Linked by David Adams on Thu 17th Jul 2008 05:59 UTC, submitted by Caffeine Deprived
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Microsoft's Windows beat operating system rivals Mac OS X and Ubuntu in a three-month test of update server uptime, according to Pingdom, a Swedish uptime monitoring company.
Order by: Score:
Wow...
by Kwitschibo on Thu 17th Jul 2008 06:29 UTC
Kwitschibo
Member since:
2006-01-17

What's the point?

Edited 2008-07-17 06:30 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Wow...
by Jokel on Thu 17th Jul 2008 07:03 UTC in reply to "Wow..."
Jokel Member since:
2006-06-01

The point is that using Ubuntu you have a 1.4% risk you have to wait longer than 10 full endless minutes to get your updates if you are only using two specific mirrors. That's very, very, very, very, very, very bad!!!! You can't use Linux because it's totally unreliable!!! Use only Windows, because Windows is allway's reliable and up-to-date and..... ehh, wait a moment here...

It sounds a bit strange to me they choose only one populair distro to measure the (implied) reliability of the complete Linux range. Canonical is big, but not that big. How about RedHat? Would they be a bit more reliable, just because they have more physical servers available? What about Linux from Novell (Opensuse, SUSE Linux Enterprise)? They have far more update servers available than Canonical. What about Debian? Etct. etc.

Do they really need something like this to put Windows in a better daylight? If that is the case Linux must be gaining more momentum than I was thinking. On the other hand - Microsoft is a company that wont accept any competition at all. They are willing to throw in billions of dollars amd lots of "payed research", just to stamp out something that is threathning to gain more than 0,000001% of their market share. Linux must be a total nightmare for them by now...

Reply Score: 20

RE[2]: Wow...
by Stephen! on Thu 17th Jul 2008 11:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow..."
Stephen! Member since:
2007-11-24

you have to wait longer than 10 full endless minutes to get your updates


Oh well, patience is a virtue, as they say ....

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Wow...
by TaterSalad on Thu 17th Jul 2008 13:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow..."
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah because Microsoft COULDN'T POSSIBLY make a good server OS that would stay up 100% of the time for 3 months?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wow...
by systyrant on Thu 17th Jul 2008 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow..."
systyrant Member since:
2007-01-18

Of course Microsoft can make a server that can stay running for three contiguous months. Server 2003 is a pretty good server OS. I'm sure 2008 is a good one as well.

The reality is that Ubuntu and Apple servers aren't down enough for anybody to really notice. It's truly a pointless article.

Now if Ubuntu or Apple servers were down 25% or more this article would have some relevance since the end user might actually notice the down time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wow...
by ashyanbhog on Thu 17th Jul 2008 14:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow..."
ashyanbhog Member since:
2006-08-24

Netcraft "what's that site running" shows www.update.microsoft.com was rebooted one day ago. Average uptime is shown as 23days and max uptime of about 30 days

http://www.update.microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.update.micro...

Does that mean W2K3 server can only run 23 days before a reboot?

The point here is that the article is without basis and creates its own standard of measurement before declaring victory. There is no way anybody can repeat the benchmark to confirm its findings.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Wow...
by BluenoseJake on Thu 17th Jul 2008 14:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I'm sure Windows update runs on more than just one server, that was the report from the particular box (out of many) that netcraft got sent to.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Wow...
by helf on Thu 17th Jul 2008 15:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow..."
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

Uptime measurement is pointless.

Having vast uptimes means one of two things.

1. You are an idiot that never updates.
2. You are running a cluster so you just migrate processes around and reboot servers as needed.

uptime scores = penis size

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Wow...
by iserlohn on Fri 18th Jul 2008 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow..."
iserlohn Member since:
2006-02-24

If only there were operating systems that can update most portions of the OS and applications without a full reboot of the system... hum...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wow...
by risbac on Thu 17th Jul 2008 07:29 UTC in reply to "Wow..."
risbac Member since:
2007-03-29

The point? I give you the point: this company is just being clever and getting a very popular promotion campaign for 0€. The recipe is simple:

-find a topic comparing products/systems with big communities easy to upset (in this case, OS, Windows/OSX/Linux)
-publish some data related to your activity and showing an advantage for one of the competitors, it does not matter which one, or if this study is reliable or not.
-wait for the flame war to begin and to spread on the internet in a couple of days.

