> >However, I think there should be a _public_ place where this
> clarification is available.
>
> I have corresponded briefly with Mark Russinovich on NT-related issues in
> the past, and he has always seemed a very fair-minded individual. He
> certainly isn't in Microsoft's pocket, for example. I would hope that if
> asked, he would contribute some follow-up to this forum. Of course, he
> makes his living from NT - both its strengths and its shortcomings.
>
> Nick Brown, Strasbourg, France (Nick(dot)Brown(at)coe(dot)int)
>
Arguing WIN/Linux will always be counterproductive. If you have
a closed OS, you can always state that it has some "advantage" that
an open OS doesn't have. You can even do this truthfully. I note
that Mark's comments were mostly about "scalability". This is
a buzz-word that doesn't mean anything at all. If Ford said that
their cars were more scalable than GM, it would probably mean that
it was easier to put in a larger engine. Something that few, if
anyone, would ever do. Scalability is largely irrelevant.
What one needs in an OS is reliability, usability, and compatibility
with some standards that provide a portable platform. Performance
must be considered, but it is secondary in a Commercial Environment.
Scalability is not a commercial requirement, even when defined to
actually mean somehting. It is too essoteric.
Machines used commercially will run until whatever they are doing
completes. For instance, most commercial database programs are very
inefficient by design. They are, however robust. They were ported
to WIN-NT because it was available, not because it was good or even
acceptable.
Nothing Microsoft has done in its entire history is robust. Even
Microsoft's tools such as Compilers are riddled with bugs. Microsoft
has never designed anything for reliability. Instead, they simply
exist. They continue to exist because they make cheap software,
including cheap Operating Systems. Companies that made reliable
tools such as compilers are unable to compete with Microsoft because
they provide supposably equivalent tools at much lower prices.
Linux can win against WIN-NT if we push reliability. Microsoft
doesn't have the development environment necessary to produce
reliable software. Reliability testing is simply left to the customers.
And the customers have to pay for the bug-fixes if they ever get
fixed. Within a few hours of a development release of Linux, there
are, roughly, 10,000 testers in the field. Within a few days, the
number exceeds 100,000. Microsoft can never do that.
What Microsoft has been able to do is produce a "fuzzy" Microsoft
Environment by charging customers for "technical training", producing
a clique of so-called "experts". They then advertise that, if you
don't have Microsoft-trained persons on your staff, you are risking
everything. This will continue. I suggest that the major Linux
Distributors and VARS do the same thing. This will add a "presence"
that does not yet exist. It will allow VARS to make a bit more money
and give customers the warm fuzzy feeling they are used to getting
from Microsoft. These customers might learn a bit more than they
would from Microsoft because the training would involve more than
learning to recover from continual Windows crashes.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
Penguin : Linux version 2.2.6 on an i686 machine (400.59 BogoMips).
Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/