From: "Adam Flinton" 

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