That's it, Pingdom just used its own service to get a fantastic promotional campaign. They just pinged 3 servers during 3 months, and the result does not even matter, as long as it shows a difference between the competitors. Honestly, we should NOT EVEN talk about this, it's exactly what they are looking for. Pointless. Yet successfull, so congrats to them I guess!

Reply Score: 16

RE[2]: Wow...
by kaiwai on Thu 17th Jul 2008 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Interesting - its funny that within a few minutes of your post and my post, our posts have been moderated down. Oxygen thieves from the said company moderated down people who think that their company is worthless.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Wow...
by netpython on Thu 17th Jul 2008 19:58 UTC in reply to "Wow..."
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

The point is in my opinion that Ubuntu has more update servers worldwide. For me archive.nl.ubuntu.com might be faster and has a higher availabilty then update.microsoft.com .

Reply Score: 3

Weird
by IvoLimmen on Thu 17th Jul 2008 06:37 UTC
IvoLimmen
Member since:
2005-07-06

According to Pingdom, Microsoft's update servers were available to users 100 per cent of the time during the three-month stretch of April, May and June, with no apparent down time. Apple's update servers, meanwhile, were offline for 2 hours and 34 minutes during that period (99.9 per cent uptime) while the main repository of Ubuntu, one of the most popular consumer distributions of Linux, was dark for 1 day, 5 hours and 45 minutes (98.6 per cent uptime).

That's not really strange, as with Windows you actually require a good working update service because of the stability of the OS, this is less for Apple and even more so for Ubuntu (Linux).
The stats just prove it ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE: Weird
by theteam on Thu 17th Jul 2008 15:33 UTC in reply to "Weird"
theteam Member since:
2007-09-28

According to Pingdom, Microsoft's update servers were available to users 100 per cent of the time during the three-month stretch of April, May and June, with no apparent down time. Apple's update servers, meanwhile, were offline for 2 hours and 34 minutes during that period (99.9 per cent uptime) while the main repository of Ubuntu, one of the most popular consumer distributions of Linux, was dark for 1 day, 5 hours and 45 minutes (98.6 per cent uptime).

That's not really strange, as with Windows you actually require a good working update service because of the stability of the OS, this is less for Apple and even more so for Ubuntu (Linux).
The stats just prove it ;)


You all damn him, but you do not see the fine irony in his words. Of course Microsoft has to have a good working update service because of the stability of Windows... just realize if it is due to the GOOD or the BAD stability of any OS that it requires the update servers to be stadily available. ;-)

Reply Score: 0

Comment by Warnaud
by Warnaud on Thu 17th Jul 2008 06:40 UTC
Warnaud
Member since:
2008-07-07

It's so great to have Microsoft Partners all around the globe! You can have daily trolls about anything. Thanks again Microsoft Marketing Department for this almighty demonstration. Tomorrow: "According to ****** Vista is the best OS ever !!"

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by Warnaud
by TaterSalad on Thu 17th Jul 2008 13:40 UTC in reply to "Comment by Warnaud"
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

How is that different from say... linux trolls around the globe doing the same thing? Or are you just upset because this article favors Microsoft and not linux?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Warnaud
by Warnaud on Thu 17th Jul 2008 13:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Warnaud"
Warnaud Member since:
2008-07-07

Just because it's paid results, that don't rely on anything interesting. It's only free advertising (troll) on Microsoft reinventing the wheel and claiming their solution is better.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Warnaud
by TaterSalad on Thu 17th Jul 2008 14:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Warnaud"
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

Are you really that naive to call PC World/IDC and Pingdom a group of Microsoft trolls? Where is the paid result? Where is the transaction? Just because it didn't say linux rules doesn't mean there is no truth to this. Now stop being an ass about it because it didn't put linux in the good light.

