> > But even Unix TCP/IP do not always respond as it should - what about
>> SYN stealth scans?
> Craig I. Hagan <hagan @
> what about them? you are ignoring the disease by addressing the
> symptoms. the fact is that you can't yet state with certainity
> that MS's tcp code is safe/secure.
Seems like this is going to degrade in another o/s flame war.. :-)
NT TCP/IP is good enough as a server platform for a company doing a
turnover of almost one billion dollar a year. They've been using NT for 4-5
years now. Sure there's been problems but most of them were resolved. Safe
and secure? Well, if you have proper security policies and software in
place and properly trained staff then why not?
> hundreds of users isn't high volume. more imporatantly, hundreds
> of users with what expectation of response time? I would expect
> sub-second (200ms) worst case response time for a production
> DB engine with so low a load.
Aw come on! Since when has the actual implementation of a protocol stack
played a huge part in response times? Response times have more to do with
the physical network (bridges, routers, etc), buggy network drivers,
network service software and so on. And you expect sub-second response from
an OLTP system running accros a WAN with 300+ users! - I really doubt that.
A single bad SQL statement from a dumb user can trash db performance. Or
some wise guy doing a FTP across the WAN overloading the band witdh!
> I would argue that NT still has much more flak to go as fortune 1000
> companies start trying to take it out of pilot and into production for
> certain 'mission critical' applications.
The flak NT has been receiving in many cases are IMHO just because some
Unix lovers dislike Bill Gates (who doesn't?) and hate the idea of another
operating system addressing the same server market. Agreed, NT is by far
not mature as UNIX, but to simply disregard it as buggy and u/s contradicts
_many_ companies that are using NT as the standard departmental server
platform. And as I mentioned, NT is used to run mission critical systems
and _has_ proved to be robust and stable enough.
> I argue that the ideas behind NT -- that unix, although a good operating
> system, is too complex for the average business due to the scarcity of
> knowledgeable people -- is reasonable. however, to then say that NT is
> good because it is the _only_ OS to fill that need (regardless of
> shortcomings) is a little premature.
Agreed. But AFAIK only Microsoft's marketing engine is spouting the crap
that NT is the only o/s to fill the need. Personally, I rather be running
database engines on Unix than on NT because of hardware scalebility, but
that does not eliminate NT as good alternative.
> Currently, i don't consider it
> reasonable to compare a young (few year old) os against unix which has
> been around for a generation in terms of robustness, etc.
Hehehe. Why not? Unix is not that high and mighty! :-) SVR4 has only
recently been established as the standard - before that Unix seldom was
Unix. And I still can not port some of my SVR4 code between different Unix
implementations - so much for sourcecode portability. And be sure that with
MPP, the Unix path will be split again when it comes to implementing DLM's
and other MPP features.