http://www.osnews.com/story/20558/Linux_Distros_and_Apple_beat_Microsoft_s_Homepage_Uptime Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:44:31 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://www.osnews.com/thread?337818 http://www.osnews.com/thread?337818 This might be interesting if data was taken for 6 months or better yet a year. As a Arch user, I'm sure they would fare much better with longer term data. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Netfun81) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?337821 http://www.osnews.com/thread?337821 and how many of those have 3 properties on the alexa top 20? you compare microsoft.com to yahoo or google, not arch. It's not hard to maintain uptime when you only have a few thousand visits a month. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?337826 http://www.osnews.com/thread?337826 While funny, it is meaningless. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 06:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (spiderman) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?337833 http://www.osnews.com/thread?337833 ...but total bogus ;-) Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Ford Prefect) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?337843 http://www.osnews.com/thread?337843 On the other hand, it's not hard to maintain uptime when you have microsoft's resources to pour into failover and redundant systems.
Either way, the pingdom statistics are pretty meaningless. All it really tells us is that all of these sites (except Arch) are stable enough for visitors to not notice any downtime and that's what really matters. As for Arch, they could have switched providers or servers or whatever in this (too short) time frame and the result is probably not representative for the long-term availability. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?337857 http://www.osnews.com/thread?337857 If those linux distro sites encounter so much traffic as microsoft.com has every second, they will die in convultions. By the way, microsoft.com is a very large and sophisticated system, involving a lot of Windows and UNIX servers, with load balancing and caching from third party. Actually end user does not touch microsoft's hardware at all (: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Auxx) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?337872 http://www.osnews.com/thread?337872 Yes but most Linux distro websites and Apple's are significantly small compare to the scale of Microsoft's website. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (benhonghu) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?337873 http://www.osnews.com/thread?337873 I can remember the Fedora site being hacked... I wouldn't consider that uptime, since the site wasn't really useful at that time. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tdehoog) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?337948 http://www.osnews.com/thread?337948 What about RHN, it is under heavy use and traffic, I don't know where you get a few thousand people going to redhat.com they get a lot of traffic.

Plus, RHN is a entire model based off configuration, downloads, uploads, managing MS does not even come close to a scenario like that... Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (centos_user) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?337979 http://www.osnews.com/thread?337979 Most of the Windows servers we use in production (we use Windows and linux but we're slowly phasing out the former) do have poorer uptime than linux. That's nothing to do with traffic - they just need rebooting more often.

That's not an anti-Windows bias, just my experience. I imagine most folks working in a mixed environment would report something similar. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (B12 Simon) Comments