Windows 2000 rules .... Linux drools

[phlick]

This fight is for the World champeenship OS!!

Lets Get it ON!

In the BLUE corner Weighing in at 2000 pounds- we have the Undisputed Super Heavyweight Champeeeen of the World.... Microsoft. Microsofts contender for this round:Windows 2000 Server!

And in the Red corner: weighing in at 125 lean mean muscular poinds - the contender who's dying to topple Goliath....Linux. Linux's contender for this round: 2.4


LLLLLLLEEEETTTS GET REAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDDDY TO RUUUMMMMMMMBLLE!!!!!

[helius]

Oh gee, this from someone who lives in Seattle, Washington... Why am I not surprised? :heh:

[hapoo]

I think the only advantage that MS has is that its more user friendly, and believe me Linux will catch up soon enough in that department. MS products suck ass!!!! They crash constantly. I bet the only way you can keep Win 2K Server up is if you do a fresh install and never put anything else on their. Install one product, hell touch it the wrong way and it'll give you a BSOD.

[hapoo]

Did you know that no one on the face of this planet knows the windows source code, not even the MS people. Even if someone had the code they could never figure out shit cause its written so poorly. on the other hand thousands of people know and have linux source code, AND THEY CAN ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND IT!!!

[helius]

W2k is supposedly much more stable compared to win9x. I've heard of uptimes in the 30-40 days region.

If only I knew more about Linux and computers in general... I'd delete win98 from my HD so fast, you won't have time to say "BSoD". ;)

[phlick]

I rebooted an NT4 server that was up for 108 days 2 days ago. ABOUT the only reason we take down our 2000 servers is when we install updates to h/w or s/w. There are occasions when we have a network issue or other event which neccesitates a reboot (3rd party s/w usually...).

If you believe that windows 9x is "more stable" than windows 2000, I'm not even interested in talking to you, you obviously don't have a dime to buy a clue.

------------
I think the only advantage that MS has is that its more user friendly, and believe me Linux will catch up soon enough in that department.
--------------

How much can be said for "user friendlieness" Hapoo? Can you debug linux kernal dumps? If you have an issue with the 2.4, that's what you'll be doing.
Hopefully you BUY software and do your job and leave the debugging to somebody who actually gets paid to do it vs. somebody who "dabbles" with it as a hobby. My money is with the pros thank you.

Mac OS X is built on a unix kernal. It will be interesting to see what develops with that, as it's semi-open source. Strange to not hear anyone bagging Apple for their closed source way of buisness. They are SO much more closed source than MS software. Where are they (apple) now vs MS/Windows s/w is now (I'm talking about 3rd party apps here).

----------------------
MS products suck ass!!!! They crash constantly. I bet the only way you can keep Win 2K Server up is if you do a fresh install and never put anything else on their.
-----------------------

MS products work best with MS products. No question. Why? Is it a conspiracy? No. It's because MS puts more development and testing into their software vs other vendors. It's just a better product for that enviroment.
I know you are not speaking from experience if you state that you can't keep 2k server up. It's just not valid. W2k is a VERY stable OS. Granted IT IS NOT AS STABLE AS UNIX. No question. It is NOT A BOOTLESS OS, reboots are necessary to update the reg (*unless you know your shit, and then there are ways around that too...*), but hardware updates no longer require a reboot, or Network reconfigs, as they did in the past w/NT4. It's definately heading in the right direction.... I digress..)
-----------------------------------
I've heard of uptimes in the 30-40 days region
-----------------------------------

I've SEEN uptime over 200 days, and I'm not talking about in a dorm room downloading napster either. I'm talking about global enterprise servers getting hit hard every day.

-----------------------------------
If only I knew more about Linux and computers in general... I'd delete win98 from my HD so fast, you won't have time to say "BSoD
-----------------------------------

Linux is not comparable to win98. Linux does compare to windows 2000 / NT4. W98 is a consumer product. Not meant to be left on for weeks on end. It's for typing letters and playing games. (How many games can you play on Linux after you "learn more about Linux and computers in General". I hope you like tetris.

-------------------------------------
Did you know that no one on the face of this planet knows the windows source code, not even the MS people
-------------------------------------

Wrong.

[hapoo]

I NEVER SAID THAT 9X WAS MORE STABLE!!
jesus christ, my machine crashes on a daily basis.
and let me clarify: No one person knows all the code.

[Jeffbx]

It always cracks me up to see people going on about how unstable their Windows install is - all that says is that 1) either your hardware is bad (or overclocked too much)
or 2) you don't know what the hell you're doing.

