__/ [ Rex Ballard ] on Friday 03 March 2006 19:50 \__
> Microsoft would have you believe that Linux is hundreds of
> distributions which are all totally different, and that they have a
> totally unified and standard platform.
> Yet let's look at history.
> UNIX has had several different commercial brandings, but all versions
> of UNIX adhere to a very sophisticated set of Standards. Linux also
> adheres to all of these standards as well. Microsoft adds proprietary
> "enhancements" protected by NDAs, many of which comprimise security,
> performance, stability, and managability.
> Linux has even more standardization than UNIX, and UNIX has been able
> to manage compatibility and security, to thrive even against Microsofts
> most determined attempts to monopolize the server markets. In
> addition, both Linux and UNIX have been able to provide more power,
> performance, capability, and flexibility while reducing server counts
> and costs/server. Meanwhile, Microsoft solutions just seem to make the
> servers multiply like rabbits - but with far less flexibility, much
> more manual maintenance, and more security issues. Furthermore, even
> though CPU clock speeds are increasing, limitations on memory and drive
> configurations have resulted in very little net performance due to
> latentcy issues and limitations on multitasking and memory management.
Microsoft will have people believe whatever /seems/ defensible. Can anyone
argue that they lie? That less than a hundred distributions exist? That
there are no Linux developers in China as well? The answer is no and
Microsoft ride on that wave and they ride wildly.
Steve Ballmer once said when alluding to Linux: "Are you going tom trust some
guy from China". It was both racist and sicrespectful, not to mention
Roy S. Schestowitz | HTML is for page layout, not for textual messages
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
4:05am up 2 days 23:43, 10 users, load average: 0.19, 0.40, 0.39
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project