From: "Adam Flinton" 

Right so " It's well known that Linux has less functionality." is
a simple false generalization.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Adam



"Rich"  wrote in message news:3e693fb6$1{at}w3.nls.net...
   You ignored the specific features I mentioned again.

Rich

  "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
news:3e6938ee$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  No I don't have to prove a generalization, you do. To destroy your
  generalization I need merely show examples which show that your
  generalization is false.

  I could go through many other examples (e.g. distributed cluster computing
  tools for Windows vs Linux ) that demonstrate that you were throwing out a
  false generalization just as you claim others do.


  adam

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e693320{at}w3.nls.net...
     NTFS is more than just a journal file system.  I notice you ignored
  everything else.  Cat got you tongue?

  Rich

    "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
  news:3e692dfe{at}w3.nls.net...
    I don't have to start with a non specific generalization I could simply
    reverse your exmples to show the facile nature of your generalization.

    e.g re NTFS How many Journalled File Systems has Windows got? XFS? JFS?
    Ext3? ReiserFS?

    So in simple journalled filesystem support  it's well known that Windows
  has
    less functionality.

    Adam

    "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e68c81f{at}w3.nls.net...
       Where do you want to start?  NTFS, ACLs, compression, EFS,
    ActiveDirectory, integrated security, etc.  And this is without going
  beyond
    the file system nor is it a complete list for just the file system.

    Rich

      "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
    news:3e6853c2$1{at}w3.nls.net...

      "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e67d5e4$1{at}w3.nls.net...
      >   Can you be specific instead of hot air and hand waving?

       >  It's well known that Linux has less functionality.

      Gone on then specify what you mean by that last comment. Can you be
    specific
      instead of hot air and hand waving?


      Adam

      If you want to roll your own it can cost less for Linux, assuming your
    time
      is worth nothing.  If you want to use a supported version, like from
    RedHat,
      expect to spend much more for your annual subscription.  They will
sell
    you
      a subscription to red hat linux advanced server for $1499 per year.
If
    you
      want their supported enterprise level web server you are going to pay
      another $395 to $895 annually.  That's more than four to six times
more
      expensive than the Windows Server 2003 solution.

      Rich

        "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
      news:3e67b7d1{at}w3.nls.net...
        Less functionality, higher cost. Ease of use is a draw, but it would
    have
      to be even cheaper just for a web server.

        - Bob Comer


          "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e67b63f{at}w3.nls.net...
             By what criteria and how so?

          Rich

            "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
      news:3e67ae88$1{at}w3.nls.net...
            That's not good enough to compete with Linux.

            - Bob Comer


            "Geo."  wrote in message
      news:3e67a4e1$1{at}w3.nls.net...
            > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/29567.html
            >
            > There will be no price increases (as such) when Microsoft
ships
    its
      next
            > server OS, Windows Server 2003, on April 24th, but there will
be
  a
      new
            > budget-priced version of the product aimed squarely at the web
      server
            > market. Server 2003 Web Edition comes without client access
      licences, with
            a
            > 2gig limit on memory, 2-way SMP, and is $399.
            >
            >

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4