Reply Score: 2

ugh...
by strim on Thu 17th Jul 2008 06:51 UTC
strim
Member since:
2008-07-01

Insert random anti-Microsoft rant.

Reply Score: 10

RE: ugh...
by looncraz on Thu 17th Jul 2008 08:06 UTC in reply to "ugh..."
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

I second that emotion...

Reply Score: 1

RE: ugh...
by TaterSalad on Thu 17th Jul 2008 13:41 UTC in reply to "ugh..."
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

If only I didn't post a comment I would have modded this up.

Reply Score: 1

Pointless
by kaiwai on Thu 17th Jul 2008 07:03 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

This is a prime example of a pointless survey which proves nothing, and worse, hugely inaccurate. Take Ubuntu for example, there are literally hundreds of official and unofficial mirrors world wide.

As for the point of the survey - what was the actual point? what does it have to prove? the simple fact of the matter is, the Windows Update is a useless piece of rubbish whose reliance on an ActiveX plugin results in the freezing of browsers and all manner of problems.

I remember when my aunty was infected by the blaster worm; I got rid of it, tried to update her system through Windows Update only to find that after installing the ActiveX control, the whole browser locked up every time I tried using Windows Update. What is the point of an update facility when the very tools that facilitate the detection and provision of updates screws up the whole machine?!

Sure, Windows Vista has improved by using a local client instead of a website based update, but it isn't the damn point. The point is simply this - the fact that they have 'great uptime' on the update servers prove nothing if either the updates break things or worse, when the client itself locks up the whole computer.

As for Mac OS X/Apple, I've never once had a situation where by I've run the Apple updater and found that the server was unreachable - so I don't know what on earth they used to base their 'testing on' given that there are a whole mountain of variables - hell, their own ISP could be the cause of the problem!

The scary part, there are people who actually pay these clowns for their work.

Reply Score: 24

RE: Pointless - some historical basis
by jabbotts on Thu 17th Jul 2008 12:43 UTC in reply to "Pointless"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

The apearance of the comparison has some historical basis. Not so long ago, the mythical uptime to beat used to be Yahoo with it's BSDs showing uptime of a year or more. Being in University with the time to much around and reboot NT constantly, the idea of a year without rebooting was mindblowing. (I went the Linux based OS way, a friend went FreeBSD so we had fun jabbing each other about it.)

I'd need too understand how this comparison was monitored and analysed to have an opinion on it's value specifically. If results are from a balanced technological comparison then that's what it is. In the past, that was used by the other fan camps to indicate stability.

These days, the first thing across my mind is "hm.. no kernel updates during that year? Teeheehee... How do I get that auditing contract?"

Reply Score: 3

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

But you see, server uptime is not involved here. This was an *availability* measurement, not an *uptime* measurement. Microsoft could provide 24 servers for Windows Update and reboot one every hour, if they so chose, so long as the incoming connections always hit a live one. Implying that this makes Windows a superior OS is mind-numbingly stupid.

The real headline here is "Microsoft engineers can set up a fault tolerant, redundant service." Frankly, anyone can do that. It takes talent and planning, sure, but anyone with virtually any platform can make that happen. It says a lot more about the people who set it up and maintain it than it does about the quality of what they maintain.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

There was another comment after my post that pointed out the Windows Update cluster uses a Linux based OS back end also. Based on availability and actual platform used in the cluster; I'd say it's good news anyhow.

So, to provide a valid comparison, we'd have to measure uptime and availability against single server systems.

Reply Score: 2

Great and all...
by thecwin on Thu 17th Jul 2008 07:19 UTC
thecwin
Member since:
2006-01-04

But if they can do high availability, why does the Windows Live messenger service go down so much?

