So, the difference between NT and Linux only shows up given unlimited bandwidth. That doesn't suprise me at all. Think about it. MS has the time and manpower to make their server use more bandwidth than they could ever use. Linux developers on the other hand do not much care how well the server performs beyond the capacity of their lines, because they don't care! There is no itch to be scratched in terms of development, because the system works fine for what they ask it to do.
In fact, it wouldn't suprise me at all if MS worked *very* hard to make benchmark results like this, even though they don't mean anything. Why? Because at MS, appearances are more important than fact. It's all marketing.
Don't worry about Apache not being able to handle extreme (perhaps impossible) amounts of bandwidth. If the day ever comes when it's important, it'll happen! Somebody will find that Apache just doesn't cut it anymore and will fix it! Or maybe they'll fix the kernel if they need to! That's the beauty of Linux and open source.
So, would you rather spend thousands for an operating system that could use more bandwidth that you could ever pay for, or spend *nothing* for an operating system that will handle just about anything that you can throw at it? I know where *I* want to go today and it ain't with MS!
I'll tell ya, if MS ends up buying MediaOne, I'll switch just as soon as RCN (the only major cable competitor in MA that I know of anyway) makes it up to my area. I bet we'd start getting MSNBC on our cable though!:-S
This is further proof of Bill Gates' Pinky and the Brain complex. (-- Gee Bill, what do you want to do tonight? -- The same thing we do every night! Try to take over the world!)
Does anybody else see this as *good* news for Linux? I think that MS isn't taking Linux as seriously as it should. I think they're running the risk that eventually Linux will come up behind them and bite them in the butt.
Maybe Linux won't bear the full brunt of the FUD that MS *could* dish out since they don't see us as a serious threat! Or, maybe not!
I would find it greatly ironic if MS ported Office to Linux considering one of the main penchants of their FUD campaign against Linux is lack of applications..
Slashdot Mirror
So, the difference between NT and Linux only shows up given unlimited bandwidth. That doesn't suprise me at all. Think about it. MS has the time and manpower to make their server use more bandwidth than they could ever use. Linux developers on the other hand do not much care how well the server performs beyond the capacity of their lines, because they don't care! There is no itch to be scratched in terms of development, because the system works fine for what they ask it to do.
:-P
In fact, it wouldn't suprise me at all if MS worked *very* hard to make benchmark results like this, even though they don't mean anything. Why? Because at MS, appearances are more important than fact. It's all marketing.
Don't worry about Apache not being able to handle extreme (perhaps impossible) amounts of bandwidth. If the day ever comes when it's important, it'll happen! Somebody will find that Apache just doesn't cut it anymore and will fix it! Or maybe they'll fix the kernel if they need to! That's the beauty of Linux and open source.
So, would you rather spend thousands for an operating system that could use more bandwidth that you could ever pay for, or spend *nothing* for an operating system that will handle just about anything that you can throw at it? I know where *I* want to go today and it ain't with MS!
There. Now I feel better.
Ben
I'll tell ya, if MS ends up buying MediaOne, I'll switch just as soon as RCN (the only major cable competitor in MA that I know of anyway) makes it up to my area. I bet we'd start getting MSNBC on our cable though! :-S
This is further proof of Bill Gates' Pinky and the Brain complex. (-- Gee Bill, what do you want to do tonight? -- The same thing we do every night! Try to take over the world!)
Does anybody else see this as *good* news for Linux? I think that MS isn't taking Linux as seriously as it should. I think they're running the risk that eventually Linux will come up behind them and bite them in the butt.
Maybe Linux won't bear the full brunt of the FUD that MS *could* dish out since they don't see us as a serious threat! Or, maybe not!
Ben
I would find it greatly ironic if MS ported Office to Linux considering one of the main penchants of their FUD campaign against Linux is lack of applications..
:-)
Ben
In _my_ day, all we had was a C64 and a BASIC interpreter! And we LOVED it!