Chris Osborn wrote:
>
> Robert Dana wrote:
> >
> > OK, I'm getting really frustrated about the lack of details about NT's
> > deficiencies. I couldn't care less about OS bigotry- I'll use whatever systems
> >
> [text deleted]
> >
> > Scott Barman <scott @
Disclosure .
COM> writes:
> > > Hopefully, when folks put NT on the internet, they will find the same
> > > thing I found through experimentation: it has multitasking that can't
> > > get out of its own way, it can't handle the load of a medium-low
> > > environment, and if something goes wrong, there isn't a quick interface
> > > to fix things (by passing that maze of twisty little menus all
> > > different!).
>
This is a valid argument against using NT. Many operations in NT do require many
levels of menus to finally find the correct option. It is often easier to give
technical support to the poor user by telling them "type kill -HUP blah" instead of
"click on this, click on that", etc etc. This is especially true when troubleshooting
and many modifications must be made in rapid sucession until the "right one" is
found. Much troubleshooting time on NT is waiting for the GUI(or rebooting the
server) The command line can be the difference between 5 minutes of downtime or 1/2
hour of downtime(expand that forward as appropriate).
>
Of course NT applications could be written with the command line options available.
>
The NT command line isn't that shabby but the application builders are not allowing
use of it.
>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Yea, it's called living the hype and beliving the b.s. from marketing
> > > machines. No controversy here--especially when I don't believe what I
> > > read or hear from know M.$.... err... b.s. artists.
> >
> > I don't mean to single Scott out- his is just the most recent example. We can
> > bitch about MS's unsubstantiated marketing claims all we want, but making
> > similarly unsubstantiated claims opposing them doesn't help at all. Exactly
> > what are the deficiencies of the IP or TCP implementations of NT for the
> > environment most of us care about (IP over ethernet)? Why won't a firewall on
> > NT be capable of handling a connection faster than 64k?
>
Unfortunatly we can't be sure(if it is indeed the case). One can fire packets at the
machine and say X packets were dropped and be sure about that. BUT..
As to why they are dropped, there are a limited number of ways to find out:
1) Look at the source and find the ineffecient code:-).
2) try changing the registry until performance improves although I
have found that more cryptic than a lot of source code
a) the gui makes this take a LONG time as you wait for it to
load
>
As with others, I would feel more comforatable hearing NUMBERS to back up some of
these claims about firewall XXX on OS YYY being slow/fast. Inclusion of any relevent
data would be nice. This does not only apply to NT based firewalls.
>
[text deleted]
>
> > ep your OS religion to yourself. Sure, UNIX is what I'm most
> > comfortable with for now, but that doesn't change the fact that I have to deal
> > with NT whether I want to or not. GIVE US FACTS.
>
NT is coming along fast. I think microsoft has pumped a lot of money into it and many
corporation are going to NT based solutions. Why? One because they are at the same
stage that IBM was a few years ago ... remember "Can't go wrong with buying IBM".
>
Two, it is easy to use. Unix had a shot but lost out. Nobody wanted to make unix BOTH
easy to use and powerful. There are finally (within the last couple years) firewalls
and other apps under UNIX that use a decent GUI. I could rant on how there are 15
diferent guis for unix etc etc.
>
Is NT ready for prime time corporate networking including use in the firewall arena?
Not really, for example rebooting is far to common a procedure when doing anything on
NT. Don't want to be rebooting my mission critical server every time I change a
network configuration.
>
NT is getting better with each revision and will be a force to be reconed with as the
processors and memory get cheaper.
>
All these comments are made by UNIX weinee.
>
> >
> > -Robert
> >
> > --
> > Robert Dana <bob @
worldcom .
com> (713) 650-6522 x240
> > Director of Network Services
> > WorldCom, the International Network for Lotus Notes
>
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Chris Osborn BBN Planet
cosborn @
bbnplanet .
com Software Engineer
|
|