Reply Score: 11

RE: Great and all...
by Whats That There on Thu 17th Jul 2008 17:03 UTC in reply to "Great and all..."
Whats That There Member since:
2005-09-21

Windows Live servers are different servers than the Update ones. Maybe that has something to do with it.

Reply Score: 0

I have a question
by hussam on Thu 17th Jul 2008 07:20 UTC
hussam
Member since:
2006-08-17

EDIT...

Ok, nevermind. they are talking about Microsoft/Ubuntu/OSX update servers and not about customer's machines.

Edited 2008-07-17 07:32 UTC

Reply Score: 1

v Sweden
by Mellin on Thu 17th Jul 2008 09:10 UTC
RE: Sweden
by Mellin on Fri 18th Jul 2008 07:57 UTC in reply to "Sweden"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

prove me wrong!

Reply Score: 2

Ironic...
by porcel on Thu 17th Jul 2008 09:44 UTC
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

Well, windows update servers have relied for a long time on Akamai's caching and load distributing network which runs Linux, so I am not sure that these people actually proved what they set out to prove.

If you don't believe me, google for Akamai and Windows Update yourself.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Ironic...
by Whats That There on Thu 17th Jul 2008 17:05 UTC in reply to "Ironic..."
Whats That There Member since:
2005-09-21

Well, windows update servers have relied for a long time on Akamai's caching and load distributing network which runs Linux, so I am not sure that these people actually proved what they set out to prove.

If you don't believe me, google for Akamai and Windows Update yourself.

Microsoft only use Akamai for stress management, during times like the Blaster and Sasser worms. Normally, the Update servers run Windows, but during a virus outbreak, then, they switch to the Linux company.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Warnaud
by Warnaud on Thu 17th Jul 2008 10:00 UTC
Warnaud
Member since:
2008-07-07

I personnaly prefer a non 100% uptime server (I use linux and never had such trouble as there was hundred of update server, but let's imagine ;) ) but a 100% FAST update server! When installing a PC, the updates takes more time than the install itself !!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Warnaud - local repository
by jabbotts on Thu 17th Jul 2008 12:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by Warnaud"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Get yourself a local repository.

I do a lot of building VMs for various whims. Besides the time it takes for the updates to transfer and install, there is also the consumption of my monthly bandwidth alotment (ah, big name ISPs). My solution was to write a quick script against rsync and mirror the repositories on my local NAS through http. I then leave them open to my lan through my own httpd. Another script cleans out and adds the local NAS repositories. A quick rerun of the repository sync script captures any new packages. If the repositories are slow then cron the script. The rest of the traffic between various builds installing or updating happens inside my own network space at full speed. The only slowdown is the actual installing step.

With Mandriva 2009 out soon, I'll have to see about adding in another mirror set. Hopefully I can confirm that nothing is still running 2007.1 and drop that mirror out of the NAS to free up space.

Reply Score: 2

loose, loose situation
by gedmurphy on Thu 17th Jul 2008 10:17 UTC
gedmurphy
Member since:
2005-12-23

Do something bad, get shot down
Do something good, get shot down

I sometimes wonder what MS could do to avoid getting shot down.

Reply Score: 4

RE: loose, loose situation
by hollovoid on Thu 17th Jul 2008 12:39 UTC in reply to "loose, loose situation"
hollovoid Member since:
2005-09-21

Do something bad, get shot down
Do something good, get shot down

I sometimes wonder what MS could do to avoid getting shot down.


Sell Linux?

Every market has trolls on either side of the bridge, go to redneck country and listen to the ford and chevy fans duke it out, its a natural human tendancy, and people should read between the lines, make up thier own minds instead of feeding em!

Reply Score: 1

RE: loose, loose situation
by eantoranz on Thu 17th Jul 2008 12:51 UTC in reply to "loose, loose situation"
eantoranz Member since:
2005-12-18

Burst into flames an disappear? I'd be cheering at that sight!

Reply Score: 4

RE: loose, loose situation
by apoclypse on Thu 17th Jul 2008 13:24 UTC in reply to "loose, loose situation"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Stop being Microsoft.

