Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: discussion: November 2002:
[aclug-L] Re: Linux Time-Table
Home

[aclug-L] Re: Linux Time-Table

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: discussion@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aclug-L] Re: Linux Time-Table
From: "Jonathan Hall" <flimzy@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 21:43:47 -0600
Reply-to: discussion@xxxxxxxxx

That depends on what you're trying to compare.  If your debate is about
Desktop OSes (as ours has been), then IIS and SQL are completely
irrelevant--as are any "server" daemons you have running on the Linux
machine.

As a server, I think most will agree that Linux wins hands down against
Windows.

-- Jonathan


----- Original Message -----
From: "Anne McCadden" <ironrose@xxxxxxx>
To: <discussion@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 7:50 PM
Subject: [aclug-L] Re: Linux Time-Table


>
> Maybe the comparision is desktop OS to desktop OS, linux seems to run
> slower than most versions of windoze.  I'm not sure as to why, but I
> have a lot more apps running in the background on the linux machines
> also, so it isn't a very fair comparision.
>
> A fair comparision is if I was running Win2k server, with IIS and SQL
> running, then the speed that the apps launch would be about the same as
> linux, but linux is much more stable than win2k server.  (Apples to
> apples) If I compare Win-xp pro with linux, then Win-xp pro is faster,
> xp pro isn't running any server or any other apps in the background.
> (Apples to oranges)  ~Anne
>
> John Goerzen wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 10:05:17PM -0600, Jonathan Hall wrote:
> >
> >>Free software, maybe.  I don't think Linux should do it.  Call me
> >>old-fassioned... but I like Linux on my servers.  It's doesn't make an
> >>effecient desktop OS though.
> >>
> >
> >What do you think makes it inefficient?
> >
> >>Perhaps if we get away from X, that could change.
> >>
> >
> >XFree86 is really a pretty slick system these days.  Applications running
> >atop a modern XFree86 installation will do a lot better than those
running
> >on a plain vanilla X11R6 installation.
> >
> >Of course, XFree86 is now doing more to advance the state of the art of X
> >than the X Consortium / TOG is.
> >
> >The GNUstep people are also making a lot of nice progress.  GNUstep does
run
> >atop X, and yet it achieves a lot of the advanced rendering capabilities
> >that are available on NeXT and MacOS X environment.  Sorta a best of both
> >worlds thing.
> >
> >-- John
> >-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
> >visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi
> >
> >
>
>
> -- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
> visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi
>
>

-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]