It is a "disaster", he says. And yet, there are so many running it with
plenty of users. I have heard this same argument for almost any software you
care to mention. Experience tells me that "disastrous" software is often as
not, the fault of a disastrous administrator.
Stilian Elenkov <elenkovs_at_vtls.com> wrote in message
news:373737E0.F61CECC7_at_vtls.com...
> I can take your PC and install Solaris 2.6 or 7 and Oracle on it and
> support 10 times more users and 10 times faster and more reliable than
> NT with Oracle and twice as much for NT with SQL Server. And I do run
> Oracle on NT, AIX, Sun, HP and DEC. SQL Server is nice and pleasant
> until you actually have users doing work on you servers, at which point
> you would wish you never used it. We actually tried it because our
> customers demanded it. It was a total disaster, so we do not even
> consider it anymore. BTW I like NT and pushed for development and
> support for our products on NT. Oracle on NT seems to do a fairly good
> job inexpensively. Oracle on UNIX can do more, but costs a little more
> (not much). SQL Server on NT is a disaster waiting for the worst moment
> to occur.
>
> Stilian
>
> Arvin Meyer wrote:
> >
> > Even without the obvious logical conclusion that both NT and SQL-Server
take
> > far less training and administration cost than Either Oracle or Linux.
(I
> > can install and configure both NT and SQL-Server in less time than Linux
can
> > be installed and configured, and I could probably add in physically
building
> > the server before Oracle could be installed)
> >
> > Even without that. I point to Larry Ellison's Million Dollar Challenge.
> > While it wasn't using Linux, because Linux couldn't handle the number of
> > processors required or more than .9 Gb of memory, Microsoft beat the
Oracle
> > challenge and spent $600K to the Oracle $10 Million. That's more than 16
> > times cheaper!
> >
> > Linux does NOT cost nothing. In a business climate time is money. It
costs
> > in time to train, it costs in salaries or consultant fees to implement,
and
> > it costs in loss of productivity for that time. When time is factored,
Linux
> > is many times more expensive than NT.
> > -----
> > Arvin Meyer
> > onsite_at_esinet.net
> >
> > Stefan Skoglund wrote in message <3734D4F0.5C01690A_at_ebox.tninet.se>...
> > >Arvin Meyer wrote:
> > >> The cost of an operating system has little to do with the cost of the
the
> > >> software itself. Labor is the main cost of an operating system.
Training
> > >> curves, configuration times, hardware compatability, support costs,
etc.
> > >> make NT orders of magnitude lower in cost than Linux.
> > >
> > >Please substantiate that claim. Are you saying that supporting a
certain
> > >workload
> > >with MS SQL server on NT and Oracle on linux is more than 10 times
> > >cheaper than an GNU linux/Oracle8 combo ???
> > >
> > >That is a pretty strong claim considering that the hw footprint
> > >of NT is far bigger than Linux.
Received on Mon May 10 1999 - 21:28:56 CDT
