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 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. The Yankee Group made a point of stressing that the survey was not sponsored or supported by any server OS maker.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-07
Ok, lets pretend we agree on which is more stable, because I don't want to get into flame war (although I don't in reality, but lets pretend I do, just humor me)
This... report... says... linux... has... average...
73 days of downtime?
Do you lack oxygen?
There is NO OS with average downtime like that, not even pre-alpha breakfast edition of home made OS made yesterday by some hacker living in moms attic.
Member since:2005-12-16
The article says the OS is more reliable, but the study reflects more on administration competance across the platforms I think.
And yeah, Anything with under 95% uptime doesn't sound like a server to me, or even a workstation. And how, tell me, with say even a low 90% uptime, how do you beat that by 20%?
shane
Member since:2005-12-13
...not to defend anyone against anyone...But I would read a statement like that as if Windows' downtime was 20% less than Linux' ditto, meaning that if Windows' downtime was 10 minutes, Linux' ditto would be 12 minutes.... I do not consider it to be a question of 20% of the potential uptime... that'd be absurd, I think!
Member since:
2005-07-07
Those results sound about right but.. which linux distribution are we talking about?
???
"Windows 2003 Server, in fact, led the popular Red Hat Enterprise Linux with nearly 20 percent more annual uptime."
It means linux would be having about 292 yearly uptime only (and even that in case if Windows would have 365).
Now,... it is just as stupid as I expected when I read "Yankee Group" and "Laura DiDio".
Now, I always say Windows have terrible uptime (I consider really bad when there is up to 5 days downtime). But I can't even imagine one server having 73 days of yearly downtime. This wouldn't be called server. Hell, installing the worst server OS (win3.1 or win95) on Earth and even that on faulty machine couldn't produce such ammount of downtime.