Re: Justification between MCSE or Linux certification

Kerry Brown wrote:
Leythos wrote:

In article <e6stqj01qa6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, nostop@xxxxxxxxxx says...

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.

Yes, we could, and we'll never agree. As an example, I can burn DVD's
on my laptop, while running Windows 2003 On it (or Windows XP) while
using MS SQL 2000 or 2005, while serving web pages in .net, while
also being VNC'd into two other machines, while reading Usenet....
It's all about configuration. Oh, and listening to WinAmp, while also
running this little webcam, and have my AV software not-disabled....
I can do more on a desktop, but this was just a lowly laptop.

In my experience, with same hardware in 4 machines (and this was just
a test setup), there was no difference between "user desktop"
experience in Win XP or Fedora Core 4/5, and Fedora actually took
longer to install and setup than Windows XP did.


I have to agree. Some systems Linux runs faster, some Windows, doesn't seem to be any ryhme or reason.

Depends on the hardware, distro and choice of GUI in my experience.

Generally most GUI's seem to run about the same speed on well configured systems regardless of OS. If anything XP runs faster with limited ram than current gnome implementations.

That's because Gnome sucks, IMO. KDE is very fast on a healthy box.

I also agree that FC 5 does seem to have an unusually long install.


Depends on how many services, utils and apps you choose install. If you installed all the equivalent software on a Win box that are available in FC 5 it would take longer than the FC 5 install.

Steve N.
.

Relevant Pages

  • >>>> INSTALL LINUX <<<<
    ... Linux Http Install Syntax ... Install Linux On Usb In Windows ...
    (comp.mail.sendmail)
  • Re: eMachines OEM XP woes - time to buy $tandard?
    ... >>> under Windoze. ... Let's say one wants to install NVU. ... Now show how much easier it is to install MS Office on Linux than ... Windows OS's from Win3.1 to Windows 2003 Server. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: bad experience with Suse 9.1 on Inspiron 8200
    ... > it is an M$ bug, such technicalities are irrelevant to the end user. ... :-) Windows has ... work as long as they work, trying to install a nitrous ... Linux are at least a *little* bit curious about how their computer works ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Subject: Re: Linux sucks?
    ... > the applications I run in my field do not run on Linux. ... I have cygwin on Windows ... so Windows users only hit this rarely at install. ... XP users hit this when they add hardware and the 'automatic ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Linux, the final decision
    ... >> how Windows deals with an analogous situation. ... > That drivers have access to the gui is not a hard and fast rule. ... >> Unreal engines can run under Linux. ... no one has to install Windows because the ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)