Reply Score: 6

RE: loose, loose situation
by helf on Thu 17th Jul 2008 15:28 UTC in reply to "loose, loose situation"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

a loose, loose situations? Sounds kinky.


"lose".

Reply Score: 3

RE: loose, loose situation
by sorpigal on Fri 18th Jul 2008 10:30 UTC in reply to "loose, loose situation"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

How about "Do nothing special, get article praising your product"?

How about we change the headline to "Windows server farm run by smart Microsoft engineers provides better availability than a single Linux server"? How about we call it "Better planning allows Windows Update to be available 1% more often than Ubuntu Update"? How about next time somebody tries comparing apples to apples.

This 'article' doesn't prove one damn thing about the quality of any of the operating systems involved.

Reply Score: 2

Skewed perspective
by sardaukar on Thu 17th Jul 2008 10:18 UTC
sardaukar
Member since:
2006-05-09

The difference here is that Windows Update can only be run as a *cluster* and as such it is fairly easy to have 100% uptime since the domain is always up, while some cluster nodes are rebooting... ;)

Usually Linux does not resort to this technique to achieve high uptimes.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Skewed perspective
by FellowConspirator on Thu 17th Jul 2008 12:08 UTC in reply to "Skewed perspective"
FellowConspirator Member since:
2007-12-13

They are reporting uptime via sampling (periodically checking on the server to see if it is up).

In this particular case, they are reporting on Microsoft's Windows Update servers, which is a cluster of Linux systems.

The article is silly because it imputes that Windows is more stable than OS X or Ubuntu Linux on that basis. That's a foolish conclusion for two reasons: they weren't looking at any Windows servers, and, second, a high-availability cluster is always (well hopefully) have 100% uptime (assuming it was setup properly).

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Skewed perspective
by BluenoseJake on Thu 17th Jul 2008 15:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Skewed perspective"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

In this particular case, they are reporting on Microsoft's Windows Update servers, which is a cluster of Linux systems


Actually, Windows update runs on windows. MS uses Akamai for caching, and it is those that run Linux.

Reply Score: 2

So we know that, now what
by Janvl on Thu 17th Jul 2008 11:06 UTC
Janvl
Member since:
2007-02-20

Very very interesting.

So what do we do now we know that?
Maybe concentrate on security? Or performance?
Or something that matters, please.

Bad survey, useless point and a waste of time and energy.

Reply Score: 2

Bogus data
by Pfeifer on Thu 17th Jul 2008 11:34 UTC
Pfeifer
Member since:
2006-02-20

The Microsoft Update servers are load-balanced by Akamai. Just "monitoring" (whatever that means) the website won't give you representative data. I'd guess that the same applies for the Apple servers.

This is no test for server reliability, this is a test of how much a company can invest in redundancy and load-balance. And that Microsoft (89,809 Employees) can afford more redundancy than Canonical ( 130 Employees) shouldn't be a surprise.

Edited 2008-07-17 11:37 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Windows uptime
by chaslinux on Thu 17th Jul 2008 11:39 UTC
chaslinux
Member since:
2008-07-17

I've worked in a mixed environment for a few years now and have seen a number of Windows servers go down because of software problems. Our Linux servers have only been brought down on purpose (during the same 3 year period) for things like hard drive upgrades (commodity PCs).

Reply Score: 3

RE: Windows uptime
by rockwell on Thu 17th Jul 2008 21:25 UTC in reply to "Windows uptime"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

And of course, both the Windows and Linux boxes are on the exact same hardware and running the exact same apps coded by the exact same developers, right?

Reply Score: 2

Just crazy
by Windows Sucks on Thu 17th Jul 2008 11:41 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

Lord, they can't tout the uptime of their actual OS so they get someone to tout the uptime of their update service.

If they are still using Akamai then it's probably hosted on Linux or Unix anyway.

http://algolog.tripod.com/linux/hindu/hindu.htm

Sad, sad, sad!

