claim "Enterprise" capability?
(Ok, with Linux clustering maybe)

Q2: How can you mention the words "NT" and "Enterprise" in the same
sentence with a straight face?

Try Control Panel->Network->Services->Remote Access Service->Configure
change the service to Dial-In or Out, anything different then what it's
currently configured for and what's the next thing your told to do???
!!!REBOOT!!!
(Guffaw!) Please...tell me again how NT is "Enterprise Ready"!

(BTW, the Linux solution can be implemented from anywhere in the world,
via telnet and your favorite text editor. No reboot required)

In smaller environments it really depends on what your looking for in an OS.
Having run both systems I consider Linux to be far superior to NT in the
areas of reliability and remote administration.
Security flaws seem to be fixed faster and I can modify the OS as needed.
No other commercial OS can do that for me.

OTOH, where's the Open Source Software (OSS) equivalent to
MS Exchange Server? Systems Management Server? HP Openview, etc...
AFAIK they don't exist. And even for applications such as Oracle,
Informix (and soon DB2?), etc... would you want to be the first
on the block to run the Linux version? What if your job depended on it?

(BTW, don't ask me to bet my job on Windows 2000 version 1.0 either!)

IMHO, Linux is technically superior but, still has a ways to go.
There are still drivers & software for NT that aren't available on Linux
and until they become so, NT will remain a valid choice.
It isn't a matter of this OS *or* that OS, for the fore-seeable future
it's a matter of co-existance. (Though probably not a peaceful one)

All things being equal however, I'd choose Linux over NT.

H.Cross

MCSE

Corey, J
11/17/98.13:57:23

Where on netcraft.com did Mr. Muth find that more web sites use NT Server than anything else? I saw reports on server types (roughly Apache 53%, IIS 23%), but no OS reports. Apache, Netscape, etc can run on several OSes, so I'd be interested in what is used and where.

Masterson, Michael
11/17/98.14:11:25

There are such huge differences, currently, between the practical utility of Linux and NT that I think it's a worthless comparison.

What fascinates me is that Linux and NT are perfect examples of two distinct models for software development. Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold and Linux creator Linus Torvalds couldn't be further apart on how SW development teams work. Both these guys have proven their point some (Nathan more than Linus thus far), but the battle isn't over. In coming months, as the feature gap closes, it'll be easier to see who's right. They could both be "right." If Linux makes it big, the shift in SW economics will be profound to say the least.

Chappell, Sean
11/17/98.15:01:22

Dear readers ,

I've read over half the posts here, I feel that I've got enough info to say something about both points of view.

Statements from Mr. Young and Mr.Muth both seem kind of “canned “ to me. I would have thought they could each have delved into specifics on their respective OS statements, like “Linux for this company's uses are a solution better than....”, and “NT for this company's uses are a better solution than...”
Muth really needs to do some homework on his stats, Young needs to get away from talking Intel investment as a plus (purely a political move on Intel's part, they also invested in the Be OS)
But to the “Real” question, or what I would think is the real question is, is how these systems interoperate, no comments do I see.
Why does it have to be NT vs Linux?

I've been installing and supporting server systems and networks for a number of years now and I've found that it really come down to what works in what situation.

For instance, for an Architectural office an NT server(s) and NT workstations are what works, put a Novell file server in the mix and you have problems. Again, the point of interoperability.

For the local ISP, the main machines are Solaris or Linux running on Intel multiprocessor boxes, there is a mix of NT workstations and Linux boxes as ancillary boxes on the network, this also works, the choice of Solaris is basically an inherited decision from the years that that system has under its belt and the support people that know that system in and out. Still there are interoperability issues.

DNS automatic updates (which NT supports for all DNS records) but Solaris or Linux does not quite understand (this means that an NT web server on the network, that is a primary DNS server , must have updates made manually update (on the Linux secondary) by a human being ….again interoperability.

Ok , so I have an NT box on a network as described above , am I perturbed that these updates can not be made automatically ..yes! It's stupid. Why would I go to the trouble of specifying that the thing be a primary if I still must depend on someone else to make the updates? It should work better than that, but it doesn't.

Does this mean one system is better than the other? I don't think so.

My point is this, if a little more energy were spent, by all involved making these systems compatible then the choice of OS would be, not which is better, but based on which works better in this particular situation.

Lastly, my years of experience tell me that MS has always tended toward making things interoperate , it's not always worked out for the best , they are dominate and that does give them the “800 pound gorilla sits anywhere it want to” effect , still at the core MS has focused on the wider (and much more complicated) task of interoperability , across the board.

Thanks

Sean Chappell

Tsocanos, Chuck
11/17/98.15:01:30

First a few remarks concerning Windows NT and it's price/performance. Let's remember one important thing.. that this number can be improved in two ways: numerator and denominator. Bottom line NT's price is comparatively low (currently to commercial UNIX systems), but it's performance, stability, and support infrastructure is equally as low. Hence a good ratio. I don't know of two many SUCCESSFUL corporations that are willing to bank their mission critical apps on saving a few bucks for a mediocre and third rate operating system.

NT was designed and tested??? Designed yes, originally by IBM and called OS/2, which is much more stable today thanks to OS knowledgeable IBM, bastardized by Microsoft. As for testing I remember quoting a Microsoft executive last year Jeff something? as saying "testing will be something we do from now on" in February '97
Way to go, now you're catching on to practical software engineering methods. Is that why NT 5.0 is taking 3-5 years? Must be the spiral model their using? Spiraling to where?

User friendliness is a plus, for less skilled IT staff, but when you enter the realm of enterprise systems. I hope that your staff is competent enough to understand that a computer is not JUST a GUI.

Also remember TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) lets do the math for "mission critcal". Example 1: High profile broker using NT. Desktop crashes for 15 minutes. At 4 million per 15 minutes, was $300 for NT worth it.
Example 2: NT web server (IIS) are available lets say 98%. What about the 2% that results in millions of dollars lost conducting transactions on the Web sites of E-traders or fund managers???

Yes I am a BIG Linux fan, have used it extensively through college (engineering), but my bottom line is that now I need access to applications (Office, Visio, Smartsuite, etc.) that don't have much of an alternative available for functionality on Intel platforms. Hence, I use MS Windows 95 & NT.

Am I content, no, but for now I have no other choice!

As a side comment to compare performance. I was running Linux on a 486DX2/66 16MB RAM like a charm, able to run concurrent applications that were hardware intensive (i.e. Format a Disk, while simluating a circuit, while printing, etc.) I would also run Win 3.1 for certain apps (wordprocessing).
Now enter Windows 95 in August of '96 (hmm). I give it a shot, by much to my dismay my system comes to a grinding halt (figuratively). This "32-bit" operating system is more efficient? more robust? scalable? I think NOT. Bloated, maybe, added with useless features that most people do not care for or need? Probably. I don't want Microsoft deciding what browser, email system, or on-line service comes with the OS. I just want an OS. And Linux is the best one I've seen yet (for Intel).

Hey Microsoft, why don't you scrap NT and start using Linux and building apps and GUI's. That seems to be what you do best.

Does anyone remeber where DOS got started anyhow, MS bought it for $40K from a company that called it QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System). I guess old habits die hard, eh MS?

Chmara, Ron
11/17/98.15:03:16

Ryan Donovan's posts made me laugh so hard I fell out of my chair....if the best NT can manage, even when properly tuned, is a whole month of uptime, it needs some serious work.

What enterprise sized, fortune 500 company, would be proud to have their entire company *shut down*, 12 times a year, at unpredicatable times? How much business does an average "enterprise" loose to a crash, as compared to training costs for more reliable server systems?

For us, the average risk factor of an unrescuable crash can be as great as $10,000 US dollars. For an annual total of $120,000 dollars of risk, I can afford to have a whole horde of trainees sent to seminars on Linux,
which has given us 1 crash in the last 18 months (fortunately, we only lost a couple hundred dollars.)

I can afford to spec out machines with known compatible hardware. I can afford to not have Wizards to set up my systems. I can afford to have equipment that users are unable to maintain. I can afford to not have all of the latest software features and gadgets. I can afford to use command line interfaces.

I can't afford the downtime of NT, not if the TCO is >$120,000 USD per server, per year.

I would classify the size of my organization as a small business....so NT in an enterprise? This would be unthinkable. To replace my two Linux servers, my risk would be $240 thousand dollars per year, and to replace all my servers, 1.2 million dollars
of risk on crashes alone.....NT is just not an acceptable solution in a high stability environment.

Rothert, Ryan
11/17/98.16:34:06

I work for a large ISP and we setup alot of
mail servers for large companies. I use Linux because it allows me to sleep at night.
I can install Redhat quickly, RPM allows
for quick updates, and its rock solid. Customers just dont have problems ever with thier linux boxes (excluding hardware problems).

I just can't justify using NT.
Nice Try
Not Today

Schaeffer, Joshua
11/17/98.17:07:34

Mr. Reed:

Was I suggesting that the people who couldn't figure out NT then went on to use Linux succesfully and then badmouth NT? Yes, out of wrath that NT didn't do EVERYTHING AUTOMATICALLY for them as they unrealistically expected. But this is a matter of opinion, which I admit has no place here.

Yes, Linux is free. But rocks are free, and so are pine cones. Are you going to fill your bags up with rocks and pine cones simply because they're free? Advice: you should only say Linux is free AFTER you've stressed what you believe are its functional benefits. But 'free' can't be the whole argument.

IntelliSense is more of a name for a general series of features found in many MS applications. IntelliSense is when Browser address bars and Open/Save As textboxes can automatically complete your intended web address or filename. IntelliSense is when Visual C++ 6.0 displays a tooltip showing a function prototype while you're typing a call to that function, or a listbox giving you a series of completion choices. Intellisense is when Word 97 automatically capitalizes the first word in a sentence when you forget to, or when it changes common misspellings like "teh" into "the" or "your a" with "you're a". And IntelliSense is when you can type a natural-sounding question and have the Office Assistant give you a list of relevant help references. IntelliSense is all that and more, and is indicative of a general effort to make computers behave more intelligently and automatic, one that I haven't observed in the Linux movement.

CORBA is so great? Visit:
http://www.computerworld.com/home/online9697.nsf/all/970807corba

You say that UNIX pioneered application componentization and programability and had it long before Windows was even conceived of. And you say that a common quotation on the newsgroups these days is "Unix had taskbars and start menus since before Microsoft had a decent memory manager for DOS". What is the state of the art now? What has UNIX been doing in all that time?

And 30 Pro-Linux comments don't prove a mass of programmers, only a mass of enthusiasts.

A componentized browser means you can extend it to behave as a help system as well, thus sharing a common interface and a common scripting language: HTML. And then there's the possibility of DHTML-based interfaces, not to mention what AOL did with IE.

If Linux applications work for you, fine, but I don't find myself to be the sort of person to use underfeatured applications and say, "Well, they're good enough." If that attitude prevailed in the earlier years of computing, we'd still be using warehouse-sized mainframes.

Problems with driver installations are more often the responsibility of that vendor. I had no problems with my video and sound cards.

The NT machine on _my_ desktop has been here for a year without a single crash (aside from a faulty cache chip), though I did have to reboot to add drivers and service packs. But that will probably change soon enough. Why only one year? That's when I began using NT.

I'm puzzled by all these reports of NT crashing; the concept of NT crashing under its own weight is alien to me because I've never experienced it. But I won't apologize for that.

Logan, J.
"
11/17/98.17:31:06

Why haven't more NT people spoken up? Why are the Linux/Unix people so hostile towards NT? I definitely find that Linux/Unix people and even Netware people are much more argumentative when it comes to this kind of discussion mostly because they are older and set in their ways. They see the increasing popularity of NT as a threat to them because it means change. It may also mean a cut in pay since NT admins are generally payed less. But enough of Intro. Psych.

I have to agree with Mr. Schaeffer and Mr. Smith when they argue that the majority of NT problems are due to lack of knowledge on the part of the administrator. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying NT is perfect. In terms of stability though most problems I've encountered have been a result of really bad configuration. I work as a network administrator and my predecessor at the company I presently work for came here with seven years of Unix admin experience and no NT experience. His solution to make sure things worked was to install every service and protocol he could. Of course this impacted performance a wee bit. He also saw fit to software mirror the boot partitions even though the servers used hardware raid 5 controllers. If it isn't immediately obvious why this is wrong then maybe we've found your problem and I refer you to page 1 of "Windows NT Server for Dummies".

I also do some consulting on the side and I've seen several examples where a shop with lots of Unix or Netware experience and absolutely no NT Server experience has had to set up an NT Server box to support a new application. Of course they've had problems later because they didn't have a clue what they were doing and basically did a completely out-of-the-box install. No service packs, no updated drivers, not to mention no clue how to setup any type of security. When you setup Linux do you normally use a 2 year old version and 2 year old drivers or do you get the latest and greatest? Nothing I like better than strolling into this type of situation, fixing the problem and showing up some cranky old Unix fart who has just told his boss that the problem is NT. Turns out the problem was him...

