[linux-elitists] Re: FW: MS claims w2k is better than solaris 8 (fwd)

Deirdre Saoirse deirdre@deirdre.net
Fri Feb 18 09:06:10 PST 2000


Occasionally, the Unix Rabbi (yes, he really IS a Rabbi) has something
interesting to say even though he really only uses Solaris. See snipped
post below. Interesting to see the rationale.

-- 
_Deirdre   *   http://www.linuxcabal.net   *   http://www.deirdre.net
"Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator
"That's because the Martians keep shooting things down." -- Harlan Rosenthal
<Harlan.Rosenthal@Dialogic.com>, retorting in Risks Digest 20.60

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 07:49:44 -0800
From: "Remer, Hershel" <Hershel.Remer@marconiastronics.com>
Reply-To: UUASC@uuasc.org
To: uuasc@uuasc.org
Subject: Re: FW: MS claims w2k is better than solaris 8

BS"D

[snip]

Brian. Don't even go there.  Whenever M$ puts out benchmarks, performance
stats, etc, what do we know about them?  They are wigged out to the max.  I
know someone personally who used to conduct OS benchmarks for Compaq.  He
was explicitly commanded there to make sure the test was rigged enough so
that M$ always finished on top.  Why?  Because M$ Crap requires more
resources, and thus, sells more hardware.

I don't know the details of the 84%  ( I screwed you up by posting 86%
earlier, btw ) findings, but I would bet a dollar to a doughnut that the
reality is the exact opposite. Meaning, the Solaris equipment, software, and
maintenance actually costs 84% of the TCO of the M$ crap, and performed 3x
better.

[snip]





More information about the linux-elitists mailing list