Reply Score: 4

RE: Just crazy
by helf on Thu 17th Jul 2008 15:40 UTC in reply to "Just crazy"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

akamai doesn't host it. They use them for caching and what not, like LOTS of companies do.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Just crazy
by Windows Sucks on Thu 17th Jul 2008 17:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Just crazy"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Actually they don't host the pages but they mirror the content. That includes a lot of the actual patches that you install. Also the images etc you see on almost all MS pages for almost all their sites.

Reply Score: 2

v 100% Uptime
by sevrage on Thu 17th Jul 2008 12:07 UTC
Good job Microsoft...
by cmost on Thu 17th Jul 2008 12:20 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

It's nice to see them get something right. :-)

Reply Score: 6

ashyanbhog
Member since:
2006-08-24

I expect to see such f*)%^d up articles in user driven sites, not OSnews. Quality of articles on OSnews is steadily going down, the only reason I still visit it is from years of habit.

I half expected to see a MS sponsored study praising Windows, or the experience of some dude who was surprised to find Windows 2008 was pretty stable, which would have probably made me happy,

And here I am, only to find a stupid article talking about Update sever uptime!!!! Will the next article be about notepad opening faster in Windows?

You can't down mod articles in OSnews, but can down mod comments! Is it because editors selection of articles are equal to God's words and cannot be questioned but only praised (recommend)? Atleast PCworld gives the freedom to down vote and at present it has 21 negative votes against 1 up vote.

I'm taking OSnews off Google Reader, will delete OSnews account if the option is available.

Edited 2008-07-17 12:46 UTC

Reply Score: 6

Let's find out...
by AnXa on Thu 17th Jul 2008 12:44 UTC
AnXa
Member since:
2008-02-10

Let's find out in what ways Microsoft "sponsored" that Swedish uptime monitoring company.

I bet that RedHat would have offered a lot better result with their network.

Reply Score: 1

How does ping relate to update availablity
by gilljr on Thu 17th Jul 2008 13:19 UTC
gilljr
Member since:
2008-01-30

Besides the point that update availability has nothing to do with system uptime and as long as they are available during most hours occasional downtime of update servers does not matter ...

Ping is only an indicator of a server responding to ICMP. Update availability would be better tested in my mind by downloading the updates every so many minutes/hours.

Better articles would test system uptime and factor in system down time due to updates during "maintenance window".

Every OS has its PROS/CONS. I run both Windows and Linux. I have no problems with either system. When the machines are running neither seem to fail during normal operation. The only annoyance to me is that my Windows servers require reboots to often to apply updates (This has been improved by Microsoft but they still have a long way to go). My Linux servers only require reboots when I change the kernel, which is very rare.

Reply Score: 1

Servers
by chrish on Thu 17th Jul 2008 13:53 UTC
chrish
Member since:
2005-07-14

Hey, good for them. We all know how vital the Windows Update site is, since there are huge security issues being discovered daily (ok, maybe not daily, but there's a new security update that wants me to reboot almost every week).

I'd like to know what sorts of hardware/software these sites are running on. Not that it matters, these sorts of things should have a "five nines" uptime, regardless.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Servers
by TaterSalad on Thu 17th Jul 2008 14:04 UTC in reply to "Servers"
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

If you are installing security updates to reboot every week then you are doing something wrong. Microsoft sends out patches once a month on the second Tuesday of every month. I'm not sure how you can be prompted weekly when the rest of the world does it only once a month.

Reply Score: 2

cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

...if for no other reason than for the spell checking feature. The spelling and grammar in user posts recently is atrocious. I am not trying to be the grammar police, however, it strikes me as ironic that a news site geared towards technical people has comments that are written so poorly. If one is an intelligent person making an intelligent point, then one should try to do so in a post that isn't riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. Otherwise, who will take your comments seriously? Just an observation. Cheers!