Some of the people responding came right out and showed their ignorance of NT by complaining about things that are simple configuration changes. One guy complained that the contents of memory was written to disk when his server crashed. Gee, you can't imagine any scenario where a memory dump on a crash would be useful. Does he have any idea how unbelievably simple it is to configure this option in several different and useful ways including not having it write to disk. I guess not.

I've never had a bladder control problem, but I came close when I read the comment about the wonderful .jpg to .bmp utility that comes with Linux. I can't tell you the number of times I'd had to work late in front of my NT Server converting .jpg files to .bmp files. If only I'd had this utility...

As for availability, let me add to the worthless anecdotal evidence presented so far. We run 10 NT servers, mostly dual PPro and dual PII HP Netservers. Because of budget constraints all of them run multiple services/applications eg. Exchange with IMC and Sybase SQL Server. In the past year we have had a total of two server crashes among all 10 servers. One of which was caused by bad code in an update to one of our database applications. Actually only the SQL Server service crashed. The server which runs a database application is our main file and print server and also a PDC, remained up and continued to authenticate users and serve files and printing. It did have to be rebooted to restart the SQL Server service though. Not perfect, but I can live with it.

Hammer, M
"
11/17/98.17:44:09

Mr. Logan, I think you just argued Linux's point.

NT newbies have a terrible time getting to the point of no crashes. Linux newbies get there almost immediately. Care to run the arguement of ease of use past me again?

Coward, Anonymous
11/17/98.17:55:57

There's been much talk in this debate about how Open Source Unix-based solutions (including Linux) are better than NT, but let's get down to real-world descriptions of actual IT implementations. Recently I was in Australia on a business trip, and found that I needed some additional functionality on our servers. If the back-end was comprised solely of NT servers, there would be no question that bodies would be required to sit there, in front of the machines, install software, and reboot again and again.

Starting with NetBSD and Apache, I added IMP, a freeware, encrypted e-mail web-based reader and contacts database. It required installing a number of software packages, from SSL, Perl, PHP3 (Open Source's equivalent to MS's Active Server Pages), the MySQL SQL Server, and an IMAP daemon. These things were compiled and integrated by a middle-of-the-road Unix technician in the space of five hours, from 5000 miles away, _without a single reboot_. Uptime on the server _remained_ at 382 days.

Now our users can read and post e-mail from their web browsers over an encrypted link, and our Exchange-based users have access to the same interface, and all the Public Folders, through IMAP and NetBSD. A _complete_ Outlook Web Access replacement, _without_ a single reboot, from halfway around the globe, and every package I've mentioned is absolutely Open Source, free for the download.

Can NT _ever_ match this configurability and reliability, without thousands of dollars of add-on remote admin packages?

Bagali, Sid
11/17/98.17:57:53

I use both and like both. I will be very interested to see if NT Servers can host hotmail.com which is currently done by apache and solaris(unix...

Burwell, John
11/17/98.18:17:09

Linux is free. NT is not.
Linux runs on damn near any machine you want, 486 or PII, even Mac PPCs. NT does not.
Linux is useful with as little as 8 MB of RAM (even less if you're clever) and as small as 250 MB hard drive. Don't even try that with NT.
Linux support is everywhere, and people are friendly and helpful. NT support is expensive, and Microsoft people always blame Hewlett-Packard. (rename your print drivers from .DLL to .XXX anyone?)
Linux enjoys being fed by a development community which is state-of-the-art and well-informed (seasoned IT pros, research facilities, bright university kids). NT suffers crappy, mediocre, half-finished products, even if they are from Microsoft.
Linux is free. NT is not. (this can't be said enough).

Dart, Keith
11/17/98.18:18:00

Regarding recent posts about clueless, ex-Unix, NT admins. One comment was that we mistakenly expect NT to work out of the box. Gosh. The problem with this statement is that Microsoft claims NT to be so easy to use and administer that just about anyone can do it. Well, we are simply holding them to thier promise. Unfortunatly, they fail miserably. Sure, some people are NT experts and know all the patches to get and knobs and buttons to tweak. I've even seen NT admins editing text files, and tweaking funny looking variables in registries. How is this "easier" than Unix admin? It sure looks pretty much the same to me, so what's all the noise about "ease of administration"? It also seems to me that competent NT admins require just as much training, and are just as costly, as Unix ones. The whole admin thing seems like a complete wash.

And the excuse about using just the right hardware is pretty lame. I've run Linux on the exact same hardware, without problems, that was causing NT fits. It's true that the very newest hardware is often not supported under Linux, but that is primarily due to its currently small market share, and the manufacturers do not supply drivers for it themselves. This is not an intrinsic problem with Linux. With time, this will change.

So, what's the point in buying NT? My personal experience with it is the same as many others here: unstable, poor flexibility, lack of control. I will never use it, and I'm glad I have that choice. What gets me all up in arms about NT, and I'm sure many others here, is the lengths Microsoft will go to to deny me my choice of OS. If Microsoft would simply do the ethical thing and build a better product and hope that I _choose_ to buy it then I wouldn't have a problem with them. But they seem to go out of thier way to try and ram their crap down my throat via exclusionary license agreements and other dirty tactics. I resent that, and it spurs me to be an anti-Microsoft advocate, and a pro-Linux advocate. Fortunatly, the choice to use another product is easy, since Microsoft is so repulsive, and thier products are of such poor quality.

Speaking of quality, I find Mr. Muths comments to sound like they came right out of glossy marketing liturature. There is little there in terms of hard facts, and is often disengenuous. He, and others here, speak of all the wonderful things that NT can do, and it does look good on paper. Unfortunatly, my years of experience with MS products tell me that the execution is so poor as to make these wonderful features practically unusable.

Open standards are also important. The Internet, indeed our entire communications infrastructure, would not function without standards. I demand open standards compliance in the products I choose. I don't want to be locked into any single vendor, giving them absolute power over me.

Kolarek, Frank
11/17/98.18:32:23

I believe that UNIX simply outperforms NT and is much more reliable and stable when it comes to serving applications. When doing heavy load testing, you can't even compare NT to any UNIX. Collegues have performed heavy load testing of various Web servers running on serveral OS's and NT was the first one to die, but yes, the cheapest.
Until now....

As a programmer, I've always seen UNIX running corporation's mission critical apps. Just ask any programmer down on Wall St. if their Brokerage House would trust their trading applications to an NT system.
Not when it needs to rebooted weekly!

Although ease-of-use sounds like a good argument, my response is, "Are we computer
professionals or are we looking for an 'ease-of-use career?"

Unfortunately the hostility coming from UNIX camps has alot to due to the monster monopolistic ego of Mr. Gates.
Just ask yourself how many standards were
previously accepted in the software world,
when Mr. Gates decided to make his own??

And who got stuck re-writting miles of code?
Software developers like myself -

Sawicki, Ed
11/17/98.18:57:09

One of the most annoying of NT's many problems is the requirement that the operating system must be halted and restarted anytime a configuration change occurs. Even trivial changes, such as changing a IP address, require a reboot. Reboots are also required when Service Packs are installed. This makes NT a poor choice for applications where up-time is important.

Most other operating systems, such as Linux and NetWare, allow you to make configuration changes and apply those changes without taking the machine down and without affecting applications that have nothing to do with the configuration change. As a result, it's common for Linux and NetWare servers to have up times measured in months or years.

NT up time is too short for a serious computing platform - even if the operating system never crashes. Unfortunately, NT does crash - further shortening the up time.

McCallister, Steve
11/17/98.18:57:55

As I look at some of the primary benefits identified by Linux advocates (free vs. cost, runs on as little as 8 megs of RAM), I find these things appealing to me -- my home environment. In terms of the Enterprise, these just aren't the most important issues.

I'm not going to run any kind of a server today on a 486 -- my client PC's are P II's with 32 - 64 megs RAM. And I will pay a price greater than $0 if I see a business benefit in doing so.

Second, the statement "the hostility from UNIX camps has alot to due to the monster monopolistic ego..." is "the devil made me do it" logic. My Mom taught me two wrongs don't make a right. The vitriol against MS can only tarnish and confuse the legitimate technology issues under discussion.

Linux / UNIX is great -- we use it and NT in my shop. There's also a lot of great stuff out there on NT. That said, there's also neat stuff out there for Novell, for heaven's sake. All these products are pushing one another -- whether because their manufacturers strive for quality, ideological purity, technical superiority,
or (gasp!) to make a profit.

I'm not buying NT because of Bill Gates'
Hypno-Wheel.

Consider this: even an NT customer can tell the difference between a religion and an OS....

Alami, Jeff
11/17/98.19:57:55

I think that the choice between Linux and NT (sorry, Win2K) greatly depends on the needs of an enterprise. There may be software solutions that enterprises use that only run on Windows NT, so they must use it somewhere in the company.

Internet/intranet and workgroups servers are excellent with Linux; witness the popularity of pre-packaged intranet servers such as Cobalt Microserver and Corel NetWinder. Apache, and many web development tools such as Perl, Tcl, and PHP3 make for a quality, stable Web server environment.

Big-time companies should consider neither Linux nor Windows NT for their mission-critical operations, because their demands most likely exceed the scalability features of Linux or NT. For a big-time server, I would suggest a Sun Starfire with Solaris 7 with Oracle8 or Teradata. Linux will eventually enter this market, but not until they make some inroads in the desktop.

The desktop is where Linux has a chance to shine. I agree with Ed Muth that NT provides a more consistent interface. Linux will most likely achieve this in the future, with initiatives such as SEUL and GNOME. Before the end of the millenium, I can bet that Linux's ease of use will be comparable to Windows.

Hanson, Craig
11/17/98.20:23:39

How can Muth say Netcraft is saying NT hosts more websites, when their site clearly shows Apache is used on more than twice as many sites as Microsoft's IIS?

Intellisense
11/17/98.20:33:12

response to that Intellisense comment:

Emacs has had abbrevs and hippie-expand for quite some time. I use them frequently because of my poor-typing skills. And being open-source, the code can be vastly customized whenever anyone feels like it.

Microsoft's still trying to catch up with old hackers' scripts written long ago... :-)

Miner, Ralph
11/17/98.20:43:49

Mr. Muth: I'm only half way through the postings and I'd really like to try to find a way to support you, but,.....I just can't find a way. I do however have two questions for you.

1. If MS IIS is so superior how come webtv.net is running apache 1.2.1? I mean you guys do own them right?

2. How many other MS web sites are running Linux??????

Sheer, Paul
11/17/98.21:03:20

I see many corporate business people speculating on where Unix/NT will go, and trying to decide which OS to bank on. Free software supporters are NOT trying convince the world what the future will hold. What is a fact is that Microsoft's reinvention of computing is not an improvement over Unix. Almost every PC innovation one can think of was preceded by technologically superior Unix equivalents. Devoping under Linux is quicker and easier than under Microsoft's platforms in spite of the hype of their various development environments. Microsoft's base of standards, interfaces and protocols are mostly poorly thought out and grossly inadequite for the future needs of computing. Unix on the other hand was created by decades of trial and error and collaboration of academia and industry. Microsoft based software will never perform the way Unix's will simply because it has committed itself to an inadequite backbone. Manipulative marketing may well show Windows NT to success (Microsoft advocates are not liars, they just don't know any better, even the ones who work for Microsoft) and if so, it will cost the economies of the world dearly. One has to look further than feature counting and market speculation to see what really is the better alternative. Supporting Unix is more than a good business decision; it is a moral obligation.

Jingle, John
11/17/98.21:18:39

Windoze propaganda speaks with Intell$ense:

If I order a Linux CD from say, Red Hat, sure, I can

run it on a dusty old 486/33, and maybe make a fair server

out of it, but a computer that size just _can't_ handle

the needs of a large enterprize-level corp, and since

Linux runs on a computer that size, it can't scale.

Linux Scapel offers enlightenment:

4 processors... 400mhz apiece (newest Intel Xeon)... 1 gig of ram...

4x1 meg of backside cache... 198 gig storage, hotswap scsi...

...plus more

Running ...

...(oo, the supense)...

...Red Hat Linux

See here for all the details.

Andrews, Chris
11/17/98.21:19:08

Is NT vs. UNIX even worthy of real debate? Does anyone deny the fact that NT crashes more often then UNIX varients? Does anyone deny that you need to restart NT to make even the most minor of changes? No one denies these things to my knowledge. These things make NT unacceptable as a mission critical solution in and of themselves. Furthermore NT has serious scalability, redundancy, flexability issues.

You cannot build a distributed cluster with NT machines today, but you can with Linux. As a computer scientist I cannot get the computational power or reliability I require from UNIX. I also can't opptimize my code as well because I don't have the OS source code to tell me what is really happening.

