Re: [vox] LUGOD advertisement...
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [vox] LUGOD advertisement...
--- Mister Resistor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Eric wrote:
> > more *robust and scaleable* (the other 2 at least
> > equally important) virtues I mentioned.
> Without using Slashdot-comment-style anecdotal
> evidence, would you care
> to point out why you believe they are more robust
> and scalable? And let's
> say you are correct - why do you believe that NT
> couldn't make inroads
> into the arena under consideration?
> As usual, I'm curious and not asserting any claims
> to being 'right',
> Mr. Resistor (-/\/\/\-) (email@example.com)
> Velcro Shoe Supremacist and Computer Engineering
My gut reaction is to say "just stop" (which is a
phrase we use at work when someone's gettin'
redikilous...) however, NT will make inroads, in the
meantime, high-end unix systems are not gonna just
stand still- ya think? And to why I think unix is more
scaleable, robust and reliable... I just heard of a
study that determined unix systems were up some
multiple of times more than NT systems without a
reboot (on average). I think the number was between 10
and 30... no kidding. Others may have seen the
article, but the point is: I work with over 300 unix
servers, where there are also mainframes and NT boxes.
I have an MCSE (I guess "had" actually since MS will
not now recognize that I am perfectly adept at
adminstering NT 4, instead forcing me to "upgrade" to
2k if I want to retain my title. Kinda like takin'
away your MD because of recent medical advances...).
Most of the ompanies that do business with the firm I
work with (EDS, who is a big MS supporter, BTW) choose
Oracle on unix (Solaris, HP-UX, Compaq Tru64, IBM,
Sequent, DEC, and more) in roughly that order. Why?
*It just works.* Pay more now, sleep better later. No
one wants to worry about having to reboot an NT box in
the middle of the night, or waiting for bug fixes from
Microsoft. That's the real world story, and you can
argue 'til your blue in the face, but most large
corporations *trust* Oracle on Unix, and are willing
to pay for it. When your job is on the line, you make
a compelling case to get the best money can buy... or
take your chances and deal with the consequences.
Remember the old line "No one ever got fired for
buying Cisco"? Same with Oracle on unix. If you have
access to data or information that I am not aware of
that will change my mind, bring it on. NT *will* grow
and expand, but it will be a long time comin'. Another
factor is that corporations want to be in control of
their computing solutions, whereas Microsoft wants
most, if not all, of that control for themselves (for
monetary reasons). People are rightfully (IMO)
suspicious of that. I think most people don't want
other people/businesses/institutions controlling their
lives or businesses. Which is exactly what Microsoft
wants most. I like Microsoft software, I'm using it
right now, as a home user, it meets my needs (yet, so
does Linux). If I ran a business, I would avoid
Microsoft on all my servers except LAN services, where
it would probably do well enough. LANs, however, are
in large part secondary to the primary needs of what
most businesses do, which is manufacturer, or manage
money, etc. that does *real well* with oracle and
unix. You get what you pay for...
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail