| 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 |
 |
Reliability Survey: Windows Servers Beat Linux Boxes | |
|
||
| Time: 07:51 EST/12:51 GMT | News Source: Yahoo News | Posted By: John Quigley | ||
|
Windows 2003 Server is a more reliable server operating system than Linux, a research firm said Monday. According to the Yankee Group's annual server reliability survey, only Unix-based operating systems such as HP-UX and Sun Solaris 10 beat Windows on uptime. Windows 2003 Server, in fact, led the popular Red Hat Enterprise Linux with nearly 20 percent more annual uptime. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 319 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:23:28 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/7/2006 9:38:07 AM |
|
Hmmm. Long-time MS Partner the Yankee Group says Windows beats Linux in uptime, but only because their techs don't know what they're doing with Linux and have to look everything up. And, as usual, they trot out long-time MS booster & F/OSS enemy Laura DiDio to talk about it. I'm surprised they didn't ask Rob Enderle for his opinion too. I'll provide it for him: "Yay Windows! Boo Linux!"
|
| #2 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 6/7/2006 11:10:40 AM |
|
This article certainly meshes with our experience using Windows Server 2003 on dozens of servers. We even have Windows Server 2003 running on 44 ancient PII 400's with 384MB of ram out in schools and they've run very reliably under atrocious circumstances.
#1 Latch has zero experience to counter such an article - so he trots out the usual Slashdot type smear tactics. 11 kernel patches http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rhel4as-errata.html in just 15 months. Tons of critical updates. Even Morton and Torvalds agree the Linux 2.6 kernel is unstable. This post was edited by NotParker on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 at 11:11. |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/7/2006 11:46:01 AM |
|
#2: Is that right? Well, even Neowin is calling B.S. on this one:
http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=33511 And please, stop putting words in other people's mouths to try and support your hyperbole. Neither said the Linux kernel was unstable. |
| #4 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 6/7/2006 12:29:38 PM |
|
#3 Neowin? Which facts do they dispute? I see them calling names. I see nothing of interest.
"Additional key results for the independent, non-sponsored Yankee Group 2006 Global Server Reliability Survey show that on average, individual corporate Linux, Windows and Unix servers experience three to five failures per server per year, resulting in 10.0 to 19.5 hours of annual downtime for each server. In addition, standard Red Hat Enterprise Linux and niche open source vendors gained more outage time compared to Windows or Unix competitors. Yankee Group determined a significant portion of this outage time is attributed to the scarcity of Linux and open source documentation compared to the more mature, established operating systems. Underlying these findings is the crucial point that TCO metrics such as reliability, performance, security and management ultimately depend on an individual company’s implementation. " http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39267255,00.htm "Linux kernel maintainer Andrew Morton may force developers to devote one kernel cycle to fix long-standing bugs in the Linux kernel Andrew Morton, the lead maintainer of the Linux production kernel, is worried that an increasing number of defects are appearing in the 2.6 kernel and is considering drastic action to resolve it. "I believe the 2.6 kernel is slowly getting buggier. It seems we're adding bugs at a higher rate than we're fixing them," Morton said, in a talk at the LinuxTag conference in Wiesbaden, Germany, on Friday. |
| #5 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 6/7/2006 12:31:17 PM |
|
#1 If Yankee Group are doing the work of the devil (Microsoft), why did they rate Unix as more reliable?
Don't be such a poor loser Latch. Your hatred of Microsoft makes all OSS fanatics look like immature goofs. |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/7/2006 1:24:57 PM |
|
#4: Of course you see nothing of interest, since what I linked to counters your pro-MS belief system. Neowin said the same thing I said yesterday: if your Linux servers are down that much because your IT guys are clueless, then it's time to fire them and get some guys that know what they're doing.
As for your assertion that Torvalds and Morton say the Linux kernel is unstable, I've read that entire article you linked to and I don't see the word 'unstable' in there anywhere. I see them admit that they'd like to clean up some bugs that have hung around too long. I don't see where they both say the kernel is unstable. Maybe I'm blind. Can you point it out for me with specificity? #5: Who knows? Maybe it's because MS is fighting Linux, not Unix. Maybe it's because they recognize that any shred of credibility they had would be obliterated if they ranked Windows #1? |
| #7 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 6/7/2006 1:41:43 PM |
|
#6 "if your Linux servers are down that much because your IT guys are clueless, then it's time to fire them and get some guys that know what they're doing."