I'll give NT this though, it is a cute and easy to use GUI. I realize that computer science is a unique situation, but I am also a systems administrator. We currently trust our mission critical apps to Sun systems, but are evaluating the performance and security issues of a Linux Beowolf cluster. If we believe we can trust Linux we will switch in a heart beat because we won't have to rewrite all of our code as we would on NT and we can save money by using common components. Our database system, Oracle, is being moved to Linux and when it gets there Sun will have some competition. NT doesn't even make an entry into the race.

If ease of use is your concern your real question should be whether or not you want to spend twice as much for NT vs. Win 9x. For the minor stability gain. Both are fine for client systems that don't need 99.9% uptime.

This is not a religious issue, UNIX is simply more stable and proven in the enterprize today. Perhaps Microsoft will improve its product in the future, either way it is at least begining to give UNIX cause to look over its should which is great for the future of computing.

Wilburn, David
11/17/98.21:26:26

Mr. Muth's comments are interesting, especially the ones concerning
information security. Long before Linux, Apache, and OSS became "cool,"
organizations with serious information security needs required the source code
and documentation for every piece of software on their systems. The thought
that a closed-source, proprietary piece of software should be considered
trustworthy is quite laughable. The thought that any software system
in-and-of itself is "secure" is also laughable. A system can be more or less
"securable," but never "secure." When I have the choice between the source
code to a product (such as linux and all related software) that allows me to
examine and fix potential security problems, along with the benefit of the
vastly superior network (peopl-network, not computer-network) of security
profesionals working with Unix/Linux/OSS, or closed-source products (meaning I
have to trust Microsoft and all other application vendors completely) where
service packs containing security fixes come out every couple *years*, then the
choice is in my opinion an obvious one. Also, the thought that an application
developer should not have to worry himself about information security is
incredibly ludicrous. Regardless of the OS or platform, a programmer still
must at the very least keep track of permissions and ownership, symbolic links
in files accessed, file locking, possible buffer under/overflows, etc. As a
side note, wasn't it just a few months back that a Microsoft employee stated
on NT-Bugtraq (after a rather serious whole was discovered in PPTP, the heart
of the so-called "secure" virtual private networks that Mr. Muth touts, if I
recall correctly) that Microsoft customers don't have a need for serious
security?

Not just in security, I have been disappointed in Windows NT on almost every
other level. Since Windows NT is one of the few commodity OSes that feature a
microkernel, which Linux does not have, logic should state that changes in
configuration should not require a reboot nearly as often in NT as in most
other OSes. This is distinctly not the case, however, much to the
consternation of myself and anyone else who has been forced to install an
Windows NT server. Additionally, the sheer lunacy of a "registry" type of
configuration database is, to me at least, quite obvious. How many times have
the readers had to reinstall the entire Operating System because a simple
piece of application software has crippled the entire registry? Perhaps the
software engineers at Microsoft were never taught when they were children to
never keep all their eggs in one basket. I quite honestly could go on for
hours here, with empirical evidence of NT's serious engineering flaws, but I
suspect the readers are already quite aware of most of them. I enjoy the
thought of this debate, if only because now the readers will at least be aware
of an alternative to such frustration.

Poisson
11/17/98.21:36:02

As for availability, let me add to the worthless anecdotal evidence presented so far. We run 10 NT servers (**SNIP**)
In the past year we have had a total of two server crashes among all 10 servers.
-- J. Logan

I'm puzzled by all these reports of NT crashing; the concept of NT crashing under its own weight is alien to me because I've never experienced it. But I won't apologize for that.

-- Joshua Shaeffer

Please, please, please, I besheech of you, how do you manage such powerful necromancy?
I cajole, I beg, I leave burnt offerings of the latest patches and hotfixes, but alas, the NT boxes still go tits-up for no freakin' reason on a regular basis.

Reading a couple of the Pro-NT posts I swear to god these people must be MS plants or something. Anyone who has professional experience running both NT and Linux boxes knows that Linux is far, far more stable than any Windows flavor. Anyone who suggests that a properly configured NT box is anywhere near as stable as a properly configured Linux box is, well, an idiot, to be blunt. In fact even a linux box that is configured half-ass is hard to bring down short of HW failure or some new 0-day script-kiddie 'sploit. (No such thing as a day-1 'sploit on a cluefully-admin'd Linux box for the most part). Never personally seen a Linux box kernel panic, but the BSOD is an all too frequent sight to mine eyes.

I don't look crosseyed at the NT boxes for fear of them crashing, but yet I abuse my Linux boxes without a 2nd thought.

4:30pm up 258 days, 8:10, 6 users, load average: 2.02, 1.39, 1.00

(Any guess as to which OS this came from, the longest uptime for one of my NT boxes is around 3 weeks, and I think that may be some sort of personal best...)

Zwolak, Jason
11/17/98.21:42:53

This seems to be a pretty one sided argument. Most everyone is for Linux. A few people are for NT.

I'm for Linux, but I am going to present some of the arguments that I have been presented with for NT.

One claim is that NT has better support. I'm not referring to support from Microsoft or developers. I'm referring to support from local companies, friends, and the people you bought your computer from. If a system administrator or a personal computer user needs help with NT they can go to almost anyone and get help. If they want to talk to a professional immediately they can just call their local computer store. Often small computer businesses offer some sort of on site help for a fee. You cannot get the kind of support with Linux, can you?

NT has better hardware support. Specifically printers are much more widely supported under NT. Linux severely lacks when it comes to printer drivers. If someone is using NT as print server they have a much wider range of printers to choose from. However, all hardware is more widely supported because many hardware manufacturers write drivers for NT before they release their hardware.

THIS IS A MUST READ!! HUMOR IS HERE!!-------

One thing I've learned about recently is deadlock. There are many algorithms to solve the problem of deadlock. One is deadlock detection and recovery. Linux seems to be very bad a deadlock detection because you never see a Linux box deadlocked. Or if you do, you don't know it. However, NT has a GREAT deadlock detection algorithm. If deadlock occurs NT displays the pretty blue screen. Everyone WILL know that the NT has detected deadlock and recovery is a simple reboot.

MG
11/17/98.22:28:24

I've used both NT and Linux as web servers and find Linux far superior. What humored me most and I think answers what NT evangelists mean when they state that NT has acceptable uptime is the below comment:

Ryan Donovan - 12:30pm Nov 17, 1998 EST (#82 of 112)
My toughest client (a major telecommunications reseller) has uptime of over a month on his two servers running his databases (ranging in the dozens of
gigabytes), file sharing, (six Web sites - two external and three Intranet/Extranet) with all of his NT servers running fine with no crashes or reboots. The only downtime he has experienced since the final NT system was put into place is power and/or system maintenance. Just proves that it can be made to work and work quite effectively.

Uptime of over a month! Wow! And downtime limited to power outages (acceptable) and system maintenance. The only problem is that NT requires a reboot for an unacceptably large bulk of its software upgrades and installations. I put a Linux system running Sendmail, DNS, and Apache at a colocation and had to visit it once in the past 4 months (due to adding another machine) and during that time I've upgraded and installed various database & mail tools...all from telnet. Made me sad to lose 140 days of uptime but I pulled the wrong power cord.

Another point: A friend of mine who runs a business was considering NT for an intra/internet server and all I did was show him the stats from "top" on the colocated server, a view of a Linux fileserver running Samba, and how I easily alias domains and virtual hosts with BIND. For email we'll use Sendmail (hey...it's worked this long). He asked me "how much would it cost [him]" for a similar solution..."$0 and a dinner". "How much for the machine", he asked..."that 486/66 with 32 megs of ram and the 500meg HD in the corner collecting dust is more than sufficient".

Not as large a scale as the above gentleman's client but he won't have to shell out money for client licenses every time he gets a new employee as he would have to do with Exchange server. I also let him know that I'll be able to administer it for him via ssh telnet if there's a problem with it. Not that I'm worried about having to do that often; I find that if a Linux box gets through the first week it's pretty much set unless you set up some funky once-a-month cron job.

I know where I want to go today: to my favorite restauraunt for dinner and a bottle of wine.

Jimmy, Jackson
11/17/98.22:42:08

One little error in Ed Muth's arguments: The NetCraft Survey says the opposite of what he says.

"According to Netcraft (http://www.netcraft.com), Windows NT Server hosts more Web sites than any other single operating system."

But if you go to the NetCraft site, they list Apache as have more than twice the number of servers as IIS (1756917 to 760395, respectively), and Apache still is not officially supported under NT.

Is that really a mistake, Ed, or just trying to bolster your position with facts that don't exist?

Amsterdammer
11/17/98.22:42:55

About stability: All I know is that we use NT workstations and can't keep the things running. And yes, I assure you they are *properly* configured. We do not have linux boxes, but our Sun Ultra 10's never crash.

Leach, Shaun
11/17/98.22:53:32

Mr. Schaeffer,

I must congratulate you on how well you keep up with the industry. You reference a year old article saying that DCOM is better than CORBA. Couldn't you find something newer?
I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that corporations *now* use CORBA 2 to 1 over DCOM(don't take my word on it http://www.cutter.com).

As for intellisense, I'm quite aware of it. It's that thing that makes DevStudio lock up everytime it goes to complete a keyword. Very useful that keeps me from typing too much. Funny emacs never does that I wonder why?. And now you tell me it's the same thing that causes the office assistant to parrot back an exact error message that I've just typed in. Here I thought that the problem was that the error message was poorly written and undocumented, but no I just had to read it highlighted in a different color by the office assistant and then it all made sense. BTW, I did finally find a solution to my problem. It turns out that the wonderful MS file system had corrupted yet another file and that outlook couldn't decipher it. It only took me an hour of searching knowledge base to find out that all I had to do was delete the file. My that *is* user friendly.

Oh well, the winds of change are a blown' And there's nary a whiff of MS in them;)

Shaun

Eisenmenger, John
11/17/98.22:55:47

In response to Mr. Jimmy,

Read his quote carefully. He said that the NT Server OS was most-used, not IIS. However a more clear URL would be necessary to see if what he claims is true. I can't seem to find data supporting his claim, even on the platform groupings page. Microsoft is listed as having a share of 25.6% compared to Apache's 57.01%...

I found it quite amusing that one of the banner ads over this flame fest was for overstressed network managers. ;^)

Tan, Franaur
11/17/98.22:58:55

I use both NT and Linux, both at work and at home. I find Linux a whole lot reliable than NT but I'm spoiled by the GUI of NT. If your company is a Microsoft shop (like mine) it's pretty much a no brainer that we use NT, but I use a couple of Linux boxes for things that NT cannot do or I'm not willing to let NT run it. Like what? firewall, www, & dns services.

But hell, where you can you find an OS today that performs admirably in a 486 PC?

Finch, Felix
11/17/98.23:09:12

In response to Jackson Jimmy, message #114, I believe you can justify Mr. Muth's boast that

Windows NT Server hosts more Web sites than any other single operating system

Think Clinton Semantics here. Any other single operating system. This is NT, not IIS. He probably counts every different Linux kernel as a different OS.

Andrews, Chris
11/17/98.23:25:50

I think that it is important to use an OS for what it is useful for. Windows NT/9x is a pretty GUI that most people can learn how to use without much effort. I will not consider replacing my user's Macintoshes or Win NT/9x box in the near future, UNIX isn't very user friendly or straight forward. (Ever try explaining grep or lp to a theater major?) NT is good at being a user-friendly GUI, but it is simply not an Enterprise level OS. It is a bad idea to try to strech any one OS into being some sort of one size fits all solution, a CLI will always have a performance advantage over a GUI. (See my earlier statements for more info) It seems silly to get involved in a holy war of this sort, every OS has its strenghts and weaknesses. A good administrator must embrace and support all OS's. NT is just not yet ready for mission critical applications today, I cannot afford to have my database, email, or web services go down. Ever. For any reason. Period.

Coward, Anonynmous
11/17/98.23:31:34

Nope has nothing to do with semantics. I just read through most of the post for this and this is what i got from a post that he(muth) made after his original statement.

something along the lines of you need to get the netcraft OS report which isn't availble to us, but netcraft does create, and microsoft gets.

My guess as to what it means "I'm gonna post a generic link to a site and talk about a report that (may or may not) exist. The report cost alot of money so even if you did want to see it your not going to shell out the money to find that NT is extreemly low."

On another thought. Its impressive that Muth felt compelled to come back and defend his statements. Maybe if he stated the WHOLE truth or at least gave actual facts and specific sites.... he wouldn't need to.

Porter, Kenneth
11/18/98.00:06:20

Just opened the November issue of Sun Expert and found this on page 12:

In fact, more than half of all NT server licenses sold are used exclusively to support file and print services, according to "Server Operating Environments: 1998 Worldwide Markets and Trends," a report published by research company International Data Corp. (IDC), Framingham, MA.

