Re: Win 2K

["Mark Wilson and Sharon Farr" <markandsharon csi com>]

Jim

Good comments. I agree that it is difficult for anyone closely involved with
any computing system to be unbiased. Their system is always "better"
regardless of who makes it (and any inconvenient facts). Your sales and
support issues will hopefully be addressed as more money comes into the
Linux arena and real marketers and salespeople are employed. Developers (and
other techies) should never be let near a potential customer without
identifiable sales skills! Shudder. I completely agree about the price of
commercial Unix and yes I did make extensive use of NT NFS. I'm hoping that
in time the Linux trend will significantly reduce the price of Unix and
Unixish addons.

My comments were based on two points.

1. I had thought the Hotmail attempt was relatively recent and had assumed
(yeah I know, but how DO you find out) that they would have used their best
technology, ie Windows 2000. Maybe the attempt was earlier than Windows
2000. That seems odd as they would have known about any massive improvements
and delayed the attempt. Just a thought from the uninformed.

2. My analogy about the car world is that the numbers aren't related to
reality. However the 227,079 TPM mentioned was then compared to the Net
saying that 227,079 TPM is "enough to handle all the e-commerce done on the
Web
during the last year in two days", which is a real comparison. I'd bet
Bill's fortune that in a realistic situation it couldn't be done.

3. While my comments appeared on a Linux list (and on a thread that started,
and still is, waaaaaaaaaaaay off topic) I was interested in yet another
speed claim from Microsoft and not really comparing it with Linux. In my
experience any "Unix" running on a PC is quicker than Windows. Maybe with
Windows 2000 that that will change. A number of years ago (96?) there was
another big claim about the speed of SQL Server. From the TPM rate it was
supposed to be faster than many of the big HP's we had at the time. The PC
guys tried it, it wasn't and didn't come close. Hence my scepticism.


I come from the commercial Unix environment and am new to Linux. I have some
(newbie) questions that I hope you have the time to answer:

1. Why can't Linux in it's current form handle the Hotmail job?

2. I am told that Hotmail is run on FreeBSD, why is it so much better (for
Hotmail)?

Finally, after seeming to be another rabid Linux supporter, I don't want to
see Microsoft destroyed. I would like there to be many good operating
systems so there is plenty of competition and plenty of jobs. MS just needs
to have a less monopolistic market share, so in the meantime, viva the
competition!

Cheers

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Armstrong <jim_a technologist com>
To: redhat-install-list redhat com <redhat-install-list redhat com>
Date: Friday, 25 February 2000 06:13
Subject: Re: Win 2K


>
>As the whole concept is off-topic since Linux, in it's current rendition
>couldn't handle Hotmail either, I play the devil's advocate again...
>
>When I was part of Corporate IT-Land, I found that the cause of Linux (as
>well as other older flavors of UNIX) in the commercial arena was damaged
>most by it's own advocates:
>
>- No commercial support mechanism <<then>> for LINUX; when asked where the
>chain of support accountability led, the answer was either "Everyone" or
>"Back to us, I guess"
>
>- Demonstrating multi-user/multi-tasking advantages of UNIX by putting up 7
>command line windows on a $12,000 Sun Workstation.  You can't seem to beat
>into a developer's head the difference between dev and office environments.
>
>-  Demonstrating GUI properties by sitting the decision maker in front of a
>Hummingbird X-Session window; or, worse even, an inferior GUI Application.
>
>- Proponents addressed only obvious strengths.. usually were not prepared
>for "Where's the Beef?" type questions... e.g.;" Where's the Apps?" and
>"Where's the cross-platform integration?"... Ever price an NFS
>cross-mounting commercial package in the mid 90's?
>
>To answer the questions below.. I simply ask:
>
>Was the Hotmail conversion concept based on NT4 or Win2K?  Even a punter
>like myself knew that NT4 couldnt handle that sort of scale.
>
>How do you establish credibility for your product by off-handed dismissal
of
>the competition?  To address the auto-horsepower analogy, it doesnt matter
>WHERE the measurement is taken as long as it's taken at the same point,
>under the same conditions, for all ... relative performance is the key.
>
>As Client-Server evolves, the network transaction benchmark is the only
>usable scale of comparison.  The important issue is that the transaction
>template is typical to the real-world.
>
>Jim Armstrong
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Wilson and Sharon Farr <markandsharon csi com>
>Subject: Re: Win 2K
>
>
>>So why did the project to convert Hotmail to NT fail???
>>
>>I'd love to know the test parameters. Usually they are unusable for
>>business. A bit like car manufacturers power readings. Measured at the
>>crankshaft, not at the rear wheel and with the alternator, waterpump, oil
>>pump and anything else that takes power disconnected...
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Paul Jacobs <paul netpacq com>
>
>>>Yes... but, you know that TPC is equivalent to 575X the combined traffic
>of
>>>both eBay AND Amazon.....
>>>
>>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe: mail redhat-install-list-request redhat com with
>"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
>