Yeankee Group: 10 to 19.5 hours downtime in a year. Neowin: "For your Linux box to have 20% more downtime it'd have to only be up for 292 days." Neowin and Latch: On drugs! |
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/7/2006 1:51:18 PM |
|
#7: This *objective* study sounds a lot like last year's study:
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2005/04/the_truth_about_1.html and just about as useful. |
| #9 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 6/7/2006 2:25:09 PM |
|
#8 Yup. Annual studies are done once a year.
And people are still happy with Windows 2003. Do you have any counter evidence ... other than bigotry? |
| #10 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/7/2006 2:34:44 PM |
|
#9: I have mountains of evidence and I'll be happy to show it all to you, just as soon as you show me where Torvalds and Morton specifically said the Linux kernel was unstable.
|
| #11 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 6/7/2006 4:01:22 PM |
|
"I have mountains of evidence"
Very funny. "It seems we're adding bugs at a higher rate than we're fixing them," Morton said" http://uk.builder.com/programming/unix/0,39026612,39269158,00.htm "At present, all patches are first merged with a code branch maintained by Morton, called the -mm tree, before they reach the main code branch. This means that Morton is responsible for initially testing and stabilising all patches, which Torvalds was concerned could be too heavy a workload." So ... if bugs are being added at a higher rate than can be fixed, Morton cannot stablise the Linux kernel. If something isn't stabilized, it is unstable. Elementary logic. |
| #12 By 28801 (68.45.209.133) at 6/7/2006 5:11:49 PM |
| This round goes to Parker! |
| #13 By 8273 (24.17.214.18) at 6/8/2006 12:58:17 AM |
|
Latch, you wrote: "And please, stop putting words in other people's mouths to try and support your hyperbole."
But before that, you wrote: "I'm surprised they didn't ask Rob Enderle for his opinion too. I'll provide it for him: 'Yay Windows! Boo Linux!'" Is that not you putting words in the mouths of other people? So it is OK for you to do it, but then you profess that others are doing it and that is bad? But of course, this board is full of you complaining of others doing something, but saying it is OK for you and what you support to do the same. |
| #14 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 6/8/2006 2:49:12 AM |
|
Q: Was The Yankee Group paid by MSFT for this study?
A: No Q: Is The Yankee Group an independent research house? A: Yes Q: Is latch a hopeless hater with nothing better to do than frequent a MICROSOFT site multiple times per day A: Yes Q: Did NotParker take latch to the mat? A: Yes This post was edited by mooresa56 on Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 02:49. |
| #15 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/8/2006 8:36:19 AM |
|
#11: Elementary idiocy is more like it.
#13: The difference is that Parkkker is portraying people as saying things they would never say. Rob Enderle has been an MS cheerleader for many years now and I merely paraphrased what he usually says. #14: Geez, all of Parkkker's mini-me's are coming out of the woodwork today. btw I correcte dyour post for you: Q: Was The Yankee Group paid by MSFT for this study? A: No Q: Is The Yankee Group an independent research house? A: Not even close. Q: Is mooresa56 a hopeless MS drone with nothing better to do than frequent a MICROSOFT site multiple times per day and say "me too!" to Parkker's posts? A: Yes Q: Did NotParker take latch to the mat? A: Hardly. But your Waylon Smithers impression to Parkkkker's Mr. Burns is cute. |
| #16 By 47914 (24.225.231.107) at 6/8/2006 9:41:00 AM |
| #15 the more you say on this one, the more pathetic you look |
| #17 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/8/2006 9:57:25 AM |
| #16: Perhaps you've mistaken me for someone who gives a rat's ass about what you think? Wow, 6 whole posts. Who are you really? Parkkker or moron56? |
| #18 By 47914 (24.225.231.107) at 6/8/2006 9:58:42 AM |
|
Ouch..that hurts Why do you want to know who I am if you don't give a rat's....?? This post was edited by mirt on Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 10:00. |
| #19 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/8/2006 10:36:30 AM |
| #18: Well, you've got Parkkker's amazing comprehension skills. Go read what I wrote again. Actually, nevermind as that will take too long. Let me explain it for you. Try to follow along. I said that I don't give a rat's ass what you think. "what you think" != "who you are". |
| #20 By 47914 (24.225.231.107) at 6/8/2006 11:10:33 AM |
| #19 you apparently have a comprehension problem, too...reread post # 16. Let me explain, the more you post in this thread, the more pathetic you look. |
| #21 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/8/2006 12:02:32 PM |
|
#20: I comprehend just fine. I read your post, understood it and then dismissed it as irrelevant nonsense.
|
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 319 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:23:28 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
