| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Windows more stable than Linux: Stratus | |
|
||
| Time: 09:58 EST/14:58 GMT | News Source: ZDNet Australia | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Stephen Kiely, the chairman of Stratus Technologies told ZDNet Australia it is "an open book" whether Linux or Windows will eventually dominate the server market, but Stratus has thrown its lot in with Microsoft. "It's better. Contrary to public opinion it's more stable," said Kiely. While this comment would raise a howl of protest from open source proponents pointing at the history of the two operating systems, Kiely stands his ground. "Things always look different through the rear vision mirror than out the windscreen." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 143 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:58:35 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/24/2003 11:15:10 AM |
|
There are two aspects to stability.
One aspect is the ability of the box to stay up without problems. The other aspect is how frequently the technologies change underneath you, requiring upgrades and what that might break. Win2k is pretty stable in terms of staying up. I think Windows is already pushing the limits in terms of how frequently things change underneath you. And that's with a roughly 2 years between major changes. Linux on the other hand has historically been about 6 months between major changes, and while Microsoft puts some thought into backwards compatibility there is hardly thought on this any with Linux. Why? Because it's easier... maintaining interfaces is hard work. |
| #2 By 415 (199.8.71.121) at 2/24/2003 12:10:55 PM |
|
For example, we have a database server (behind our firewall) that runs Windows 2000 SP3 and MS SQL Server 7.0 SP4. As of this moment the server has been up... (name disguised to protect the innocent)
"H:\>uptime \\spongebob \\spongebob has been up for: 198 day(s), 16 hour(s), 22 minute(s), 4 second(s)" The last reboots were to install Windows 2000 SP3 and a couple other hotfixes, and in the meantime the only service that has been restarted is the SQL Agent, because it stopped sending e-mail through SQL Mail. My previous database server was Windows NT 4.0 SP6a with SQL Server 6.5 SP5. I wasn't quite able to reach the 180 day mark with that guy, BUT I didn't want to!! My company DID NOT have a firewall at the time, and that server was exposed to the internet! So, in that case, it was very smart of me to install all the service packs and hotfixes very quickly, AND often! Sometimes it's OK to trade stability and up-time for security and robustness. So when you talk about stability, you have to consider more things than just bugs, patches, and reboots. It's also your ability to recover from problems without restarting the server or its services. I've seen plenty of people confuse database locks (blocked tables) with the need to "reboot the server" ... it's sad really... |
| #3 By 415 (199.8.71.121) at 2/24/2003 12:18:48 PM |
|
Isn't it funny how the media always worries about what the linux community might think when someone compliments Microsoft or Windows? Like the Linux community is some huge group of people. The reality is that the Windows cummunity (admins, developers, enthusiasts) is roughly 20 times the size.
I'm not trying to start an argument, but it's just interesting to me how the media sees Linux through sort of a different lense. This post was edited by IronCladLou on Monday, February 24, 2003 at 12:27. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/24/2003 1:40:52 PM |
|
IronCladLou - It's the Amiga advocacy syndrome. Say anything bad about the Amiga, or good about the PC and you'll be deluged with hate mail. The same thing happened with OS/2, the Mac and now it's happening with Linux.
zzkj7w - "but that doesn't mean users of the desktops particpate in a community. " Something I learned from when I had an Amiga... The Windows community is not a defined set, it's everybody. That is to say, there is no need for a "community" because you don't need to be handheld to make your PC work when it has Windows. |
| #5 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 2/24/2003 11:28:36 PM |
|
Flight - I honestly have to laugh when people talk about Unix/Linux stability, because not to long ago Unix/Linux wasn't that stable.
It's as though you're suddenly having this realization that software improves over time! |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 143 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:58:35 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