NT4 is relatively stable, and W2K is like a rock. I've run NT servers for the past five years (from ver 3.51 up to W2K), and they all perform flawlessly in a corporate and desktop environment.

I attended a W2K pre-launch event at the MS campus in Redmond about a year and a half ago, and at that time they had successfully scaled a W2K active directory in a test lab to support 100 million users. Yes, 100 MILLION. So much for Windows not being scalable.

You can argue all day long about Windows versus UNIX - they are both excellent platforms, and they both have their strengths and weaknesses. I've worked with both quite a bit. However, to compare Linux to Windows is not really an apples to apples comparison. On the server side, you can talk about Solaris or HP UX vs. W2K all day long - that's a good argument.

However, on the small server or home machine, Linux is, and probably always will be, a niche product and not a mainstream one. Why? At the end of the day, developers want to be paid for the code they write.

I'm not saying that there is a lack of proficient linux developers - far from it. However, they are 99% hobbiests. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on someone who writes Linux code at the end of their working day - I'd be more comfortable with people whose jobs depended on them writing code that works.

On the workstation side - think of the person in your office or school who is clueless about computers. Now imagine walking them through adding a printer driver in Windows 98. Not a pretty sight, eh? Now, imagine walking them through adding a printer driver in Linux. This scenario is exactly what will keep Linux off of desktops in the mainstream - it's very difficult to support. Are you going to tell them to call Redhat or Mandrake for help? Of course not. For the forseeable future, Linux is reserved for the people who are computer savvy enough to be able to support it themselves. Yes, there are a lot of interfaces that are making it easier and easier to use. However, how many interfaces are there? Which one will be the standard one that everyone knows about?? Another stumbling block.

Will Linux die? No way. It's an excellent small server platform, and perfect to learn UNIX skills with. Will it ever displace Microsoft in any segment? Not too likely - lack of support is too significant of a barrier of entry onto the corporate desktop, and that's where the money is.

Wow, I was just going to write a line or two, and I guess I got carried away. Opposing viewpoints, feel free to flame...

[hapoo]

Originally posted by Jeffbx
It always cracks me up to see people going on about how unstable their Windows install is - all that says is that 1) either your hardware is bad (or overclocked too much)
or 2) you don't know what the hell you're doing.



1. My hardware may be older than the universe itself, but its all stable.
2. I know exactly what i'm doing. unfortunately windows does not :P

[AmRivlin]

All os's die, i know very little of linux but know their kernels can corrupt too. Win2k for me had been up at one point 98 days, but it was pretty much untouched.

[helius]

Originally posted by phlick
How much can be said for "user friendlieness" Hapoo? Can you debug linux kernal dumps? If you have an issue with the 2.4, that's what you'll be doing.
Hopefully you BUY software and do your job and leave the debugging to somebody who actually gets paid to do it vs. somebody who "dabbles" with it as a hobby. My money is with the pros thank you.
I'd rather have those than the BSoDs, thank you very much. At least I'll have some hope of fixing the problems instead of the usual reinstalling of Win98.


Originally posted by phlick
I've SEEN uptime over 200 days, and I'm not talking about in a dorm room downloading napster either. I'm talking about global enterprise servers getting hit hard every day.

That kind of stability is common with Linux.


Originally posted by phlick

-----------------------------------
If only I knew more about Linux and computers in general... I'd delete win98 from my HD so fast, you won't have time to say "BSoD
-----------------------------------

Linux is not comparable to win98. Linux does compare to windows 2000 / NT4. W98 is a consumer product. Not meant to be left on for weeks on end. It's for typing letters and playing games. (How many games can you play on Linux after you "learn more about Linux and computers in General". I hope you like tetris.

Good lord, I wouldn't be complaining if the machine would bloody well last half a day without crashing. Saying that the two aren't comparable is just plain silly. Perhaps they aren't targetted at the same consumers, but both can be used for "typing letters and playing games". BTW, your ignorance is really showing from your tetris comment.

At any rate, there's really no point in rehashing this OS war.

[Jeffbx]

Originally posted by hapoo

Originally posted by Jeffbx
It always cracks me up to see people going on about how unstable their Windows install is - all that says is that 1) either your hardware is bad (or overclocked too much)
or 2) you don't know what the hell you're doing.