Reply Score: 5

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

...if for no other reason than for the spell checking feature. The spelling and grammar in user posts recently is atrocious. I am not trying to be the grammar police, however, it strikes me as ironic that a news site geared towards technical people has comments that are written so poorly. If one is an intelligent person making an intelligent point, then one should try to do so in a post that isn't riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. Otherwise, who will take your comments seriously? Just an observation. Cheers!



I certainly didn't take this comment seriously. Grow up. we're here to discuss technology, not spelling

Reply Score: 2

raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

The guy did make a valid point. We are here to discuss technology, and most of the spelling mistakes made by people here, are made by die-hard Windows users. Users who happen to use IE.

The other guy made the point that most of the spelling mistakes can be eradicated by installing and utilising firefox and firefox's spelling addons.

Therefore the original post is technology related.

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I disagree, maybe some posters are using work computers and it is against policy to install firefox. Maybe they're using OS X (I do not know if it has universal spell check or not, or if safari does, I never checked). Maybe they are not native english speakers. Maybe they are canadian like me and spell colour and honour with an "u" (Firefox marks that as an error by default).

I could even get with the sentiment about spelling, but being nit-picky about grammar is just asinine, as a lot of people here are non english speakers, and firefox doesn't help that.

Reply Score: 3

raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

They do have localised dictionaries, hence the UK spelling of "localised" ;)

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

that's why I said "by default"

Reply Score: 2

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"Therefore the original post is technology related."

Too bad it has absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand. Maybe we can have some posts about who makes the best microwave oven as well, since that's "technology related" too. ;)

Reply Score: 4

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Please, no! The semi-literacy around here is my main source of humour - from the "funniest errors" text file on my deskto; (all courtesy of OSNews comments):

"for all intensive purposes" = "for all intents and purposes"
"died in the whool" = "dyed in the wool"
"server allergies" = "severe allergies"
"premisquess " = promiscuous
"Common poeple" = "come on, people, ..."
"provail" = prevail
"technicien" = technician
"pooring" = pouring
"heatred" = hatred
"holy grale" = holy grail
"flexibel" = flexible
"reprocutions" = reprecussions
"blote" = bloat
"plunty" = plenty
"infrigmentation" = infringement

Reply Score: 4

Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

Really? You really keep a textfile like that?

Reply Score: 4

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

O RLY? Ya rly. Srsly.

Reply Score: 2

OK, But Does It Matter?
by computerishcat on Thu 17th Jul 2008 14:45 UTC
computerishcat
Member since:
2008-07-14

I only see one problem with the study itself and that is the mirrors issue that the article discusses. (Ubuntu has lots of mirrors all over the world and the study only used one or two.)

Other than that, the study seems perfectly fine, but does it matter? It seems unlikely that update servers not being up 100% of the time would cause a problem for anyone. I suppose if the uptime was less than 80-90% it would be a problem...

I would like to get the opinion of someone who deals with large groups of servers or with pushing updates to big companies.

Other random thought: Since Ubuntu updates are pushed on practically a daily basis and Windows and Mac updates are pushed much less frequently, could that be the explanation?

Reply Score: 1

ashyanbhog
Member since:
2006-08-24

Pingpong consulting conducted a study to benchmark performance of Solaris vs W2K3 for web server application. Based on the result of their findings they declared sun had 109% uptime.

The study used Netcraft' tried and trusted "Whats that Site running" tool. Detailing results of their study, they said, www.sun.com run on Solaris was last rebooted 109 days ago vs www.update.microsoft.com running on W2K3 that was rebooted 1 day ago.

Further the study showed that Solaris had a average uptime of 237 days and max of 279 days. www.update.microsoft.com had a average uptime of 34 days and max of 58 days. This should be of grave concern to Mircosoft customers as the server is run by Mircosoft themselves!!!

Based on results of their study, they declared Microsoft server as "Epic Fail"

PS: Somebody please tell me how to delete my account on this stupid site. Thank you

Reply Score: 2

Warnaud Member since:
2008-07-07

What only 109% ?? And it reboots only 1 times per century! Great ;)

Reply Score: 3

Heh
by Xaero_Vincent on Thu 17th Jul 2008 14:56 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

LOL.

