Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 31st Dec 2003 18:41 UTC
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Well, I can understand the reason why OSX is selected best Desktop OS. But I think selecting Windows Server 2003 as the best server OS is unintelligible.
Let's see:
Number of platforms that you can run WS2003: 1 (i386)
Number of platforms you can run Linux: 20
Number of platforms you can run NetBSD (approx.): Anything that has a cpu
Well, I think the comparison is over. There is no need to look at other areas like cluster-computing, number of cpu's per machine, scalablity (can run in watches, pdas, desktops, low-end servers, and server-farms. guess what it is)...
But of course if you want to just click and run a web server, WS2003 might be ideal...