>>As an internet host, I wouldn't hesitate to use one. It's easy to setup
>>common Inet services on NT, most of the services are provided with the NT
>>resource kit or are included with NT OS. (You can download the resource kit
>>software from ftp.microsoft.com) FTP server comes with NT, HTTPS, WAISS,
>>GOPHERS, and DNS services are on the resource kit. The Remote Access Service
>>can provide dial-in PPP-access as well as IPX and NetBEUI, over telephone
>>and ISDN.
If you want a great non-UNIX Internet host, use OS/2 and TCP/IP V2 for OS/2,
which has the added advantage of being almost exactly bsd-like in its command
syntax, and actually implements those esoteric (sarcasm) protocols such as DNS
and SMTP, rather than writing wrappers around MS' "improved" protocols.
>>As an internet host, I wouldn't hesitate to use one. It's easy to setup
>
>It is obvious to me that you have never really done this. You're most
>likely basing this on marketing/advocacy propaganda, and never actually
>_tried_ to use NT for any of the above. Try it sometime, you'll
>see why trying to use NT for anything but a web server is a waste of
>time.
It isn't even good as a web server. OS/2 with Fan's NCSA-based HTTPD 1.04 is
faster and easier to install and (as far as I'm concerned, and I'm willing to
back the contention up) inherently more secure. BSD/OS 2.0 rolls out of the box
with only a config_www as a fine HTTP server.
But I digress. You neglect the sheep factor, which is why corporate America has
been waiting--what, four years now?--for MS to produce a 32bit multitasking OS
when UNIX has been around for decades and (yes, I'm an OS/2 fan :-) OS/2 2.x has
been around since 1991/2.
Andy Robinson
NMI/IES
|
|