So there is a 1.4% chance risk that Ubuntu users will need to download from one of countless mirror servers?

I'm not sure about Ubuntu but in Fedora and RHEL the mirrors are already listed in the .repo files and will be used automatically if one server fails.

Actually, mirrors are used by default because I have the yum plugin that selects the "fastest" server.

Anyway... all I'm gonna say is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4

Edited 2008-07-17 15:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Ubuntu... that's why
by ohxten on Thu 17th Jul 2008 15:41 UTC
ohxten
Member since:
2008-02-17

They're using Ubuntu, that's why. What kernel version? I'd like to see it compared against *BSD as well.

Who cares, anyway.

Reply Score: 2

So?
by smilie on Thu 17th Jul 2008 16:17 UTC
smilie
Member since:
2006-07-19

IBM mainframes have clocked up to 35 years of up time.

VMS/OpenVMS minicomputers have clocked up around 20 years of uptime and one VAX cluster even remained up while it was being moved from one building to another.

Reply Score: 3

Misleading
by tuaris on Thu 17th Jul 2008 17:35 UTC
tuaris
Member since:
2007-08-05

Keyword is "availability". Microsoft has a bigger infrastructure that Ubuntu or Apple. If all three infrastructures where equal, then the results of this study would actually mean something.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Misleading
by aaronb on Thu 17th Jul 2008 19:26 UTC in reply to "Misleading"
aaronb Member since:
2005-07-06

Also I think that the timing of Ubuntu's downtime would be interesting as it could of been caused by people upgrading to a new version as opposed to mainly patches.

Either way there is only a few percent in it.

I just wish that Ubuntu used deltas by default and fell back to full downloads when required as even the smallest update to something like open office or the Kernel can be quite a hefty download.

Reply Score: 2

v $$$
by 2501 on Thu 17th Jul 2008 21:45 UTC
how is this relevant?
by pixel8r on Fri 18th Jul 2008 03:16 UTC
pixel8r
Member since:
2007-08-11

Actually the title is WRONG. Its should read "Windows Update scores 100% uptime". The servers themselves more than likely didn't. I'm not suggesting other OS's would be any different either. But we know that on a single server level, 100% uptime is impossible, if only for the fact that each server needs updating from time to time.

IF windows update ran on ONE single windows server (and the same for apple/ubuntu), ONLY THEN could we make direct comparisons between the operating systems mentioned...

But because we know that windows update has many many more servers worldwide, supported by very good data links, because MS can afford it more than other companies, then all this is comparing is the network infrastructure of each of the companies' update systems.

Clearly, MS is the winner here, and I would suggest that 100% should be VERY achievable when you have that many servers. Compare the uptime of google, and you would see similar numbers I would imagine....yet we know google doesn't run on windows...

If you have enough servers, so that when one fails you can quickly repair it while the rest take over.

Its not a difficult concept - so why is this news?

Edited 2008-07-18 03:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Tomrade
by Tomrade on Fri 18th Jul 2008 17:46 UTC
Tomrade
Member since:
2008-07-18

I like how it doesn't mention Microsoft outsources it file serving to another company and they run Freebsd

Reply Score: 0

Uptime analysis
by darkcoder on Sat 19th Jul 2008 06:24 UTC
darkcoder
Member since:
2006-07-14

They either have a damn good cluster, or do not update their own servers. Because practically all the "Patch Tuesdays" you have to restart your computer after the update process.

Reply Score: 1

Bending Unit Member since:
2005-07-06

Wrong.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kvarbanov
by kvarbanov on Mon 21st Jul 2008 13:10 UTC
kvarbanov
Member since:
2008-06-16

the next meaningless, false poll/experiment. Good job ms marketing department ;) or not really ? This thing reminds me in the social polls done in my country - you go to a marketing company or a statistics bureau and order (pay for) whatever results you need. Then the poll shouts - those are the best TV players / best washing machines / best politic of the year. LOL

Reply Score: 1