http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/web/news/msnw/Hotmail.asp was "Last Updated:
Monday, March 01, 1999"
I don't know what their back-end is today, but when did M$ buy hotmail? When
was IIS first released? Notice the disparity? I've seen migrations from IBM
mainframes to NT take less time, with a LOT less resources than what M$ has
made available to hotmail. The amount of time they (M$) claim to need for said
migration speaks volumes about M$'s compatibility with the rest of the
networked world. The excuse that migrations take time and planning, while
true, does not explain the gap between M$'s purchase of hotmail and March 1,
1999 and comes up lame. I think the main reason comes back (as with any reason
for running *NIX over NT) to performance, reliability, scalability, and
security (I'd personally throw in TCO, but a good sys admin is hard to find).
Jacob
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, you wrote:
> That's a good start, but it came out in 1998. In computer terms, a lifetime
> ago. Is there any more recent evidence?
>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thornton Prime [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 3:43 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: OT: Anybody else gettin' sick of Ballmer's BS?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 21 Mar 2001, Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote:
> >
> > > "jack wallen, jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > The site www.hotmail.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on
> > Windows 2000.
> > >
> > > That only say what the front web server is running... the back is
> > > still running on Solaris, AFAIR.
> >
> >
> > Microsoft's woes with Hotmail and Windows NT are fairly well
> > documented.
> > Here is one link:
> >
> > http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/hotmail.html
> >
> > Indeed, Microsoft's HotMail, Disney, Compaq, and many other
> > popular sites
> > appear to serve their sites using IIS, but the servers are
> > usually just
> > proxies for content stored on real servers, often running
> > Solaris or Linux.
> >
> > Part of this is because of PR -- many companies have signed service
> > contracts with Microsoft that require high profile MS
> > deployments -- and
> > also because IIS can (when well administered) be a good
> > server for stattic
> > and cached content.
> >
> > There is a long standing rumor floating around that the majority of
> > Microsoft's static site is actually served from custom
> > webservers running
> > on MS-DOS.
> >
> > thornton
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Redhat-list mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Redhat-list mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
--
Jacob Killian
PGTC System Administrator
<mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://www.pgtc.net>
501-846-7245
"Long may we walk" --my mom
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list