NT4 is less intuitive than Linux. NT4 requires a very expensive learning curve. NT4 can't support most Linux utilities. NT4 doesn't support most hardware. NT4 certainly doesn't gurantee uptime! NT4 nobody to blame (but yourself) when it doesn't work! NT4 runs very poorly with different apps.
And thanks to the MindSet (AKA Microsoft) report, we now know how scared Bill is of Linux! He is soiling his drawers!
In the Real World on Real World equipment, NT4 is a Real Pig!
Dollar for Dollarn NT4 performs very poorly compared to Linux/xBSD Real World platforms.
Look how often HotMail crashes and burns! Look how often Microsoft's own sites crash & burn. Look how often Microsoft's FTP sites grind to a halt! The fact they are overloaded is beside the point!
NT4 sucks under pressure in Real World conditions!
Even considering a Peak Traffic to Quiet ratio of 60 to 1 (not unreasonable), we are still looking at a hit rate of over 5 million/day.
What site does that???
I know that Microsoft's own sites go down on a regular basis and their FTP sites are subject to amazing un-grace when heavily loaded (my favorite is a long slow download that peter's out and stops just before the end - a Microsoft Feature I bet).
If Microsoft wants the top 1% of the websites, let them have it, if they really can do it!
I can't count the number of times I have not been able to view one of the heavily loaded MS sites or been unable to download something from their subsiduary download sites because NT was having a breakdown! NT4 is a total pig without a massive hardware suite to support it and is subject to massive hemoraging when run on systems that Linux is more than happy with.
And, I do not conceed for a moment that Linux could not service those sites using mutliple boxen AND still come out with a better performance/$ ratio.
I find the Slash/Dot site to be attractive, informative and conducive to feedback: something that is lacking on the Microsoft/Mindset pages (spelling error deliberate).
I am willing to bet that SlashDot is not using a $100,000 server and their hits/$ ratio blows any NT4 installation away.
I skimmed the Mindcraft report and the first thing I saw was a highly optimized hardware package specifically selected to favour Microsoft.
I have run the identical Microsoft software package on a client's P200 with 64MBytes of memory and an 6.4 Gigabyte IDE HD and it was a pig. The software was replaced by Slackware 3.6 with a 2.0.35 kernel and Apache and it runs like a champ. That box NEVER sees the kind of throughput that is contemplated by the Mindcraft/Microsoft test but most applications don't.
If you can consider that most small commercial webhosting sites won't be seeing 1000 hits an hour, let alone ~3800 request per second.
I have run into overworked and underpowered NT4 sites and it is pathetic because they are so ungraceful under pressure.
Sure, it is easy with an unlimited hardware budget to get NT4 to run but that is not the real world!
The real world is $5,000-$10,000 hardware/software/consultant budgets running on 10Mb/s Ethernet connections. Linux and Apache are about the real world, not the fantasy world concocted by Mindcraft/Microsoft and their team of engineers working behind closed doors.
I suggest to you that with hardware/software budget Mindcraft/Microsoft used and a free hand given to Linux/Apache techs would result in a faster, more reliable, more graceful solution (four distinct servers perhaps).
Here is my challenge Microsoft/Mindcraft:
Who can build the best HTTP server (hardware & software) with a real budget of $5,000US hardware/software/consultant fees total!
Slashdot Mirror
Their are? (sic)
NT4 is less intuitive than Linux.
NT4 requires a very expensive learning curve.
NT4 can't support most Linux utilities.
NT4 doesn't support most hardware.
NT4 certainly doesn't gurantee uptime!
NT4 nobody to blame (but yourself) when it doesn't work!
NT4 runs very poorly with different apps.
And thanks to the MindSet (AKA Microsoft) report, we now know how scared Bill is of Linux! He is soiling his drawers!
Prove ME wrong!
Bill? Is that you?
Totally Agree:
In the Real World on Real World equipment, NT4 is a Real Pig!
Dollar for Dollarn NT4 performs very poorly compared to Linux/xBSD Real World platforms.
Look how often HotMail crashes and burns! Look how often Microsoft's own sites crash & burn. Look how often Microsoft's FTP sites grind to a halt! The fact they are overloaded is beside the point!
NT4 sucks under pressure in Real World conditions!
Microsoft shouldn't be throwing any rocks!
Best regards,
Brian
I Know! Sorry.
He he - I wish I could blame Bill but was my fault!
Best regards,
Brian
Well, there is Reality and then there is MACophile Reality.
Agreed:
Even considering a Peak Traffic to Quiet ratio of 60 to 1 (not unreasonable), we are still looking at a hit rate of over 5 million/day.
What site does that???
I know that Microsoft's own sites go down on a regular basis and their FTP sites are subject to amazing un-grace when heavily loaded (my favorite is a long slow download that peter's out and stops just before the end - a Microsoft Feature I bet).
Just one guys opinion.
Best regards,
SubDude
I Agree:
If Microsoft wants the top 1% of the websites, let them have it, if they really can do it!
I can't count the number of times I have not been able to view one of the heavily loaded MS sites or been unable to download something from their subsiduary download sites because NT was having a breakdown!
NT4 is a total pig without a massive hardware suite to support it and is subject to massive hemoraging when run on systems that Linux is more than happy with.
And, I do not conceed for a moment that Linux could not service those sites using mutliple boxen AND still come out with a better performance/$ ratio.
Just one guys opinion.
Best regards,
Brian
I find the Slash/Dot site to be attractive, informative and conducive to feedback: something that is lacking on the Microsoft/Mindset pages (spelling error deliberate).
I am willing to bet that SlashDot is not using a $100,000 server and their hits/$ ratio blows any NT4 installation away.
Perhaps a little perspective is required.
Just one guys opinion!
Brian
Hi Everyone:
I skimmed the Mindcraft report and the first thing I saw was a highly optimized hardware package specifically selected to favour Microsoft.
I have run the identical Microsoft software package on a client's P200 with 64MBytes of memory and an 6.4 Gigabyte IDE HD and it was a pig. The software was replaced by Slackware 3.6 with a 2.0.35 kernel and Apache and it runs
like a champ. That box NEVER sees the kind of throughput that is contemplated by the Mindcraft/Microsoft test but most applications don't.
If you can consider that most small commercial webhosting sites won't be seeing 1000 hits an hour, let alone ~3800 request per second.
I have run into overworked and underpowered NT4 sites and it is pathetic because they are so ungraceful under pressure.
Sure, it is easy with an unlimited hardware budget to get NT4 to run but that is not the real world!
The real world is $5,000-$10,000
hardware/software/consultant budgets running on 10Mb/s Ethernet connections. Linux and Apache are about the real world, not the fantasy world concocted by Mindcraft/Microsoft and their team of engineers working behind closed doors.
I suggest to you that with hardware/software budget Mindcraft/Microsoft used and a free hand given to Linux/Apache techs would result in a faster, more reliable, more graceful solution (four distinct servers perhaps).
Here is my challenge Microsoft/Mindcraft:
Who can build the best HTTP server (hardware & software) with a real budget of $5,000US hardware/software/consultant fees total!
Just one guy's opinion.
SubDude