Re: Low/No Cost Unix

[Ambrose Li <acli@acli.interlog.com>]

On Mon, Feb 23, 1998 at 04:08:20PM -0600, Scott Williams wrote:
> 
> I'm just saying that the level of trust is not there to put my shop's OS on a 
> version of Unix like that. I never implied that you were purchasing Linux from 
> Red Hat, just questioning their ability to provide effective support at the 
> levels of Sun, HP, Digital, etc...

Probably, but they surely can provide effective support at a higher level
than Microsoft.

> Probably not. I would never question Your expertise. But really, you should 
> have included the rest of my response, where I said that NT can get the job 
> done as a fileserver, in a small shop environment. I've seen NT on a Compaq 
> 1500 support 200 users in a small publishing shop, very well. They were using 

I work in a publishing shop too. One of our NT boxes's clock just gained
one day this morning mysteriously; three departments complained about the
time problem. Our other office's NT4 servers periodically lose all their
network connections. Our NT boxes's mouse periodically dies (while the Linux
boxes, which share the same mouse, never had this problem). It's this kind
of little (or not so little) annoyances that make you wonder if NT really
is up to the job of providing effective file service.

It also depends on what you have on your network. If you have PCs running
Netware clients, PCs running Microsoft clients, and Macs, NT is not the
most elegant file serving solution. A Linux (and I believe any Unix) box
can be configured to serve all these machines in a way that doesn't degrade
system stability.


-- 
Ambrose Li > home > acli@acli.interlog.com > http://www.interlog.com/~acli/
> work > acli@mingpaoxpress.com > permanent > ai337@freenet.toronto.on.ca
> Microsoft is not the answer > Microsoft is the question > No is the answer