Now why would one want something so huge as NT Server to do something so lightweight? Even if you want a GUI to do user and resource administration, isn't that better done over the net using a workstation?

Kevlar
11/18/98.00:28:33

All I know about the battle between NT and Linux is that Linux has never crashed, and is more cpu efficient with SMP. I also set it up as a backup Outlook server for when its NT's time of the month....

Wahab, Wari
11/18/98.02:28:44

This is to
Jason Zwolak - 09:42pm Nov 17, 1998 EST (#112 of 123)

This seems to be a pretty one sided argument. Most everyone is for Linux. A few people are for NT.

I can see why.

I'm referring to support from local companies, friends, and the people you bought your computer
from. If a system administrator or a personal computer user needs help with NT they can go to almost
anyone and get help.

Due to the ubiquity of Windows, almost any technically knowledgable user will know what to do, "Oh, just click here to get there, then you click and click and click to set it and then click the start button to reboot". For linux, it's difficult to find someone who will say, "edit the /etc/inittab and add the modem ports you want and restart the init service"..

You
cannot get the kind of support with Linux, can you?

There's always irc.linpeople.org at #linpeople channel.

Specifically printers are much more widely supported under NT. Linux
severely lacks when it comes to printer drivers. If someone is using NT as print server they have a
much wider range of printers to choose from.

Hey! You don't need a linux compatible printer to serve it! (except for braindead Winprinters that is). This kinda thing Linux can do with Samba..

However, NT has a
GREAT deadlock detection algorithm. If deadlock occurs NT displays the pretty blue screen. Everyone
WILL know that the NT has detected deadlock and recovery is a simple reboot.

Haha! Anyway, to know if there's a deadlock in Linux, you use xosview or top to see` if something is taking up CPU processes.. if you see your CPU at 100% while doing nothing, kill the offending process without prejudice.

Pamilih, Dian
11/18/98.03:19:20

It's true that Microsoft invest a big amount of money on NT, but people, do you believe that money can buy anything?
I belive on Linux because it's capability and it's super-fast-technical-support. Once I got trouble just go on #linux chanel on efnet... type my problem and you'll get super-fast and super-free answer :).
One thing that I like on Linux is that it is very stable... unless you command her to reboot or to halt, she never has her own idea to reboot or to display some mesy-message (come on... you know it, that white on blue funny message).

Whysall, Peter
11/18/98.04:06:57

I work tech support for a software house, and we're moving from NetWare to NT in the next few months. I'll be sad to see NetWare go - because it's a zillion times more manageable. And this is the crux of the argument against NT. Unlike the VMS boxen here, or my Linux boxen at home, I can't telnet across to one, or do an rlogin. If an NT server needs attention, I have to walk up to it. If Backup Exec wants another tape, I can't say "stuff it" and abort the backup without visiting the server - unless I want to install a large and unwieldy client - and even then I'm limited.
I'm currently awaiting my $10 Solaris - which should be interesting by way of comparison with NT and Linux...

Haestier, Brent
11/18/98.04:18:39

Well in my opinion NT can be stable if configured properly. I personally look after 4 servers and they are in good nick. If NT is not configured properly you will have endless trouble with it. Databases are no problem at all, we have not lost any records to date. The GUI is fantastic and easy to use. On the negative side NT is very "machine hungry". You need a mucsle machine for NT.

On the Linux/Unix side (we have a couple here to) it does not need near as much resources as NT does which is a great thing - you don't have to spend as much on hardware.
We all know that Linux/Unix looks very user unfriendly though.
O.k so both have their diferences.
I think a good question hear would be to ask yourself about security. I have heard of many hackers breaking into Linux/Unix boxes but not so much (well not that I know of) with NT.

Moore, Stephen
11/18/98.07:05:03

Of course the problem with NT people is they don't have a concept of what reliability is. For them reliability is measured from the perspective of WIN9X. From this perspective almost anything is "reliable" if it survives the day.

My background was one of VMS, I welcomed NT4.0 (and distrusted unix) with welcome arms - look how cheep it is. I learned the hard way. I used quality DEC hardware and had the NT software installed by a Microsoft partner, the machine is a disaster always has been.

I don't use linux because it is free (I insist on buying it from Redhat) I use it because it is excellent.

I notice several times the aspersion cast by some NT advocates that somehow I and fellow linux folk must be incompetant because of the problems we have with NT. If this is so then it truely must then be blind luck that our linux servers are so reliable! (especially so for me since I had prior experience in neither NT or Unix)

I also noticed that we ridiculous, idiotic *nix people had installed every possible option and service on a NT server - and expected it to work. What foolish people we are to expect an operating system to support multi tasking. I going straight out to uninstall IE4, opps, if I could.

No I will not have it. Linux is better not because it is free, it is better simply because it is better.

Lim, Kenny
11/18/98.07:28:58

We use both Linux (2.0.35) and NT4 (sp3) at work. One trick we use to demostrate how prone NT is to crashing is to stick a Linux diskette into NT and double click on the Disk drive Icon and you will be guaranteed a Blue Screen Of Death. However when we stick a NT diskette into linux and mount it, it would just gladly accept it and we are able to do a ls which displays NT long filenames.

NT, as a professionally written OS by the world's largest software company is just plain silly unstable.

Pietron, Greg
"
11/18/98.07:36:09

Unfortunately for most of you, guys, technical merits are not enough. It's the marketing power of the vendor and so-called "popular demand" that make the product live or die. Remember Next or OS/2?
It MAY be a different story with Linux, as it seems there is a growing demand for some antidote to Microsoft's success - but in my opinion it is too early for any definite claims.
(all you NT adversaries: take a look at the growing marketshare of "SAP R/3 on NT" installations - will anybody claim R/3 is not a demanding application?)
Greg"> Vavasour, Dunstan
11/18/98.08:00:49

We're having our office refurbished here, and my DHCP server has been relocated. It's still running RedHat 5.0 because that was the current version last time it was booted.

Danvers, Jim
11/18/98.09:29:47

Hi...

I'm inclined to agree w/Mark Arzillo above to a tee. I have been "driving" NT 4.X servers for a couple of years now both in administrative and PC Support roles. It has been my experience that NT is (needless to say) a pretty well done product if installed and maintained (ie: service packs/hot fixes) properly. The interface (Win95'ish) speaks for itself - its butt easy to learn, and through system policies and whatnot, its relatively easy to secure a box from end users who aren't techno savvy. (They are regular folk, not geeks like us participating in this forum!) Security is another thing - again - this goes back to the guy driving it - if the service packs and hotfixes are properly installed, cfg'd, and kept up to date - for the most part you'll be ok.

On the other side of the coin - I love Linux - problem is, I don't know much *nix. I'm learning though. 'Course, I used to run a multi-node bbs on an OS/2 box way back when (before the whole internet thing took off) ((on a 386!)) and I absolutely loved OS/2 also.... :(

Someone else mentioned marketing clout - this is what the Linux movement is going to need if it is to really (~REALLY~) succeed in being a real threat to Uncle Bills borg-like wish for global domination. I can't really bad mouth Mickey$oft too badly, 'cause w/out 'em I probably wouldn't be employed - but I'm really rootin' for the little Penguin at the same time!

David, John
11/18/98.10:26:29

Where I work we have a Linux machine as an organizational web server, and there are a couple of departments running NT as departmental web servers. The Linux server has consistantly outperformed the NT servers with respect to stability, support, security, innovation, cost, and speed.

Since Linux is the leading web server platform, leading ftp server platform, and leading news platform, the question is:
If your company want to be a part of the Internet, why use NT?

Venkat, Narsi
11/18/98.10:27:49

Boot NT out of the enterprise, Bring in Linux and talk about job security. Lot of the NT admin or developers dont know squat about systems management or development. They are application developers, who like to click on gui applications looking into a manual. I bet quite a few of them would be lost in a DOS box. Personally I would like to see growth in Linux just for impetus in hardcore programming (till we see vb for Linux).

Supino, Paolo
11/18/98.10:36:13

I saw people here saying the properly configured NT will stand and work.

Stop and think for a second... What makes an NOS an NOS? The services it gives to the serounding netowork. Things like file serving, DHCP, print serving, DNS, WWW, mail, news, gopher, FTP, remote login, security (and the list goes on and on and on). What counts at the end of the day is if the computer you have did the work it was supposed to effiently or not. When it comes
to putting linux and NT head to head, NT is better where MS has control (SMB file and print serving), but only by a small margin. In all the rest MS lags behind (almost below the horizon). Did you ever put up a DNS server on NT (MS DNS). Did it work that you simply configured it. Did the service kept working without crashing? Did you ever had a DHCP service give all the clients all the information it suppose to give the client without causing problems? Did you ever put up an IIS server and it did gave exactly what it was supposed to do without crashing or hogging the computer for various problems? Did the FTP service work properly under hackers' attacks? Can you sit on the other side of the world and reconfigure from scratch (or any service or part of the machine) without the need to be in front of the console. Did exchange ever work properly and did what it was supposed to? How about all of the above together??? When you reconfigure the OS do you still have it up or does it require a reboot? How much do you really know of what is the OS doing at any given time, or just more or less? From my experience (I administrate NT boxes since NT 3.1, using Linux since 0.99p15 and administrating Linux boxes since 1.2.13) the answer is no on all counts (even on a properly configured NT box with good compaq hardware).

Schindler, Scott
11/18/98.10:45:11

I am one of those "dependant on GUI" NT guys. I don't have a bias against another OS, such as Linux and I am really excited to hear about a more stable OS with the power that LINUX admins claim it has. However the reality of the situation is that there is a lot work available in the Microsoft arena. Given the limitation of so few actual "learning hours" and the constant reminder of technology turnover, we are allowed the opportuinity to learn a limited number of items. How long would it take someone who does not know what LS is to learn Linux? How long would it take a MCSE, MCT to learn Microsoft's upgrade products? Microsoft NT is an extremely young OS compared to Linux. Does anyone expect it to be better? I don't, but I do expect it to adapt to the needs of networks much faster than a decentalized R&D department, no matter how enthusiastic its advocates are.

Lewis, Bruce
11/18/98.11:07:21

The intellectual level of this discussion is degrading quickly. I would like to suggest that IDG consider a different format for future forums:

After an opening statement from each side, questions/comments from readers are sent to a place where both sides can see them. Each side in turn chooses a reader comment/question which the opposing side has to answer. This would greatly increase the signal-to-noise ratio in the forum, and let us hear more from the representatives of each side.

Logan, J.
"
11/18/98.11:50:19

In a previous message, Poisson said:

Please, please, please, I besheech of you,
how do you manage such powerful necromancy? I cajole, I beg, I leave burnt offerings of the latest patches and hotfixes, but alas, the NT boxes still go tits-up for no freakin' reason on a regular basis.

It appears he isn't aware of the differences between service packs and hotfixes. No wonder he's having problems, apparently he can't read. Here's the scoop: Service Packs have been regression tested and I usually test them on less critical servers first before I apply them. Hotfixes haven't been regression tested and should be avoided unless the problem they fix is impacting your systems severely. Otherwise wait for the next service pack. I would expect even the greenest paper MCSE to know this. I shudder to think that someone who has "professional experience running NT" doesn't.

Then he goes on to say:

That's right anyone who thinks NT is useable must be on Microsoft's payroll. Are you this paranoid about everything. Apparently anyone who disagrees with you is also an idiot. You sound like you'd make a great cult leader.

And finally he says:

4:30pm up 258 days, 8:10, 6 users, load average: 2.02, 1.39, 1.00

Wow! You can support 6 users on a Linux box! At that rate I can replace my 10 NT boxes with about 100 Linux boxes. I wonder how many of these ultra-stable Linux boxes are sitting in people's basements running 2 or 3 user networks.

The bottom line is that Linux probably is more stable than NT. I don't disagree with this point. But does this make NT unstable? No. My only argument is with the statements that NT crashes often. We are running our mission critical apps on NT with excellent uptimes. The only reason I can see for your problems is poor configuration or basic lack of knowledge. You say you work with both? Be honest, which have you spent more time learning Linux or NT. Regardless of what anyone tells you, to run NT successfully you need to know what you are doing. Just like Linux...

You tell me I should replace my NT servers with Linux boxes. We have several mission critical database apps which were custom written for our industry running on NT which use MS SQL Server, Sybase SQL Server and Sybase SQL Anywhere. Can I run these on a Linux box?

Stalder, Remigius
11/18/98.11:54:32

Recently the so called halloween documents appeared. Actually, I have nothing to add to them, they fit perfectly into this discussion: http://www.de.debian.org/OpenSource/halloween.html

Reed, Tracy R
11/18/98.13:01:09

J. Logan said:

"Wow! You can support 6 users on a Linux box! At that rate I can replace my 10 NT boxes with about 100 Linux boxes. I wonder how many of these ultra-stable Linux boxes are sitting in people's basements running 2 or 3 user networks."

