On Saturday 16 June 2001 16:28, StarTux wrote:
From the above referenced site's Terms of Use:
"THE DOCUMENTS AND RELATED GRAPHICS PUBLISHED ON THIS SERVER COULD INCLUDE TECHNICAL INACCURACIES OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS." See, M$ gets it right sometimes. <eg> Rudder
I've just read through the white paper, and it is without doubt one of the silliest I've ever read. For example, if someone could explain to me what Lower cost of procurement: Appliances powered by Windows are typically cheaper to procure than a general purpose server. One of the key reasons is that general purpose servers are designed and optimized to be functionally flexible - for example, they can act as application servers (that is e-mail or database), Web servers, file servers, print servers, DNS and DHCP servers, or domain controllers. Appliances based on Windows are designed to address specific solutions like Web, file, and so on, and as such are optimized for the solution and do not use all the features and flexibility of a general purpose server OS. This usually results in a lower cost of procurement. means, I'd be interested. I've read it three times, and I'm still not certain what they're trying to say (all applications based on linux must use all functions in the OS??? Windows can do less, and so is more powerful??? What are they trying to say?) On the other hand, the paper is clearly directed at a management audience, so there is a real danger it might be taken seriously. Perhaps someone ought to write a refutation On Saturday 16 June 2001 22:28, StarTux wrote:
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/embedded/sak/sakcomp.asp
Matt
Regards Anders -- Suche Nullen! Götzen-Dämmerung - oder wie man mit dem Pingvin philosophirt
If it wasn't so sad , it would be funny. I copied some of the "better" parts of their so-called "White paper". <paste> A bigger issue is that even if a company introduced a multi-threading solution, Linux solutions would be fragmented into different versions, only one of which would have this advanced multi-threading. For example, two companies might add the same feature in different ways. Because of the GNU General Public License (GPL) regulating the use of Linux, both versions must be available in source code to all customers. This causes the operating system to 'fork' into multiple, open source versions, both (or neither) of which may generate much community support. Open source developers working on one version may not want to support a company making changes to the other version by giving them free labor, because that company could then resell the fruits of their labor commercially. This is why developers could create their own incompatible forms of multi-threading, resulting in incompatible Linux implementations. </paste> The surely understand how things work. tsss... This one's even better: <paste> Windows 2000 supports more system random access memory (RAM) than Linux. Linux supports only 960 megabytes (MG), of RAM - with support for additional memory requiring recompiling and adding patches. Windows 2000 supports up to four gigabytes (GB) of RAM, and up to eight GB with Windows 2000 Advanced Server for appliances powered by Windows. </paste> They call checking an option in the kernel a patch. There's an option for 4GB and one for 64GB! If it was windows, it would cost the square of "Linux 2001 Advanced Server for appliances powered by Linux". Are they laughing at themselves here?: <paste> The SSL support Linux offers, like in the Apache Web server, is not nearly as robust as that available with Windows 2000. A third-party SSL component is available for Linux, but the OEM must do its own integration and testing. In some cases, royalties must be paid for these features, which Windows provides at no additional cost. </paste>
From StarTux to suse-linux-e@suse.com about [SLE] [M$] MS trying their FUD...:
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/embedded/sak/sakcomp.asp
Matt
-- dieter
hi all, hahahaha, i can only laugh about them...... thats what would happen if people write about things they dont even know themselves...... so here m$-marketing trolls dont know about what the m$-software trolls are doing. theyre talkink shit....nothing more..... which os was it in the past that relied on loading himem.sys to access memory over 1 mb to load some crappy (so called) gui ??? i remeber somewhat with 95 in its name.... and who the hell is tieing intel to use some crap like an a20 gate even today, in the sake of compatibility ?? wasnt this m$ ??? or im comletely wrong ??? who is "forking" anything here ??? oh good, forgive them because they dont know what they are doing...... ......and im not religiuos....... chris Am Samstag, 16. Juni 2001 22:28 schrieb StarTux:
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/embedded/sak/sakcomp.asp
Matt
-- visit me at http://mamalala.de
sorry, forgot to tell ya a joke : this is roughly translated from german : " windows can do anything after going to be 32 bit " " well, after 32 bit i also think i can do everything " (bit is a brand of beer here in germany....;-) ) greets, chris Am Samstag, 16. Juni 2001 22:28 schrieb StarTux:
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/embedded/sak/sakcomp.asp
Matt
-- visit me at http://mamalala.de
Wow, it's some years since I last heard "Bitte ein Bit". If I remember rightly, that used to be the punchline in their ads. It might still be, after all it's only 8 years since I was last there. Goodnight one and all, Stuart. -----Original Message----- From: suse-linux-e-return-61408-stuart=yorkshirepudding.com@suse.com [mailto:suse-linux-e-return-61408-stuart=yorkshirepudding.com@suse.com]O n Behalf Of Christian Klippel Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 11:48 PM To: StarTux; suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] [M$] MS trying their FUD again, win2k vs Linux (forgot some) sorry, forgot to tell ya a joke : this is roughly translated from german : " windows can do anything after going to be 32 bit " " well, after 32 bit i also think i can do everything " (bit is a brand of beer here in germany....;-) ) greets, chris <snip>
The more I read these kinds of publications the more I'm convinced that this is a brainwashing attempt by M$ directed to all those with MCSE certification as their only quilification to call themselves IT professionals. What's with this crap about 960 MB of ram and the abbreviation for megabytes as MG?? My SuSE personal edition handles 4 GB of ram out of the box for crying out load. Frankly if pentiums didn't have a limit at 4 gb's I'm sure my end-user version would handle more. and server "appliances"? - WTF!!! Come on M$, are you Redmondians that desperate. I'm in health care for Pete's sake and I can see through this crap like a freshly cleaned piece of glass. Any executive that takes this as fact deserves what he/she gets. If a lay person such as myself can see this supposed white paper as one of the more ludicrious things to come out of the mouths of M$ and an executive fails to see this - all I can tell them is "Can you say Cracker and DDoS"? Does down time and security holes at an exorbinant price matter to the corporates? Only if they have more than a dozen brain cells functioning I would guess! IMHO Curtis On Saturday 16 June 2001 03:28 pm, StarTux wrote:
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/embedded/sak/sakcomp.asp
Matt
participants (7)
-
Anders Johansson -
Christian Klippel -
Curtis Rey -
dieter -
Rudder -
StarTux -
Stuart Powell