Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > FUD: Get the facts Windows v Linux

Reply
Thread Tools

FUD: Get the facts Windows v Linux

 
 
thing
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2004
Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
differences are not so big, or worse?

Or SuSe's version based on the 2.6 kernel?

Lol, Yet more lacking of credibilty....

Are you watching Nathan?

regards

Thing

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nathan Mercer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2004
thing wrote:
> Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
> wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
> flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
> differences are not so big, or worse?
>
> Or SuSe's version based on the 2.6 kernel?
>
> Lol, Yet more lacking of credibilty....
>
> Are you watching Nathan?


Which study are you referring to?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Matthew Poole
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2004
In article <QBWgd.24121$(E-Mail Removed)>, thing <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
>wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
>flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
>differences are not so big, or worse?
>
>Or SuSe's version based on the 2.6 kernel?
>
>Lol, Yet more lacking of credibilty....
>

*SNIP*

Nothing they do can beat comparing Windows on Intel to Linux on a
zSeries and then stating that Linux has a higher dollar-per-transaction
cost than Windows does. That was the ultimate slimebag "study", and I
think that it was a very stupid one since even the most obtuse CIO can
work out that it's FUD, when they have it explained to them what a
zSeries actually is.

--
Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
"Veni, vidi, velcro...
I came, I saw, I stuck around"

My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2004
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:08:49 +1300, thing wrote:

> Nathan Mercer wrote:
>> thing wrote:
>>
>>> Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
>>> wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
>>> flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
>>> differences are not so big, or worse?
>>>
>>> Or SuSe's version based on the 2.6 kernel?
>>>
>>> Lol, Yet more lacking of credibilty....
>>>
>>> Are you watching Nathan?

>>
>>
>> Which study are you referring to?

>
> When I clicked on the advert to take me to go look it was not there....
>
> Guess it got hanked....


Okay so, just when did Red Hat reach 2.1? You are talking about the
server version yes?
 
Reply With Quote
 
thing
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2004
Nathan Mercer wrote:
> thing wrote:
>
>> Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
>> wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
>> flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
>> differences are not so big, or worse?
>>
>> Or SuSe's version based on the 2.6 kernel?
>>
>> Lol, Yet more lacking of credibilty....
>>
>> Are you watching Nathan?

>
>
> Which study are you referring to?


When I clicked on the advert to take me to go look it was not there....

Guess it got hanked....

regards

Thing

 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2004
thing wrote:
> Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
> wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
> flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
> differences are not so big, or worse?


Actually, there's a good side to this. Companies that are smart enough to
see through the FUD will get an advantage over those who pay the Micro$oft
tax. Like, survival of the fittest.


Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mackin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2004
Gordon wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:08:49 +1300, thing wrote:
>
>> Nathan Mercer wrote:
>>> thing wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
>>>> wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
>>>> flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
>>>> differences are not so big, or worse?
>>>>
>>>> Or SuSe's version based on the 2.6 kernel?
>>>>
>>>> Lol, Yet more lacking of credibilty....
>>>>
>>>> Are you watching Nathan?
>>>
>>>
>>> Which study are you referring to?

>>
>> When I clicked on the advert to take me to go look it was not there....
>>
>> Guess it got hanked....

>
> Okay so, just when did Red Hat reach 2.1? You are talking about the
> server version yes?


The current version of RH Enterprise is v3, released in September 2003.
http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/21features/

Mackin
 
Reply With Quote
 
NOSPAM@NOSPAM.invalid.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2004
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:51:25 +1300, Mackin wrote:

>>>>> Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
>>>>> wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
>>>>> flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
>>>>> differences are not so big, or worse?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or SuSe's version based on the 2.6 kernel?
>>>>>
>>>>> Lol, Yet more lacking of credibilty....
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you watching Nathan?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which study are you referring to?
>>>
>>> When I clicked on the advert to take me to go look it was not there....
>>>
>>> Guess it got hanked....

>>
>> Okay so, just when did Red Hat reach 2.1? You are talking about the
>> server version yes?

>
> The current version of RH Enterprise is v3, released in September 2003.
> http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/21features/


RedHat 2.1 was released many years ago. The latest release of RedHat is
Fedora Core 3.0 beta.

RedHat Enterprise Server is a different distro, albeit by the same
corporation - as different a product as Windows 2003 Datacentre is from
Windows NT/XP.


Divine

--
"Outlook is the security equivalent of wearing condoms with the ends cut
off - for greater comfort and ease of use."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Nathan Mercer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2004
thing wrote:
> Nathan Mercer wrote:
>
>> thing wrote:
>>
>>> Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
>>> wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
>>> flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
>>> differences are not so big, or worse?
>>>
>>> Or SuSe's version based on the 2.6 kernel?
>>>
>>> Lol, Yet more lacking of credibilty....
>>>
>>> Are you watching Nathan?

>>
>>
>>
>> Which study are you referring to?

>
>
> When I clicked on the advert to take me to go look it was not there....
>
> Guess it got hanked....


Is it the Forrester report "Windows Users Have Fewer Vulnerabilities"

mentioned on http://microsoft.com/getthefacts ??

Cheers
Nathan
 
Reply With Quote
 
thing
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2004
Gordon wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:08:49 +1300, thing wrote:
>
>
>>Nathan Mercer wrote:
>>
>>>thing wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
>>>>wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
>>>>flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
>>>>differences are not so big, or worse?
>>>>
>>>>Or SuSe's version based on the 2.6 kernel?
>>>>
>>>>Lol, Yet more lacking of credibilty....
>>>>
>>>>Are you watching Nathan?
>>>
>>>
>>>Which study are you referring to?

>>
>>When I clicked on the advert to take me to go look it was not there....
>>
>>Guess it got hanked....

>
>
> Okay so, just when did Red Hat reach 2.1? You are talking about the
> server version yes?


Yes.

For the "open versions" this page details some dates,

http://fedora.redhat.com/about/history/

Ive done some googling and failed to find a release date for 2.1, I
would hunch at 2002.

regards

thing














 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New site: CarFax -- get your car facts for free koukine@gmail.com NZ Computing 0 08-31-2008 08:31 AM
An analysis of Linux TCO and MS's "get the facts campaign.... thing2 NZ Computing 20 02-14-2006 11:49 PM
OT: What is considered "trivia" facts about GigE? Nocturnal MCSE 104 12-02-2005 10:48 PM
Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering Casey Hawthorne Java 0 11-23-2004 08:36 PM
3 Interesting Uselss Facts to tease your brain. Jeff Ellis Computer Support 1 07-29-2004 10:23 PM



Advertisments