Uhh....and how many interactive shell users do you have on your NT system right now? I bet you could replace your 10 NT boxes with a single Linux box. Why DO you have 10 NT boxes anyway? What are they doing?

Your statement makes it look like you have 60 interactive shell users on each NT system. Please tell us how that is possible.

I hope Mr. Muth learned a valuable lesson from this experience. This hasn't been a debate, it's been a massacre.

We have seen many testimonials in favor of Linux and just a few in favor of NT, and most of those have been hedged with things like "Linux may be more stable but that doesn't mean NT is unstable." While many url's to Pro-Linux statistics have been given and many facts have been presented, the best that can be said in NT's defense is that it is pretty and if you have trouble with it you don't know what you are doing.

Zoebelein, Hans
11/18/98.13:03:05

Numbers are for advocates
what bullets are for guns.
Get your ammunition for the
daily OS shoot outs at

The Internet Operating System Counter www.leb.net/hzo

Even some Linux boxes shined up.

Enjoy!
Hans

Gelinas, J. Maynard
11/18/98.13:05:35

Linux's suitability as a server platform speaks for itself. I've owned Linux boxen which had sustained uptimes of over a year on 486 VLB based machines; I've _never_ seen Windows NT come close to that level of reliability. But so what - that's common knowedlge these days.

Instead, I'd like to pick apart Ed Muth's statements in the printed article as they provide a clear view of how Microsoft's seemingly misrespresents facts to support it's view.

Ed Muths' comments about Windows really shows Microsofts arrogance with regard to IT management intelligence. I mean *basic* skills one learns in high school and introductory college courses when researching and writing papers. One can only assume Microsoft chooses such tactics because they work; how frightening.

Note these statements:

"According to Netcraft (http://www.netcraft.com), Windows NT Server hosts more Web sites than any other single operating system."

There are two serious problems with this statement. First, he gives us *NO REFERENCE TO PROVE HIS POINT*! He simply provides a link to netcraft and assumes that's enough; most professors would hand out an F on these grounds alone. I went to the netcraft site and found this URL:

http://www.netcraft.com/survey/

I assume this is the survey of which he refers, but there's no way for us to know. Take a look for yourself: Windows NT is comared to *NO OTHER OPERATING SYSTEMS*. It's compared to Apache, Netscape Server and NCSA. The chart says it all: Apache shows a *much* stronger growth curve than NT/IIS, but because Apache is a Web server and not an OS Muth seems to assume it's OK to *MISREPRESENT* the position that NT has the highest growth of all Operating System Web servers. I didn't find anything in those surveys which states that NT servers are more ubiquitous on the Internet than, say, Solaris, MacOS, OS/2, or even Linux web servers. Microsoft only damages their own credibility when playing these word games.

Claims that Windows NT succeeds, "in part, because it has been designed and tested as a system," with "security services such as secure authentication, access control, data and communications, and public key infrastructure," which allow "developers to focus on building applications without having to become security experts," are certainly true. But how different is this from Linux or Solaris with PAM Pluggable Authentication Modules? None, so why bother comparing with the presumption that this feature is integrated *only* in Windows?

Muth then argues that Windows provides, "infrastructure, application services, traditional network OS features and communications services that companies need to build business applications" by pointing to COM as an industry standard. Who is he kidding? COM is an incompatible offshoot of CORBA which is, in fact, truly industry standard and Open by any reasonable definition. I challenge *anyone* to clone a COM environment under *ANY* other OS without internal Microsoft documentation.

Finally Muth argues that Microsofts' *vast* capital outlay of two Billion per year on Windows NT along with investments by large companies such as IBM, HP, Intel, et all prove its utility in the enterprise. OK, show me how much cheaper NT/Oracle is compared to Linux/Oracle. So Muth points out that the price per transaction of an NT solution is lower than any other platform in the industry. And to prove his point he provides another link to www.tpc.org, but leaves out the actual survey for reference. I assume he's refering to:

http://www.tpc.org/new_result/ttpp.idc

However, if you pull up this web page you'll note that it *ONLY COMPARES VARIOUS X86 VENDOR HARDWARE ALL RUNNING NT!* There are no comparisons of NT against Solaris/X86, SCO, or Linux running Oracle (for example). So, based on this, Muth is willing to state that NT beats NT on all hardware platforms which run NT. Wow, that says it all.

He finishes by pointing out that NT "meets traditional customer requirements for enterprise OSes, such as scalability, interoperability, availability and manageability, while enabling whole new classes of applications." How can he say this when NT SP3 changed SMB protocols removing clear text password support without informing the rest of the SMB using world? How about their wonderful Chrome-Effects VRML clone which worked on nothing but Windows? Or their (now lost by court injuntion) proprietary extensions to Java which were seemingly only included to break compatability with Java running on *ANY OTHER PLATFORM*? Doesn't Microsofts *ACTIONS* refute those claims of interopability right there? Scalability and manageability issues I leave to the reader to decide for themselves; many folks like the Windows interface and I agree that it *looks* pretty nice. I just wish broken applications wouldn't wipe out Window management functionality so I could minimize or drag away applications which go south.

Maybe I made a mistake. Will Ed Muth *please* give *specific* web pages which make these comparisons? I challenge Ed Muth and Microsoft to give direct references when making claims such as these. I challenge Ed Muth to be specific when they claim interopability: which non-microsoft products will your OS work with? When will you release *complete* API specifications so I can clone your standard on my operating environment? Finally, I challenge Microsoft to open it's internal Win32 API's so that they cannot use their knowledge advantage to interfere with competitors application functionality.

Ed?

Mills, Nathan
11/18/98.13:09:21

Earlier J. Logan wrote:

[ Begin quote ]

And finally he says:

4:30pm up 258 days, 8:10, 6 users, load average: 2.02, 1.39, 1.00

[ End quote]

You must remember that those 6 users only count those who are currently logged in to the machine as shell users. It does not count the users who are accessing the myriad of services which Linux can provide.

At the Linux server installations I've done, the uptime is regularly 2 months or longer, only going down due to power failures, as our clients are often either too poor or too cheap to pay for UPSes. These machines, granted, are serving only 20 or 30 users apiece, but they seem to do just fine doing it, unlike the NT machines which they replaced.

If Microsoft is marketing NT as an easy to use, easy to set up, and integrated solution, should it not work without crashes even when an inexperienced admin works on it? Linux machines sure do it. The only thing that mucking with your configuration in bad ways will do on most Linux installations is cause the misconfigured daemons to either not start, or work improperly. It will not bring down the entire machine.

I for one am anxiously awaiting the day when we can deploy Linux on the desktop and do away with the perpetual crashing and high maintenence of Windows.

Dart, Keith
11/18/98.13:24:00

Some clarifications for Mr. Logan.

:30pm up 258 days, 8:10, 6 users, load average: 2.02, 1.39, 1.00

Wow! You can support 6 users on a Linux box! At that rate I can replace my 10 NT boxes with about 100 Linux boxes. I
wonder how many of these ultra-stable Linux boxes are sitting in people's basements running 2 or 3 user networks.

The number of users reported here are the number of logged in, interactive users. This is something NT cannot do at all. It says nothing about how many SMB or NFS file server users are currently using the box, which could be hundreds (for the same price).

You tell me I should replace my NT servers with Linux boxes. We have several mission critical database apps which were
custom written for our industry running on NT which use MS SQL Server, Sybase SQL Server and Sybase SQL Anywhere.
Can I run these on a Linux box?

Sure. Sybase has been ported to Linux. See their announcement.

Donovan, Ryan
11/18/98.13:48:16

I have read complaint after complaint about NT's instability, and as someone who has worked with and supported both NT since 3.1 and Linux since kernel 0.8 on a daily basis, I can honestly say that with the proper setup, NT is NOT this bad and it CAN BE as reliable as Linux!

Based upon my client-base who have purchased and used the two systems, the average level of user who buys or downloads Linux is considerably more experienced and knowledgeable (especially with prior UNIX experience) than those who opt for Windows NT (in many cases expecting an OS that is as easy to use as a desktop version of Windows.)

As with any complex NOS, you can't just plug it in and expect it to work 100% out of the box. Configuration and tweaking is required.

If you have never used NT before and don't know all of the ins and outs of setting it up, then problems can be expected (such as those described). If you have worked with it, know how it works, and know how to set it up, it can be made to be just as reliable as Linux (see my earlier post on my uptime experiences).

My perception is that the average Linux user is going to be a considerably more experienced and knowledgeable user - therefore getting Linux up and going so that maximum uptime experienced is a considerably easier task.

Just my ten cents worth having watched users at work...

-Ryan

paijmans, hans
11/18/98.13:57:04

Our university has made a politically motivated choice for NT. We have a few very gifted and experienced system administrators who are testing it. Their conclusion: NT
just cannot remain stable for more than a few days; bugfixes and service packs more often worsen the situation than improve it. If it was not their jobs depending from it, they would kick NT out sooner today than tomorrow.

Paai

Davison, Jim
11/18/98.14:13:21

Regarding Mr Muth's comment “Windows NT Server hosts more Web sites than any other single operating system. ”. Please take a look at http://www.hzo.cubenet.de/ioscount/

I have to disagree with Mr Muth on NT's easy installation. I admit I am not an Engineer but I have been using computers for many years *nix , UNIX and MS. A few weeks ago we were preparing an Intel computer to run NT for some *nix vs NT tests. All I can say is “Good God what an unnecessary nightmare the install was” I also admit I did not read the manual at first but even after reading it,I and others who are engineers had problems installing and configuring NT (at least on the latest Intel, SCSI, etc.. Hardware).

I have also installed Yigdrasill, SuSE,, Redhat, AIX, IRIX, Mac OS and even the old Coherant 386 with far less trouble.

I don't THINK I know , I KNOW that Linux and most of the UNIX Oses have better performance and stability than NT.

I still feel compelled to make a comment in Microsoft's defense. When I was first learning to use computers I wanted to learn not only DOS but UNIX. Problem was SCO wanted over $700 for their
stupid UNIX. Sun was considerably more as with any of the UNIX flavers at the time.

DOS would have
been completely unaffordable from IBM had MS not licensed the technology to anyone that wanted to build a clone. My point is that MS has done more for the computing industry than any other company
and it makes me a little sick when SUN starts bitching at MS for not making its products run perfectly
with SUN products. Sun, SCO, and most every UNIX manufacture had many chances to enter the mass market but thumbed their nose at it. I had and many others had no choice but to learn and use DOS because SUN, SCO and all of the other UNIX companies made it unaffordable by hundreds and thousands of dollars. After someone learns an OS and its software packages guess what they purchase when they start a company. I say SUN created its own problem. Now along comes Linux. Linux is to MS what MS is to SUN
and all of the other RISC based UNIXs with the exception of the uncooperative BS.

I can tell you one thing. I am not paying several hundred dollars for NT for my server at home. I use Linux and one of the BSDs. If Microsoft keeps breaking things on my clients like IE4 did with Samba then Ill jerk
the MS crap off of my clients and run Linux or BSD on the client stations at home as well as at the office and to hell with MS all together.

On a worldwide bases with Linux being free it looks like the OS of choice in developing countries. These folks will grow up familiar with UNIX and this will be good for all UNIX vendors and BAD for Mr Bill.

Jim
Jimd@salinas.net

Jensen, Robert
11/18/98.14:14:03

I for one appreciate what Microsoft has done for the general public. In increasing the use of computers from the technoids to kindergarteners through grandmas, the computer has become another comodity item. Microsoft has helped more than anything in my opinion to drive costs of computing down.

I have NT 4.0 running on a 486 VLB for two years running IIS with the ONLY downtime of power outages (when the UPS went bad) and hard disk crashes and a Digital Alpha for 1.5 years. I may just be lucky but I haven't had the instability problems others seem to have had. The cost of these systems running UNIX of any flavor would have been prohibative. I don't require a UNIX programmer or special administrator to maintain the NT boxes.

In the same light I had run Linux for two years without any major problems either. I found it to be just as susepable to power and hard drive failures as NT. Though one power failure left some parts unrecoverable on Linux which I have never had with NT on NTFS or FAT drives. I hosted a web site with Apache on the Linux box. The personnel requirements of Linux caused it's temporary demise.

So far the only box I haven't had any problems with is an HP running HP UNIX and one highly proprietary piece of softare I need to run. But it has been maintained by both the company that sold us the software and a very highly paid specialist. So what has gone on with it I have no intimate details.

As for mission critical applications it is objective. I would prefer to run on a true legacy software like UNIX but I know the cost involved with that as apposed to something Microsoft produces is around ten times as much. Until I reach a point where economics balances the UNIX solutions costs I can handle a few minutes or even an hour or two of downtime with the low cost of NT.

Just because Linux is free doesn't mean it doesn't cost anything to run or maintain. In the overall descision making NT is a real good option.

