Re: Justification between MCSE or Linux certification

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

On Thursday 15 June 2006 03:39 pm, Leythos had this to say in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

In article <e6s33602j80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, nostop@xxxxxxxxxx says...
On Thursday 15 June 2006 09:33 am, Gordon had this to say in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

Leythos wrote:

In article <fYOdnSgUZ7cFFQzZnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
gordonbparker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
Implementation of Linux is FASTER than
that of Windows

Having done a bunch of both linux and windows, I would disagree, they
are about the same as far as rolling them out and user
performance/installation.


On the desktop certainly, but the server implementation is faster
AFAIK.......

Leythos is simply a Windoze Fanboy. He has no clue about Linux. His
suggestion that the pace of development between desktop Windoze and Linux
are the same just shows his total ignorance on the subject. I cannot
believe he's ever worked with a Linux box in any serious fashion if he's
trying to tell us that performance is the same as Windoze. Windoze gets
bogged down with only a few services running. Linux, even on less
powerful hardware, runs circles around Windoze in terms of performance.
The TCP/IP stack for example in Linux is twice as fast as it is in
Windoze and I've benchmarked that a number of times.

I don't believe you've actually done anything with Linux, nothing more
than playing with it, or you would not make a statement like the above.

It doesn't matter what you've found in your home or read on some block,
until you've installed it in a real network environment at an office,
you can't possibly know.

Linux is faster without the GUI, but it's not any different once you are
at the desktop with the GUI.

Well we can keep this up forever I guess. But, you're plain wrong! My Linux
box has a mysql server, apache server, nfs and samba servers, mail server
and many other services running and is very responsive. Another computer I
have with newer and faster hardware running XP doesn't have nearly the
services running, yet is in all respects slower in the GUI, including as I
pointed out the TCP/IP stack (by half). On my Linux box I have no problem
ripping a DVD while at the same time doing dozens of other things with no
significant decrease in speed. On Windoze, one just can't do that. That's
why people are always looking to upgrade their hardware in the hopes of
trying to get some sort of speed out of Windoze.


--
The ULTIMATE Windoze Fanboy:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2370205018226686613

View Some Common Linux Desktops ...
http://linclips.crocusplains.com/index.php


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: eMachines OEM XP woes - time to buy $tandard?
    ... >>> under Windoze. ... Let's say one wants to install NVU. ... Now show how much easier it is to install MS Office on Linux than ... Windows OS's from Win3.1 to Windows 2003 Server. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: MS to charge for security?
    ... >> that you can't visualize beyond a workstation computer like Windoze XP ... >> AV program running on the Linux server can and does scan the incoming ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: I agree linux is not for avg. homeuser
    ... To weigh in on the Linux/MS issue: I prefer Linux because is seems to ... CHEAPER than winDoze. ... Win2003 server becuase the sw vendor would not agree that a linux box ...
    (linux.redhat)
  • Re: Drawing in Linux
    ... reliable (at least all of my Windoze installations are). ... It may depend on what you are trying to do with Linux (or Windows). ... Linux server, because we could load up Linux quite a bit more. ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: eMachines OEM XP woes - time to buy $tandard?
    ... Let's say one wants to install NVU. ... >> average computer morons can just as easily learn to run Linux as ... >> Windoze, ... The ability to organize a start menu ... ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)