RE: [TCLUG:7739] NT vs Linux (was Re: [TCLUG:7737] )

["Eric Hillman" <ehillman@cccu.com>]

> ... one administrator on each machine goes about installing
> a web server,
> FTP server, nice database app, office applications, good graphics
> manipulation
> software, etc. Then each program has to be used in a a
> rudimentary fashion.
> First one to reboot loses. :) That's maybe a little more practical and
> real-world.


	Y'know, I've got all that stuff on my NT box, and it's all pretty stable.
Of course, the web & ftp servers are by WRQ (an *excellent* company) and are
not subject to constant use, and I hardly ever use the office or database
stuff (MS Office 97).  Paint Shop Pro 5 is, in my opinion, a better
general-purpose graphics program than the Gimp at this stage of the game
(although the improvements I've seen slated for the next release of Gimp
should make it a close race.)

  The reason I won't use NT as a server, and why I use Linux on my desktop
at home, isn't so much uptime (although that's a big factor) as
debuggability.  Not long ago my NT workstation had some sort of weird
failure involving object handling.  Some programs couldn't be launched.
Front Page Explorer would run, but couldn't succesfully start or pass data
to Front Page Editor.  I scoured the registry and MS's help site, and there
was, simply, no solution evident.  I couldn't even figure out which files or
libraries I should be checking.  In its current state, the machine was not
even really sufficiently useful for me to figure out what the problem was.
So I had to re-install the whole system, costing me about a day of downtime.
This is just *not* acceptable on a workstation, much less a server.
  I've had my share of Linux problems, mostly resulting from my own
misconfiguration or inexperience, but even the most crippled, back-asswards
system I've ever laid hands on has still been able to limp along well enough
for me to whip it back into shape, usually with no downtime at all.  Short
of complete and utter obliteration of the kernel, there is very little you
can do to an application or service on a Linux box that will render it
totally useless.  With NT on the other hand, I can't count the number of
times that the whole system has come crashing to earth because I tried to
play a MIDI file or access my Zip drive and CD-ROM at the same time.

  In short, I think MS is focussing attention on benchmarks because it's an
area they can win in, or at least not embarass themselves.  It distracts
attention from the fact that the very design foundations of Windows NT are
flawed.