Bottom line: it is a matter of balance. You buy and use what you need. The real problem is knowing exactly what you need.

Personally, I wish Microsoft would be a little less secretive, proprietary (like browsers) and stable (NT, so people stop harping). Given the general audience, we'll see.

Leonardos, Christopher
"
11/18/98.14:14:38

Ease of use!! How funny is it that we should find solace in an operating system that any monkey could operate. If a person can't figure out LINUX, which in my opinion, is a much more straightforward operating system than NT (most configuration files are commented and written in plain english), would you want this individual responsible for your mission critical applications??? I don't think so...

"You must restart your computer for the changes to take effect". What's the deal with this?? I find no humor in this message, as I, along with many collegues are forced down a new career path: Watching 95/98/NT reboot

Visual Programming Tools. Generate more code faster, nevermind the fact that the executable for a simple sorting program is 300K. What happened to the days when programming was an Art? When it wasn't enough to just solve the problem, but to do it effeciently. Gee...I wonder why I need a faster PC every time Microsoft releases a new operating system??

Once again, it's the case of an industry giant sucking up too much of it's own exhaust. Microsoft could learn some valuable lessons from what happened to IBM back in the early 80's. Their fundamental LINUX problem: how do you control technology that you cannot buy or otherwise influence.

But I still really like NT, because it has such a cool GUI.

C.L.

Heschong, Christopher
11/18/98.15:13:52

From an ISP's perspective, we can't afford to use Windows NT, because of it's long history of instability and security problems. Also, Linux lets us do more, with greater speed and flexibility, when we are deploying new services. The support from the Linux community has also been a huge plus, as we get problems resolved almost immediately, often from the developers themselves.

Of course, the cost isn't too bad, and NT does have some useful features (although I can't actually think of any at the moment). Some of the new High-Availability packages out for Linux are continuing to make it the OS of choice for the ISP industry.

Hecker, Jeff
11/18/98.15:36:21

On stability... A lot of people use this to mean reliability -- and I get tired of rebooting NT servers too -- but there is more. I like to point out that stability also refers to design philosophy. Unix has survived because it is well designed. The file system, memory model, process model, security model, have all been able to accomodate advances in the industry while still remaining recognizable to someone who knew Unix from days gone by.

Windows NT -- besides being unreliable -- also changes models every couple of years. New security model... new file system... new networking protocols...

The argument, of course, is that there is no reason for a new product if nothing changes.

The reply, of course, is that if the design were more robust, then improvements could be made and features added without wholesale changes to the entire system. While this might be good for Microsoft Press and the magazines and the Microsoft-Certified-Whatever program, it offers little to the rest of us.

On the reliability side of the definition, Microsoft is the only vendor I've ever seen which uses its product's unreliability as a selling point. One sales staffer, when told about problems running combinations of Microsoft software on a single server, said, "If NT is not reliable enough for your application, then buy two."

Cross, Henry
11/18/98.15:42:25

Having read thru most of the posts here, I feel like I'm in
comp.os.linux.advocacy while Mr Muth comments due read like another
MS Press release, MS or NT bashing does not promote the use of Linux
one iota. In fact I think you'll find it counter-productive in
the corporate environment.

While I'll won't argue the point that Linux is more reliable,
has higher availability and runs on modest hardware. I haven't
seen anything here to convince an NT Administrator that they
should switch to Linux.

Initial OS cost is irrelavent, tell me about Enterprise Level
Applications. Tell me about configuring the OS from half a
world away. Tell me about VPN's using SSH, Frame Relay, RAID,
Clustering, IP Masqerading, etc...

Don't throw stone's at NT because you perceive Linux to be better,
tell me about what it does that's so great. Real world stories
not somebody's three computer network at the dorm.
Anybody here from Garden Grove, CA? NASA? Los Alamos?

In short if you wish to convince the world Linux is ready
for corporate America you'll need to make a more convincing argument
then "the other guys OS sucks."

H.Cross

MCSE

Hooper, Patrick
11/18/98.16:15:23

This subject is far to subjective to debate. It will depend on who you started out with, how open-minded you are, who has given you the most T-shirts, etc. So I too have an opinion and here it is. There seems to be 3 major camps in computing (and yes there are others) - Those who grew up tinkering with DOS/Win, UNIX Tinkerers, and real end-users. I would say that if I had to point a computer user who has no interest in computing beyond using it as a tool then I would send them to Apple. I can hear the jeering now! If I needed a mission-critical server (not file-print) that needed to be scalable then I would procure a major vendor's UNIX. I neede d a quick and dirty application server I would setup an NT box. If I needed a robust file/print server I would get Novell. If I wanted to have fun as a tinkerer then I would build a Linux box. I might even run an Intranet server on it.

The point is that you have to determine what best suits the needs of the situation without detroying any concept of corporate standards.

If only MacOS was preemptive/multitasking ..."> 11/18/98.16:28:21

A couple of folks have complained about the difficulties in reading through this very long thread (by far, the most visited forum we've ever had!). Tomorrow or Friday, I'll post a text version for anybody who wants to read the thing in one sitting, without having to constantly click on the Recent or More buttons.

Hartline, Grant
11/18/98.17:43:56

Initial OS cost is irrelavent, tell me about Enterprise Level Applications. Tell me about configuring the OS from half a world away. Tell me about VPN's using SSH,
Frame Relay, RAID, Clustering, IP Masqerading, etc...

I think these are all fine points. Since I'm a "former" network admin who managed network devices and unix servers, but who left the field before (thank god) NT took hold, I unfortunately cannot comment on the specifics, though I must admit I'm curious how it's easier to configure an NT server from 'half a world away' than it is to telnet to a Linux box. However, I do think a general comment may be in order.

Has anyone ever seen Microsoft fully (and correctly) implement even their own standards? Everything from ODBC to COM has HUGE holes in every MS implementation of it. And we're not even talking about industry standards, where we need only look as far as the current Java controversy (God forbid that any of us continue to hold the foolishly optimistic notion that a prime of advantage of Java is that it run across all platforms). Any OS that changes its own rules daily and never implements any standard (even its own) in more than a half-ass fashion is not, in my view, software fit for an enterprise network.

Now, whether Linux is appropriate for enterprise deployment is a separate matter. Mr. Cross is correct; deciding that NT sucks does not answer the question of what NOS to deploy. Then again, NT does indeed suck (a LOT), and If my only choices are Linux or NT, when the rubber meets the road I'll pick the one that sucks less.

Reed, Tracy R
11/18/98.18:01:15

J Logan said:

"We have several mission critical database apps which were custom written for our industry running on NT which use MS SQL Server, Sybase SQL Server and Sybase SQL Anywhere. Can I run these on a Linux box?"

While Sybase is available for Linux I still have to say probably not. You have already shot yourself in the foot by chaining yourself to a proprietary and incompatible solution.

My company also has mission critical database apps which were custom written by our staff for our industry. They were originally written 10 years ago on a Unix platform. We have succesfully ported them across numerous hardware and operating system platforms as we chose the vendor that provided us with the best bang for the buck. Unix isn't nearly as fractured or as incompatible as you may have been lead to believe. As technology evolved, new user interfaces were written and the code was added on to using modern tools. Because it is all modular, portable, and adheres to standards it all works quite well to this day.

We are able to pick and chose our hardware platform and our OS to maximize value. This has saved us a lot of money and undoubtedly made us more competitive. Every three years or so we evaluate new hardware and operating system platforms and chose whatever looks best at the time. The lease on our HP systems runs out next summer. Linux is ready to move in.

Do you see yourself reusing code and running the same base 10 years from now or do you anticipate having to rewrite everything from scratch? Are you paying MS for additional licenses in light of their new licensing schemes? Who are you going to turn to if the price of NT suddenly becomes too rich for your blood?

My boss just came into my office (I'm surfing the web on my break time! Honest! :). He's back from Comdex. He handed me a bunch of RedHat stuff (hats, cups, pins) and asked if I'd ever heard of the Cobalt Qube. Apparently, one of our oldest clients just purchased one and really loves it. Easy to use is the biggest advantage cited. Guess what? It runs Linux.

www.cobaltmicro.com for the curious.

Wahab, Wari
11/18/98.19:40:24

J Logan said:

"Wow! You can support 6 users on a Linux box! At that rate I can replace my 10 NT boxes with about
100 Linux boxes. I wonder how many of these ultra-stable Linux boxes are sitting in people's
basements running 2 or 3 user networks."

Those are user shells, there can be more than 100 telnet to a linux box at one time, My Pentium 200 is supporting over 200 users doing Web Caching, Web serving with DB where we have custom web apps written in PHP. And this puny guy is also running and internal newsgroups, all this for the price of Red Hat, and what do you get when you buy NT?

I've also wondered why you need 1 NT box for 1 purpose, we have 1 for mail, one for SAP interface, 1 for this and 1 for that.. Gee, need to do RAS, my boss will say buy one more NT server! (Well, my computer have a modem attached to it so that I can dialin and administer from home.. ) This make NT and expensive choice, when a lot of this (prolly except for SAP and WMS) can be shoved into 1 or 2 linux box. Ever wonder why BillG house needs 50 servers?

Asay, Bryan
11/18/98.19:41:16

Here's my 2 cents worth...

I've been working with computers since the good old Alpha Micros, Disk Packs, pre-Apple 2 and pre-DOS days. For another reference point, since 1983. I use this to establish that I am not some end user that wants everything to be all nice and pretty and easy (GUI), although RH Linux does offer a very intuitive GUI interface. What I want as an administrator is the most powerful OS I can get my hands on. What I want as an employee is to save my company as much $$ as possible, while still delivering a product worthy of praise at all levels. And what I want as an end user is an OS that will not give me Dr. Watsons, Page Faults, and GPFs every time I turn around.

As most people here know, or should anyway if they wish to debate command line OS's vs GUI interfaces, your true power comes from the command line. DOS was one of the best simple operating systems there ever was. From the command line, the switches gave you control that has not been seen since Win95 debuted. There is not one single Microsoft OS that gives the absolute power that DOS had. For you MS enthusiasts, your case has already been lost, as LINUX is pure unadulterated power. I am a newbie to it, and not ashamed to admit it. It has taken at least 5 times to install it the way I want it, but what other OS gives you an FTP server, POP server, HTTP server, ping switches that are matched only by UNIX (maintenance pings are still legal ya know *g*), built in PROXY server, C++ development tools AND compiler, and it's own source code to name just a few all for free??

Microsoft is afraid to do this cuz they will lose the almighty dollar. I have no compassion whatsoever for Bill Gates nor Microsoft. Almost, if not every "Enterprise Level Applications" as quoted by Mr Cross above, is extra, read MORE $$ if you use NT. Ummm, who here thinks Bill Gates needs more $$?? Not that I am not willing to pay for a good product, but he is not the programmers doing the work. If anything, they should get our $$. Instead with Linux, the programmers get the credit. Granted it's not $$, but they aren't asking for any either.

And also Mr Cross, initial OS cost is a factor, cuz while you are paying thousands of dollars for your licensing on NT, and tens of thousands if you work at a sizable installation, you are paying absolutely nothing for LINUX, unless you choose to purchase it directly from Redhat instead of downloading it (and then it's only $50). If you choose to do this, with all the FREE documentation available under the LDP (Linux Documentation Project for you non Linux folks), then you have noone to blame but yourself.

Now, you wanna know the irony of this?? I support a 800 user NT network. hahahahha

Just my humble opine. 8)

Wahab, Wari
11/18/98.19:49:52

On a lighter note, with reference to my previous post #158, I'd like to say that this linux server of mine is .... my workstation, I work with it and serve other users with it (my boss don't allow it to sit in the server room, Oh well I like it this way) And since somebody posted and uptime count here's my modest one

 9:07am  up 78 days, 23:17,  9 users,  load average: 0.64, 0.46, 0.47

Borho, Steve
11/18/98.21:33:22

Just another data point:

I had zero Unix exerience when I installed Linux for the first time two years ago. I came from a DOS-OS/2-Windows background. I had the help of a friend for the first few days or so, but I took over from there.

Today, Linux is the only OS installed on my computers at home, because I have a choice in the matter.

At work, I have on my desk three computers. One PPro NT server and two Sparc IPX's. The NT Server does very light web, ftp, and e-mail services for a small company of 4. One Sparc runs Solaris (the only OS supported by the ATM card, AFAIK) and the other runs Linux.

The company installed NT on the server before I got there because they had no "Software people" and they were able to get a basic intranet going without too much trouble.

My experience with NT so far:
o Zero crashes or blue-screens.
o Heavy disk usage at times, but reasonable performance... like I said, it serves light duty.
o Boss wanted FP extensions for IIS installed. This required three (count them, three) reboots.
o E-mail configuration app crashes at startup for no apparent reason.
o IE4 locks up if I try to save preferences

Shortly, I'll be getting a new machine for myself. It'll run Win98 because I have a piece of development software which requires it (for now). When it arrives, the HD on the NT server is going to be formatted and have Linux installed on it.

