🚀 go-pugleaf

Peter Samuelson wrote:
> 
> [PJ <kyang@asiaonline.net>]
> > We use Windows95 to dial-up our ISPs and then make an connection
> > (PPP) to the UNIX server in the ISP, right?  So, why always UNIX??
> > Not NT 4.0 server? Can NT handle this job? if yes, why not ISP use NT
> > instead?
> 
> 1. Are you trolling?  The rest of this post assumes you're asking an
>    honest question....
> 
> 2. Well -- why WOULD you want to use NT 4.0 instead?  I sure wouldn't.
> 
> 3. To clarify the above: Yes, NT can handle this job.
> 
>    If you pay Microsoft a lot of money for the right software and for
>    enough licenses, and you don't mind the licensing terms (example:
>    you don't get to buy your choice of web server software -- the NT
>    Server license forces you to run Microsoft IIS).
> 
>    If you pay your hardware vendors a lot of money to get faster
>    computers, to make up for the relatively high CPU and memory
>    overhead for running NT.
> 
>    If you pay your tech support people enough money to handle things
>    like adding user accounts in NT, since those kinds of things are
>    a lot harder to automate than in Unix.
> 
>    If you don't want to do things like DNS hosting.
> 
>    If you don't mind always having to sit in front of a server to
>    operate it, rather than taking advantage of Unix's facilities to let
>    you operate any server from anywhere.
> 
>    If security isn't an issue for you.
> 
>    If you have the kinds of users that won't complain about occasional
>    server crashes.  (Then again, if the clients are all using Win95,
>    they'll probably be pretty forgiving.)
> 
> The point is, NT is a vastly inferior product for hosting an ISP (and
> for about anything else I can think of, but I won't go there).  And
> most ISP's know this.
> 
> --
> Peter Samuelson
> <sampo.creighton.edu ! psamuels>

First of all I would like to agree with everything Peter has written
above and I am going to add my own jottings!

Why would anyone want to use NT full stop! 

We have 2 customers who use NT Server 4.0 to run the package we write at
work. They both have constant networking problems. In addition the
overhead of the server running a graphical interface (which is pointless
really since it is locked away in a server room) gobbles up resources
meaning that to get a similar speed you need to have a system with more
RAM, faster CPU etc etc. 

I will note here that running our application on a UNIX box with just a
P100 CPU and single SCSI-2 disk with users "telnet"ing in outperforms an
NT box with a P233 and RAID disk system with the users Win95 machines
starting their own runtimes by a visible amount!

Here are some reasons why UNIX is used by ISPs and NT is not:

NT is *CRAP* 

I have heard people say that NT tries to be UNIX. It's not trying very
hard in my opinion! Give me UNIX any day. 

The Internet was built around UNIX boxes. 

UNIX is far more established than NT is. 

It's far more robust - switch off the power on a UNIX box and an NT box
and see which one throws a wobbly. Yes you've guessed it!


Is it obvious by now that I am not keen on NT

-- 
Richard Howlett

mailto:howie@tcp.co.uk