1. My hardware may be older than the universe itself, but its all stable.
2. I know exactly what i'm doing. unfortunately windows does not :P


Ha ha! I take it back - sometimes Windows doesn't know what the hell I'm doing either! ;)

[topane]

I use win2k almost exclusively, but I also have a linux box which I use for some s/w I can't get for windows. They both work very well for me.
On a semi-unrelated note, I once had to down a Netware 3.12 server that had been up for over 4 years to add some storage. Now that's stability!

[hapoo]

Originally posted by helius


Originally posted by phlick
I've SEEN uptime over 200 days, and I'm not talking about in a dorm room downloading napster either. I'm talking about global enterprise servers getting hit hard every day.

That kind of stability is common with Linux.





Just as a side note, i've had it run longer than that myself. And i'm not that good in linux either.

[SPODIGZ]

man phlick, you sound like a real professional, has your arrogance really got you that far, and it obviously put you through your MCSE. None of the rest of us are here to call each other amateurs, sorry that we have to eat from your hands. Next time we will be more smart. And not that I know that much about Linux, but I have messed with the code a bit and set up a server in my house using Mandrake, but I’ve played a lot more games than Tetris, and my buddy who helped me set it up……..his Linux server at work has been running for 3 years, which doesn’t make 200 days show for much. He can change a hard drive and not even shut it down. Don’t get me wrong I am still primarily a Windows user, but UNIX is more stable, customizable and programmable than Windows from what I’ve seen, heard and experienced.

[Jeffbx]

Originally posted by SPODIGZ
Don’t get me wrong I am still primarily a Windows user, but UNIX is more stable, customizable and programmable than Windows from what I’ve seen, heard and experienced.

UNIX is an excellent OS, but you can't make a broad statement like that without backing them up....

Here's some Microsoft hype about Linux. Of course, it's from Microsoft so it's to be taken with a grain of salt, but the arguments make sense...

http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/msnw/LinuxMyths.asp

[SPODIGZ]

I appreciate the good reading, however I did take it with a grain of salt since they used "linux" vs NT when there are all sorts of different versions of Linux, and to say that there is no GUI and that it uses 30 year old architecture is the most obsurd thing I've ever heard. Anyone ever read the Kirch Paper (http://unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/). That has some damn good stuff on the battle. In fact that was my base source of information for a large research project I just did. Now before you all go halling off at me, it was by no means my only source. I'm only a 21 year old student trying to learn as much as I can, not a well-developed and experienced guru. And I dont have thousands of dollars worth of materials to research and fool with (yet).

[hapoo]

Its true linux is based on a 30 year old structure, BUT THATS BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN WELL THE FIRST TIME AROUND!!! Why mess with something that works? BTW, has everyone heard the rumors that MS uses Linux code in windows?? :D

[helius]

It's this fetish with "high/new technology" that people have developed lately. It was probably started by those marketing people who started the "new and improved formula" ad gimmicks. :heh:

You'd think that people in this cynical world would take "based on xyz" statements with a grain of salt. After all, they must have seen movies or tv shows that are "based on" true stories. :disa:

[sbp]

What a pathetic excuse for a flame war about which os is better. Now this is more like it! (http://www.geocities.com/sbp7777/files/finallinux.html)

[phlick]

Originally posted by SPODIGZ
man phlick, you sound like a real professional,
I am, Thanks for picking up on that.

Originally posted by SPODIGZ

has your arrogance really got you that far, and it obviously put you through your MCSE.
Arrogance wont get you very far unless you can back it up. It certainly did not "put me through my MCSE" whatever that means. I am an MCSE, but my arrogance *(or lack thereof)* have little to do with that.


Originally posted by SPODIGZ
None of the rest of us are here to call each other amateurs, sorry that we have to eat from your hands. Next time we will be more smart.
?????


Originally posted by SPODIGZ
I'm only a 21 year old student trying to learn as much as I can Heres a little tip, and this one's free... Take more English classes.


Originally posted by SPODIGZ
his Linux server at work has been running for 3 years, which doesn’t make 200 days show for much. He can change a hard drive and not even shut it down. 200 days may not "show for much", but don't forget it's only been out for around a year. So no, it can't beat your 3 year watermark. yet. And as for the hard drive swaparoo - has little/nothing to do with the OS. Does Linux support Hot swappable PCI busses?

[SPODIGZ]

Will do phlick, thanks for the advice. And your imperial knowledge shows that you have an MCSE. Someday I hope to clean your pool.

[helius]

Originally posted by phlick
Heres a little tip, and this one's free... Take more English classes.


:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Thanks, you've just made my day. :laugh:

[sbp]

The sooner the win9x kernel dies a miserable death it deserves the better.