Why? Because Linux will run better on the hardware. Because it can do all the things we're interested in without buying new software and user licenses. Because it is what I'm comfortable with. Because I can SEE what's going on while it's running, no secrets. Because it is more secure:

Notice new e-mail from redhat-announce.
Move mouse over e-mail app, highlight
"rpm -Uvh ftp://update.redhat.com/5.2/i386/new_security_fix.rpm"
Move mouse to xterm
click middle button, press return.
done.

Oh, what about the other Linux machine downstairs?
type "rsh linbox2 "
middle click, press return.
done.

Despite the NT C2 hype and all the jargon they spout in their product announcements, everyone who knows two pence about security knows that OSS is they ONLY way to achieve it.

Generally, I'm pretty pragmatic about what OS to use in what situation. The people who get tired of using broken software will use something else as long as they have a choice. And that is why I do what I can to support OSS and Linux. I want to make sure people have that choice.

What Linux does that is most exciting is force MS to fight on even ground. OSS changes the rules... and just in the nick of time. If MS has real competition and for once delivers a quality operating system that performs half as well as their hype masters say it does, then we've all won. The computing world will be a better place to work and play. It's really all I ask.

I just have this to say about stability: With NT (and this is MS's best offering), your machine is stable as long as you use standard hardware and safe software and try not to do too many things at once and throw a lot of memory at it.
With Unix (and Linux in particular), your computer is damn near as stable as your hardware. You can bullet proof a Unix box such that even if your users are armed with a C compiler, they cannot get root access/delete files that aren't their own/cause denial-of-service to other users/or even use up more than their fair share of system resources. THAT is stability. Unless an OS can brag that kind of stability, it has no right touting itself as an "enterprise" solution.

In the world according to Steve, Win98 is for games and Office, NT is for small windows shops that want to add a network. Netware is for file/print serving for basic office settings. HP/SUN/DU is for large (I mean HUGE) enterprise servers.. I'm talking about > 32 processors and all hot-swappable parts, and Linux is for everything else.

Linux is (to borrow the perlism) the swiss army chainsaw of tools. All the excuses people use not to use it are quickly evaporating... IBM, Compaq, RedHat, SuSE, etc. for support. Everyone but MS for apps. 1999 is going to be the year of OSS.

Petersen, Davin
11/18/98.23:21:06

Mr. Muth: RE: #33

I see much in the way of marketing-eese from Microsoft regarding setup and installation. I see nothing about managing the systems on a day-to-day basis or the real (not perceived) impact of installing any system.

We can see the benefits of this in a typical customer scenario -- the customers sets up a web site using IIS, they can automatically setup the certificate services at the same time. (they don't need to understand or take a course in the mathematics of PKI) They can immediately (by clicking a few check boxes) start issuing digital certificates for SSL, S/MIME etc.., they can use the "digital certificate to Windows NT account mapping" feature to setup extranet security.

However, the real work involved here is in systems management. Whether you are a entry-level admin, or a technical manager, you have chores to do on a daily basis. As for myself and the few (2) employees I have to manage we choose projects that add a minimum amount of time to our month. With 10 Unix boxes, 150 workstations, 7 NT servers and a network that covers 35 miles at it's most remote location, and no future staffing in sight - we don't see much of a choice.

Key management is the real issue when certificates are brought up. If I can't write a simple script or automate key escrow, deleting, verification, etc. with reporting I can save to a file and use in other applications, not locked into event viewer, it's not worth my time to use it. This really speaks for any project.

On interoperability. I can download any one of half-a-dozen (very scalable) databases to run my website with. I can also choose from 4 different languages to program my back-end website needs with (shell script, C, perl, PHP). I can integrate application I write myself into my web server (apache). What products does Microsoft have to compare with this?

On GUI. I won't hear any argument in favor of NT v. Linux until you have installed RedHat from scratch.

On Stability. Our NT servers work fine for file and print sharing, but those could be done by any another NOS. We see similar problems voiced by so many others. We easily spend 5-10 times the amount of time managing our NT servers than our Unix systems - and the NT systems do way less than half the work as the Unixes.

On NT market share. It only stands to reason that NT would be increasing in market share over Unix. It takes 4 times as many NT servers to do the work of one equally or less priced Unix machine. (my estimation)

For any mission-critical application server, I still and will continue to choose Unix (Linux, HP-UX, SCO, et. al.). If NT doesn't take off on it's next version, we will probably migrate our file and login servers to Novell.

For what it's worth, sir, take these 100+ rantings to heart. Listening to the user (the administrators) will make your company profitable. Not listening may well break your company.

melblk
11/19/98.00:30:52

Lets face folks, Linux is about 20 years away from providing the ease of use that is common on all Windows OS. I will admit that Linux is very cutomizable and allows you to do many things that Windows OS don't. The main problem with Linux is that it is way too difficult to use. I have been using computers for over 15 years and there is no way in hell the common user will be able to use Linux without serious hand-holding. I have installed Slackware, Caldera, and RedHat (the better of the three IMO) and am appauled at the complexity of the setup process.

Once you get it installed (Something I have become an expert at based on the number of installs), the real fun begins. It still takes my way too much time to setup the Linux X Windows (Free86) the way I like it. I'm not talking about advanced stuff here, just 16bit 800x600. For serious hackers and computer geeks, linux is for you. For people who use computers to get work done, and not to work on the computer, use Windows.

my $.02

Porter, Kenneth
11/19/98.00:43:35

Remember, melblk, this is a comparison of servers, not workstations. Ease of use is secondary, and server administrators aren't afraid to read documentation and edit text files or the registry.

Perhaps we can discuss what features would need to be added/removed from NT to bring it up to Linux' standard as a server OS? Items I've seen mentioned so far include:

remote administration
reconfiguration without reboot
running without the overhead of a GUI

BTW, as someone who administers an OS/2 server, but not an NT or Linux server, how do they compare WRT backup/restore?

Reed, Tracy R
11/19/98.02:28:23

Kenneth Porter said:

"BTW, as someone who administers an OS/2 server, but not an NT or Linux server, how do they compare WRT backup/restore?"

There's a world of difference. Linux comes with several excellent backup/restore programs out of the box: tar, cpio, dump/restore. I use dump/restore on my system. It works flawlessly every night from a cron entry doing a full backup once a week and an incremental every night to my TR-4 tape drive. This is my personal machine. The work machines do full backups every night to DAT and DLT.

I once lost the entire /etc directory due to a hard drive overheating problem. What a mess. The solution? Boot the boot disk, restore /etc from tape, reboot. Piece of cake and minimal down time. Imagine losing the entire registry and all related files on an NT machine. What are you going to do? You are probably going to reinstall and reconfigure your system. Our NT dude once spent two days struggling with Arcserv on our NT machine trying to get it reloaded when the entire hard drive died. We can't afford to be down for that long. That's why we use Unix/Linux for anything important.

In researching this reply, I went to #windowsnt on EFnet and asked what the worst thing to lose on an NT system would be. The answer? c:\p0rn. I kid you not. Typical! Of course #linux knew the answer. That's why they (and the rest of online Linux tech support) get awards for best tech support from Infoworld. :)

melblk
11/19/98.02:39:57

Kenneth,

Sorry, I forgot this was just Linux vs NT. Not entire Windows OS.

The three things you listed are issues that are obvious strengths of the linux (actually all Unix OS).

Remote Admin: Once MS finishes up work on HTML MMC, there will be little you can't do remotely. Most services can be now be administerd thru command line and if you included Terminal Server, that would include all services (Of course, this costs $$$)

Rebooting after changes: This is improving. Particulary in NT5..opps..I mean Windows 2000.

Running without the GUI: This is what windows is about -- WINDOWS. This is a fundamental component of the OS, not a shell like in Unix. Without the GUI, ease of use will go to hell -- just like Linux. There is nothing to argue here.

Also, I've been as Network Administrator/Consultant for several years. I still prrfer ease of use just like the common user. I like to use my brain cells on solving problems, not configuring the tools to solve the problem.

melblk
11/19/98.02:53:33

Tracy,

Any serious NT administrator should be able to recover a server between five to 30 minutes. That NT admin your describe should have been fired because of incompentence.

I've had to recover more servers than I's like to remember and almost all failures are Hardware related. If the NT Admin doesn't have the sense to make solid backups, then thats the NT admin's fault, not the OS.

I'm not going to even list the number of backup programs for NT (btwn 20 -30, free and proprietary )as it is irrelevent to the discussion.

OWL, Dmitry
11/19/98.04:00:23

I am system adminstrator of small ISP in
the Russia. We start using Linux and not
see any alternative OS for us. Come to
Linux Society and enjoy!

Moore, Stephen
11/19/98.04:20:18

I must disagree here, ntbackup require a complete os reinstall before a restore operation for an os related system reinstall. Just not possible in less than 3 hours.

NT backup is the default tool. The arguement that there may be other tools available doesn't work for me here either. Were talking Linux vs NT, not NT plus this + that + whatever else you care to spend your employers money on.

Wahab, Wari
11/19/98.04:46:41

Were talking Linux vs NT, not NT plus this + that +

This is something a lot of people don't realize. Bah!

Anyway on a subject of development, I've used to do some on Delphi (Best tool!) and due to microsofts' ActiveX, a lot of the visual components are bloated. I tried to do some FTP app, and naturally, MS (or is it Netmanage... forgot) got and ActiveX for it.. It was huge!

Talk about 1.5 or more Meg footprint.. Luckily, I've found a wrapper component that uses a 50K dll.. Can you imagine the difference?

This is just FTP, if you add all the other bloat that NT uses, it needs all the metal you can get, talk about innovation.

I soon departed from developing with Win*, I haven't mentioned about the subtle difference in the API yet *headaches*

Rogowski, Mark
"
11/19/98.06:45:05

While there has been some very interesting comparisons between NT and UNIX (Linux) in this forum, there is one issue that hasn't come up - raw I/O of the NOS.

With this, I shall introduce all of you to an article written by the good people at InternetWeek. This article labeled as "Down and Dirty with Gigabit Ethernet" tests various Gigabit products and their strengths.

While hardware was at test here, they did put the major NOSes through their paces. What they found will alarm you.

Both Novell NetWare and UNIX were able to reach I/O speeds of up to 680Mbps. NT on the other hand peaked at only 150Mbps.

Their conclusion (included in a side bar which I don't think is in the web page article) stated that NT users had better get used to life in the slow lane.

Now, if I were part of an IS group who was interested in Gigabit technology and was torn between using a UNIX varient like that of Linux or Windows NT, I would certainly second-guess the technological advantage (or disadvantage) NT has to offer.

This article makes it very clear that NT is NOT ready for the enterprise.

For those of you who are interested at reading this article, its at:
http://www.internetwk.com/reviews/rev1006-3.htm

Martin, Andrew
11/19/98.07:32:00

Hi All:

It seems to me that Both OS's have their stregnths and weaknesses.I have installed several flavors of Linux but not NT so I can't guess as to how hard it is to install NT.(or easy)

I made a statement a couple of years ago when Microsoft introduced Internet Explorer that it would become the dominant Browser on the Internet. I cant make this statement about NT or Linux. When Microsoft wants to do something good they can.Linux has come a long way since my first installation. (very long days and nites).

I personally feel that the article in Network World was just an Advertisement for NT and Red Hat Linux. I do hope they Paid you for this One Page AD.

My $.02 FWIW

Andrew Martin

Rückemann, C.-P.
11/19/98.13:26:24

I personally dislike flame-like Linux-vs-Microsoft-OS. Because
Linux does not have deserved to be compared to something like NT.

Having seen thousands of frustrated users during their odyssey through Win
2.x/3.x/95/98/NT there is no hope in sight for whatever Win 2000 might
bring.

Not only that the users lack the long time promised user friendly features
the admins and businesses spend millions of dollars into getting things done
they could have by far lot better and easier and saving lots of money, too.
Not that also the most actual Microsoft platform is a horror for any
administrator and business to set it up in real life there are really no
innovations in sight. I wonder where the millions of dollars go to that
Microsoft claims to invest. Anyway millions of Linux users in the free world
can give you the advice to trust in Linux for private and corporate use.

I hope more people will understand that their personal rights of freedom to
choose are widely endangered by Microsoft's monopoly in media and computer business.

And independently by that is the fact the Linux is by far the superior
system for the widest range of private day-to-day needs. And we all know
lots of Linux users that could promise that the user friendliness of Linux
just gave them a huge efficency kick when they departed from whatsoever
Microsoft system. And switching back will not come to ones mind again.

