Hi Dawn,

So _you_ are the one who bought all of those Maverick Grabbers!

(and since Dawn is likely too young and non-automotive)

Some years back the Ford Motor Company took a car that most (even
non-enthusiasts) considered almost the ultimate in ho-hum econoboxes
and dressed them up in what are now called "appearance packages" -
racing stripes and all manner of cosmetic "enhancements". No attention
whatsoever was given to improving suspension, brakes, engine
performance or any of the other features that might have added
substance to these appearance packages.

<OR>

Regardless the makeup job, the reality of a Mimi Bobek's substance
(heart) is unaltered.

Old Frank always was a dreamer. <g> I think that he was speaking in
terms of that to which an FLW could aspire ... not marketing fluff.

Or the perceptions of Linux. Where is Jon Kristofferson when we need
him (looking 'round) ... oh! here:
http://sumocomputer.com/html/OpenQM-kuro-Box.html

All set up, ready to go and even includes a top of the line MV
database. Slick as can be; form _and_ substance all in one.

We'll have to disagree on this one.

So what is it that goes after the memory?

And I will let you off the hook since you stipulated that you won't
install 'Doze either. My little standard desktop install takes approx
1/2 hour - 25 minutes of that waiting for the archives to be
uncompressed and copied to the HDD.

It just means that you can run most Windows software on a Linux machine
- the more difficult or the more easy methods ranging in cost from
$0.00 to $70.00

Oh baby! (fondly remembering Wanda)

Have fun,
-Tom

I think it's fair to summarise that you can pretty much do what you want
with both Windows and Linux...

The TCO of either solution is debateable - Linux is by no means "free" as is
often implied, and Windows (Server) isn't as top-heavy in long-term running
costs as perhaps suggested.

At the end of the day, it's horses for courses. Tom is probably correct
that for "raw" internet applications (firewalls, mail servers etc) Linux is
probably more suited for the task - mainly because it is the most used OS
for the task and therefore has the better overall solution. Similarly,
Windows is more suitable in other applications.

Arguing over what is best is really pointless - the point is to pick the
correct solution for a given task - be that Linux/Windows/something else...
The final solution will be a balance of initial cost of the solution,
running cost, skills of the people putting the solution together and the
requirements of the user. Providing the solution takes all this into
account, it will probably be a workable solution.

Just because I'm a "Windows" man these days, doesn't mean I have anything
specific against Linux - I had over 10 years experience with a multitude of
*Nix flavours before migrating to Windows 8 years ago. Granted, I'm very
rusty viz-a-viz Linux, but I have used it and recognise its strengths and
weaknesses.

Just another 2 euros for Dawns collection...

Regards
Simon
"Tom deL" <ted (AT) blackflute (DOT) com> wrote

Dawn:

"dawn" <dawnwolthuis (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message...

[snipped]

I work with both environments. I'm familiar with both well beyond a normal
IT person. I'm also ignorant of both well short of technical "experts"
(kind of gives an idea of the complexities involved here). :-)

Both environments are very suitable when setup and managed properly. Some
like Java, others like .NET. Some like UniVerse, some like UniData. Some
like MV, others like SQL. If one's objectives and expertise are in line
with one technology it is always recommended to use that technology; don't
change unless one's objectives have changed to some critical point. What is
that critical point? I don't know...each situation is different. But, the
general rule is to stay with what you got unless you need something else;
then step into the change lightly. We in the MV world know about this
concept. :-)

Switching, as I noted above, needs to be justified, as there's generally
little reason to make a change for change sake. We've mostly stopped using
Linux for the dbms because of upgrade and support issues. We wouldn't have
made that statement five years ago, as Windows NT wasn't too stable with the
Windows MV implementations. Now, however, MV runs great on Windows 2003.

As has been pointed out...in Linux the easy things are hard and the hard
things are even harder. In Windows the easy things are easy and the hard
things are $29.95. :-)

Bill

Simon:

"Simon Verona" <nomail (AT) nomail (DOT) zzz> wrote ...
We run Windows and Linux. We use Linux for mail and SFTP. Now, we're
testing WinSSHD (for SFTP) on our Windows servers and it seems to be working
great (it works great too on Linux but the admin tools aren't as nice). I
don't think we've rebooted our Gentoo box in six months. We need to reboot
our Windows .NET web server about every month but this is caused by the
PDP.NET product from Raining Data.

So, my direct experience leads me to agree with you.

[snipped]

Might as well add my two also. :-)

Bill

Bill H wrote:
I agree with this related to production systems. I'm giving myself the
luxury of doing some non-production investigation so I have all options
somewhat equally in front of me. I could go with my gut on some of
these, but I've decided to take some time to know a little more and
make more informed decisions. The SQL vs MV decision is part of what
prompted me to tackle the RM more directly. I like a lot of features
of SQL Server, for example, but it is still based on a data model whose
flaws I don't want to accept.

Similarly with Linux and Windows, I suspect there really is one of
these that provides a lower cost of ownership for the long haul, but I
agree that sticking with what you have until you have requirements to
do otherwise is likely the least expensive option.

That's good to know.

Or with anything if you didn't want to be forced to bounce your
production server regularly.

Laughing. By the way, I cannot read your posting in the thread on Pick
query languages compared to SQL through the google groups reader for
some reason. I can see that you posted, but it won't show it to me.
If you feel like reposting, that would be appreciated. Thanks. --dawn

I presume you are referring to the problem with pdp.net causing you to
reboot as being the evidence for your experience disagreeing with me?

Don't read the above as being agressive or defensive - I just wasn't sure.

If so, doesn't it say as much about pdp.net as it does Windows?

I agree, that there will be more Windows applications that cause system
reboots to be required than Linux ones.. but, in my opinion, with the
correct applications, installed correctly, Windows should be just as stable
as linux... This is my opinion - I have plenty of Windows servers in the
field that haven't needed rebooting for months.

But, I do take your point. All i'm saying is that Windows is not all
negative - and that you have to pick the right OS/applications/tools
combination for the job - sometimes it means Linux is the answer, and others
Windows may be the answer.

Regards
Simon
"Bill H" <notme (AT) bogus (DOT) com> wrote