Re: Redhat vs Win2000

From: Howard J. Rogers <howardjr_at_www.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 20:05:48 +1100
Message-ID: <3be11047$0$9825$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

I *like* W2K, and it works a treat (waits for the usual ensemble of MS bashers to turn air blue). For stabilty, I wouldn't put Linux anywhere near it (but then I can configue W2K with my eyes shut, and haven't a clue about Linux). Therein lies the clue: it's not what you've got, it's what you do with it that counts. A crappily configured and maintained Windows box is crappy; so is a crappily configured and maintained Linux box.

Now if you were comparing with Solaris, I'd give you a different answer. But my vote goes to W2K. Not everything from Redmond is the spawn of Beelzebub.

Regards
HJR

--

Oracle Resources : http://www.geocities.com/howardjr2000
========================================


"Henk Bos" <hbos_at_emirates.net.ae> wrote in message
news:9rr060$55q1_at_news.emirates.net.ae...


> Hi all,

>

> We are running Oracle 7.3.2 on SCO-Unix for the last 4 years. Never had a

> major problem. Now we are upgrading our installation and are considering

> Oracle 8.1.7 on Redhat 7.0 (certified by both Oracle and Redhat). Another

> possibility is Win2000.

> Technically I don't have a preference, but on the other side, BG is rich

> enough.

> Key factors are: stability, performance and reliability.

>

> I would appreciate any comments/preferences for both choices.

>

> Thanks for your time.

>

> Henk Bos

>

>

Received on Thu Nov 01 2001 - 03:05:48 CST