When Microsoft's officals and advertising spots make you promises
always think of a company that's going to recognize that they cannot win
without the naive user. Trust your friends and not Microsoft.
You'll be right. And you'll see that Microsoft is quickly going on to be
less important in the future.

http://www.linux.org

http://www.fsf.org

http://www.unesco.org/events/latin/cd_linux_ing.html

Sheehan, Mike
11/19/98.14:15:41

Linux is absolutely AMAZING for reusing old Pentium boxes that NT could barely boot on. Running Linux as a file/print server on a 90mhz (48MB RAM) Pentium gives me slightly better performance than running NT on a PII266 (64MB).

The only place when Linux seems to slow down is with more than 10-15 users on - but who can complain on a box that was marked to be put away?

Davis, Matt
11/19/98.16:16:39

The debate in somewhat amusing. Is this a Microsoft bashing or an actual analysis of each operating system. I see neither – so, like everybody, else let me get my opinion in. But first I must qualify my perspective.

I work for a large systems integrator as a systems engineer, we install an incredible amount of NT at our clients request and they buy NT for one reason, they believe Microsoft will be here tomorrow. Although I am a MCSE I still bought my copy of Linux so I would understand what I may have to possibly adapt to, what the hell, I go where the money is and today that is with Microsoft product but next week it may be Linux, I'll be ready.

The point is this – We live in a market society – the marketing giants, Dell, Microsoft, Oracle, GM, GTE and all the rest will always dominate whether the product is superior or not. That's something the Linux guys gotta think about – Sex and fear, that's what sells in America, Love or leave it. Now go pay your bills……

Buick, John
11/19/98.16:57:47

I'm a home user and a novice at using computers. My job is not computers but I use them at work and at home. At work I have a NT workstation that I run a database software on that manages data from equipment that I am responsible for. Because of this it also doubles as a server on the network for this data to be available for others. I have become a little knowledgeable in how to manage NT as a server and have used various versions of Windows for about 5 years. I got tired of Windows acting with a mind of its own so I decided to give Linux a try. After several months of messing with Linux at home I have finally got it up and running and am very pleased with how it performs. I guess you would say I'm in kindergarten with Linux but when it comes to surfing I find that it is definately more stable. I wish Netscape was as functional on the surface as IE is but the bottom line is pretty is only skin deep, under it's skin Linux and Netscape
are rock solid. There is no turning back now.
Billy will soon be history.

JB"> 11/19/98.17:58:39

To John Smith the guy who just install NT with IE 2.0 and no SP3. Where did you get that version. It certainly not new. Maybe you bootlegged it or borrowed some old software from a friend without paying for the license.
Hah Hah you should have got Linux it's free if you got the time or not too expensive if your in a hurry.

Asay, Bryan
11/19/98.20:35:52

This is in response to Matt Davis (post 175).

"The point is this – We live in a market society – the marketing giants, Dell, Microsoft, Oracle, GM, GTE and all the rest will always dominate whether the product is superior or not." Hey, I gotta agree on this one. But ya better check out your docs...Netscape, Intel, IBM and many others are on the Linux bandwagon now. Check out the Redhat website for more info.

Ruh-roh Rooby.

Porter, Kenneth
11/19/98.23:16:57

Stephen Moore writes:

I must disagree here, ntbackup require a complete os reinstall before a restore operation for an os related system reinstall. Just not
possible in less than 3 hours.

I'd always heard that to restore NT required a reinstall of the OS followed by a restore of apps and data files. And possibly a reinstall of apps. Can any NT admins demonstrate differently?

NT backup is the default tool. The arguement that there may be other tools available doesn't work for me here either. Were talking
Linux vs NT, not NT plus this + that + whatever else you care to spend your employers money on.

We need to remember that Red Hat Linux is a compilation. It includes a kernel, drivers, and user mode programs from many sources. I think that unless we're restricting the comparison to Red Hat's compilation, we should permit aftermarket NT addons (like the resource kit and backup apps) to be factored into the comparison.

As an OS/2 admin, I know that I can restore a partition simply by loading the files onto the disk and running SYSINSTX, a utility that makes the partition bootable. As a prior SunOS admin, I recall that I could do the equivalent on that platform. I can boot to an OS/2 command line with two floppies and my text mode backup software consumes a 3rd. After that I'm limited only by the speed of my tape drive.

Can any NT advocates explain how to restore NT as quickly?

Mark Rogowski writes:

Both Novell NetWare and UNIX were able to reach I/O speeds of up to 680Mbps. NT on the other hand peaked at only 150Mbps.

Was any reason given for NT's weak performance? Is there anything that Microsoft can do to improve this, or is it a fundamental problem with the NT architecture? Is there some intractable NT "feature" (like hardware abstraction) that justifies the slowdown?

melblk writes:

Running without the GUI: This is what windows is about -- WINDOWS. This is a fundamental component of the OS, not a shell like
in Unix. Without the GUI, ease of use will go to hell -- just like Linux. There is nothing to argue here.

I disagree. I don't contest that a GUI is nice to use for administration. What I contest is that a running server carry the full-time load of a GUI. The GUI should be a separate component that can be turned off when it's not in use.

In fact, I see a Microsoft Product Opportunity here: A Linux administration console for Windows NT Workstation.

Shimizu, Randall
11/20/1998.00:00:33

I believe that when Linux and NT are up against each other Linux is the better at least from a architectural perspective.

However if NT is compared to other versions of Unix such as Solaris or AIX then it is no contest Unix is the beter choice. This because of scalablity and security.

I myself am not prepared to trust Linux. Linux adovactes claim how souperior Linux is even when compared other flavors of Unix. They cite how Linux is freeware. Well freeware as far as I am concerned is a non-issue when I consider issues such as security and scalablity. After all you can purchase Solaris for 100$ for the PC.

Kelley, Ryan
11/20/1998.00:58:16

Can't we all just get along? :-)

In the long run Linux is better. Its notice
is long overdue. Its cheaper, more reliable,
and has good easy to find software. Being
that the source code is included, it is unlimited in customization. A bit more knowledge is required to set it up, but if you cant set it up, you should not be running a server at all!

Windows just plaine sucks, NT is just an improvement, but far from where Linux is.
For small companies Linux is better. They can go out and spend a fortune for NT, and it aint even as reliable. Or they can go out and spend less money, and get Linux, which is far more stable.

Even if we call them equals, the price still wins for Linux. Its free, you get the source code, most likely you will get the source to whatever kind of software you use, and it is cheaper all around.

Linux is in the game for the people and the companies. Microsoft see the people as a 2nd priority, and money as the 1st priority (IMHO).

LINUX!

Ryan Kelley,

ryanak@thuntek.net

flames to >/dev/null

Reed, Tracy R
11/20/1998.03:39:21

Randall Shimizu writes:

"They cite how Linux is freeware. Well freeware as far as I am concerned is a non-issue when I consider issues such as security and scalablity."

Freeware will definitely be an issue once Microsoft hits you up for CALs for a few thousand users. Add it up and tell me that isn't a very significant cost. Remember that Linux comes with *unlimited* user licenses. You don't have enough money to purchase the same thing from MS.

Open Source software has proven to be among the most secure software in existance thanks to peer review of the source code. This ensures code correctness and no dirty tricks. How do you know that some disgruntled MS employee hasn't slipped a backdoor into NT server? You don't.

Linux may not be as scaleable as Solaris (because it doesn't yet support the high end hardware because Linux developers don't happen to have a Starfire system sitting in their livingroom) but it is definitely more scaleable than NT. You don't have to look farther than the list of the top 100 fastest computers in the world to find a scaleable Linux system.

I think your fears are clearly unfounded.

Pfaltzgraff, Dave
11/20/1998.08:18:30

There are two primary points that I'd like to make. The first is my immediate reaction to the article: Linux vs WinNT. Both pundits make a point of how great their own product is. From my viewpoint as a customer, each product is only as good as the *basic* support they put behind it. For years I have found the MS support system wanting and getting worse each year. My first experience with RedHat was quite similar. It seemed that the support personnel knew less about the system than I did! For *any* technical product to make it in today's society where the average person has little or no technical expertise, it must either a) work with no requirements on the user or b) have a decent support infrastructure where support is more than a shot in the dark by the 'front line'.

The second point is in response to previous messages as well as a culmination of personal thoughts. MS seems to want, what they call, the OS to be the 'be all' to all users. I personally feel that they would have been better off if they had maintained the classical division between the OS and the application. I continued to use DOS long after windows came around because I needed an OS that provided file and communication services without the overhead of the windows presentation. Today, I use Linux because it gives me file and communications services without the overhead of a GUI presentation. It's certainly nice to know that a GUI is available in the Linux environment if I ever need it!

Zoebelein, Hans
11/20/1998.08:52:43

One recent poster commented:

"Well freeware as far as I am concerned is a non-issue when I consider issues such as security..."

Open Source security software (such as encryption stuff) comes with an unwritten
certificate. This certificate confirms:

a) this software went through the 'Internet Certification Facility' where many
experts have looked into the source code without finding a weakness/backdoor.

b) If everybody on the Net trusts this software and you cannot find serious warnings using 'dejanews', this stuff IS trustworthy.

c) you are free to examine the software with your own eyes (the weakest point :).

You also may check the track record of the author offering this security software. What do you know about the anoymous programmer from xxx company? But if the README file of the "freeware" stuff contains the email address of Phil Zimmermann, Matt Blaze or Bruce Schreier (sp?) you can sleep at night.

Biswapesh
11/20/1998.09:02:22

I have been keeping up with the discussion and there are a couple of points I'd like to add.I haven't worked on Linux but I've been working on DOS, Windows from 3.1 to 95 to NT to 98 and on UNIX since '89 - as far as OS goes,
Microsoft really has a long way to go. There is no way you can compare NT to any UNIX machine in terms of

a) Reliability

b) Speed

c) Load capacity

To illustrate, we have an NT file server (166MhZ Pentium, 2 Gb HDisk, 64 Mb RAM) and another SCO UNIX server (166MHz Pentium, 4 Gb HDisk, 80 Mb RAM) - the latter caters to 25 users all running telnet and ftp sessions and it has a Oracle database loaded (2 Gb in size) running Oracle 7.3 with aroung 1000 tables, 3000 stores proc.s etc and at least 10 users connected to it at all times) - and the UNIX machine is still has a faster response and more reliability that the NT one - we are not using the NT for anything apart from a central store for our source code and executables and as a print server. We hardly ever need to physically visit the UNIX server (lot of us don't even know where it is) - but everyone knows where the NT machine is - it keeps on crashing and there is no way to recover it without physically being present.

Costa, Todd
11/20/1998.10:23:02

Hello to Linux and (few) NT supporters within this forum. I have been reading this forum over the last 3 days from the beginning till now. What I have to say and agree with is that NT is definitely not a stable operating system. Linux vs NT is a poor contest and does not justify the stability and reliability levels of comparisons to each others OS. Sorry, is (MSWindows) a pretty product but it just can't go beyond a 5 hr work day with experiencing a Blue or Black screen of death. That's what I call a trade mark in the business world to many of my users. I would go into my own experiences but I believe everyone in this forum has just about hit all of the issues most of us have personally experienced in one way or another. So I will just express what I have seen and heard from people lately involved with computer projects or just from conversation.

Most people believe that M$'s huge ability to market and sell its vision of its products to the purse string holders has been the true success not its actual product. Maybe in the beginning things were the common defacto but that has disappearing the industry going at a lighting pace. M$ has successfully pulled the wool over everyone eyes in a standard business environment. M$ has convinced the non-techie that its OS with Intel products are the only ones that are needed to be successful in business...(NOT). Now us techies know about all the headaches and sleepless nights we go through because of M$. Yes, there concepts of a user friendly environment is great but now their have begun to affect the core of business by trying to invade the enterprise with it NTAS.

Now most people are beginning to believe that the M$ days are numbered in the server business. They may be forced to eventually go to open source strategies because of linux and its vision for true forward and backwards compatibility. Eventually people will become wise to M$'s one-sided thinking (M$ or nothing).
If M$ would just focus on the stabilization part of its products then maybe their claims would stand. But right now Linux has won hands down to NT.

Oh just in the Japanese fair trade commission has just pushed a message to M$ to stop its unfair business practice. Here we go...The industry is in for a roller coaster ride now. Hang on guys. Linux is up to bat now.

TMC

R, Darren
11/20/1998.10:27:08

In my world, actions speak louder than words. I read Mr. Muth's words. Now let's look at M$ actions:
When Micro$oft bought Hotmail, they wanted to migrate the operation to NT. The idea failed miserably. M$Hotmail is still run on Sun Solaris and FreeBSD. NT is the best product for the enterprise? When I look at Micro$oft actions, I see that it isn't. No matter what lies you tell, Mr. Muth, you can't FUDge your way out of this.

For anyone who does not know, FreeBSD is 'freeware' in the same way that Linux is 'freeware'. Linux is GPL'd and FreeBSD falls under the Berkeley license.

Regards,

Darren

Engovatov, Daniel