These kind of 'professional opinion' posts on various bbs's these days derive most likely from m$ anti-linux campaign.
quote:
Beside working as a Chief Operating Unit in my IT department, I also work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies, and I think
I can shed a little light on the climate of the open source community at the moment
Typical backup claim for IT profiency..
quote:
I believe that part of the reason that open source based startups are failing left and right is not an issue of marketing as it's commonly believed but more of an issue of the underlying
technology. I know that that's a strong statement to make, but I have evidence to back it up!
Author attacks first with clear indication that open source is defective technology and then softens the effect a bit. Pay attention to this "I have evidence" part next.
quote:
At one of the major corps(5000+ employees) that I consult for, we wanted to integrate the shareware version of Linux into our server pool. The allure of not having to pay any restrictive licensing fees was too great to ignore.
1) What corporation he is consulting?
2) What the fuck is shareware linux?? (download version?)
3) Key point is that author refers to 'restrictive licencing' which in this case is quite irrelevant (sounds like m$ talk). I believe this is prelog for conclusion 'You get what you pay' thesis.. but let's go on..
quote:
I reccomended the installation of
several boxes running the new 2.4.9 kernel, and my hopes were high that it would perform up to snuff with the Windows 2k boxes which
were(and still are!) doing an AMAZING job at their respective tasks of serving HTTP requests, DNS, and fileserving.
Well.. every decent IT support personel (I know) knows how 'well' IIS works and how painful it's to maintain.
1) It sounds like the author has made his mind about how well linux is going to work since he boasts how well m$ dickware works.
quote:
I consider myself to be very technically inclined having programmed in VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level programming. I don't
believe in C programming because contrary to popular belief, VB can go just as low level as C and the newest VB compiler generates code that's every bit as fast.
The text speaks for itself..
quote:
I took it upon myself to configure the system from scratch and even used an optimised version of gcc 3.1 to increase the execution speed of the binaries. I integrated the 3 machines I had configured into the server pool, and I'd have to say the results were less than impressive... We all know that linux isn't even close to being ready for the desktop, but I had heard that it was
supposed to perform decently as a "server" based operating system.
What does desktop thing have to do with server system? Why he mentioned it?
The author claims that he tweaked up his own linux and says:
quote:
but I had heard that it was supposed to perform decently as a "server" based operating system.
Notice the word 'supposed'
quote:
The 3 machines all went into swap immediately, and it was obvious that they weren't going to be able to handle the load in this "enterprise"
environment. After running for less than 24 hours, 2 of them had experienced kernel panics caused by Bind and Apache crashing!
I find it strange that these 'linux' boxes couldn't handle 'the load' while we all know how widely linux is used in very demanding computing systems.
quote:
Granted, Apache is a volunteer based project written by weekend hackers in their spare time while Microsft's IIS has an actual professional full fledged development team devoted to it. Not to mention the fact that the Linux kernel itself lacks any support for any type of journaled
filesystem, memory protection, SMP support, etc,
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Wow.. Now I know that my linux kernel cannot handle journalizing file systems.. Still it's very strange that I have ext3 in use.
quote:
but I thought that since Linux is based on such "old" technology that it would run with
some level of stability. After several days of this type of behaviour, we decided to reinstall windows 2k on the boxes to make sure it wasn't
a hardware problem that was causing things to go wrong. The machines instantly shaped up and were seamlessly reintegrated into the server pool with just one Win2K machine doing more work than all 3 of the Linux boxes.
Well.. Suprise Suprise. Our saviour m$ has given us w2k and everything is fine with it.
quote:
Needless to say, I won't be reccomending linux/FSF to anymore of my clients. I'm dissappointed that they won't be able to leverege the free cost of Linux to their advantage, but in this case I suppose the old adage stands true that, "you get what you pay for." I would have
also liked to have access to the source code of the applications that we're running on our mission critical systems; however, from the looks
of it, the Microsoft "shared source" program seems to offer all of the same freedoms as the GPL.
Isn't it wonderful that all his clients can benefit from m$ dickware support and surely he'll gets his hands on mickey source code
This dick hasn't seen a single mission critical server or system.
quote:
As things stand now, I can understand using Linux
in academia to compile simple "Hello World" style programs and learn C programming, but I'm afraid that for anything more than a hobby OS, Windows
98/NT/2K are your only choices.
Things just get better
While reading that and his claims.. I'm speechless.. It's indeed a wonder where all these goons come from. They make ludicrious statements they can't backup. There's no way to prevent m$ to collapse and die because most of this anti-linux blabbering are complete and utter lies.
[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: SingleMalt ]
