Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 26th Oct 2007 05:34 UTC, submitted by WillM
Permalink for comment 280924
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 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-11-17
This is very true. I've installed linux server and it didn't grow in 2006. On the other hand, the Windows server leaks so much ressource, we had to add several disks and RAM so as to make it function. It has grown 75% in Disk space and 200% in RAM. The number of reboot has grown significantly as well. So yes, Windows is growing faster than Linux.
Seriously though, what those number mean? x% grow in what? In price? I don't believe linux has grown at all.
The fact remains that linux is still more suited for server than Windows. Seriously how many time can you afford to reboot your web server a month?
Windows is not easily administrable at all, especially remotely. Linux is 65.4234% more easy to administer and 325.43% more stable (from a very serious study I published on the web).
Over 2006, linux easyness has increased 78% (from january to january), while Windows' easyness only increased 14%.
Edited 2007-10-26 10:37