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 read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-08-18
"It's stunning how many of you are posting absolutely worthless criticisms of the survey without even having understood the details of how the survey was conducted"
That's exactly why it needs to be critized. There are absolutely zero details on how these results came to be and that makes this "report" untrustworhy.
Without any knowledge of the details we can nor support nor debunk any of the claims with our own tests. They might as well just have made it up out of thin air for all we know (and since it's the Yankee Group that's not entirely impossible).
Member since:2005-07-06
I am going to post a "Yankee type" study... here goes.
<center>Windows is more damaging to your health than Linux</center>
Do you feel frustrated and angry every time you virus detector throws up a hit ? Do you feel like slapping malware authors around the head with a wet fish ? Does the latest bsod make you want to boot Bill Gates ?
If the answers to any of these questions is yes, stop using Windows immediately. you will risk a heart attack with contiinued exposure.
I recommend switching to Mac OS, or if you feel you really need a calming computing experience, then use Linux.
Tests conducted to 27 million people be me personally, last night, after tea.
[i] Raver31 stresses that no operating system vendor has paid for this</i?
Member since:2006-01-19
We do neither disagree with, nor do we agree with Laura Didio. We just take the verifiable history of both Yankee Group and Laura Didio and give any report from her a ranking on a personal trustworthy scale.
To be frank, Laura Didio would have to spill out ALL the raw data from that survey (which she cannot do because she certainly is obligated to anonymize the data), to give me the possibility to form my own conclusions. Then I might come to the same conclusion as she did (or not), and I could rerank the report on my personal trustworthy scale.
Since this is unlikely to happen, this report will stay at the bottom end of my trustworthy scale. This bad trustworthiness is Mrs. Didio's own making.
Member since:
2006-01-06
It's stunning how many of you are posting absolutely worthless criticisms of the survey without even having understood the details of how the survey was conducted. I have to admit that I'm a bit skeptical, but get a grip, people: Just because you disagree with or don't like Didio doesn't alleviate any of us from doing the heavy lifting of evaluating the survey objectively. No doubt most of the same offenders will vote down this post because they won't like being taken to the woodshed over such childish behavior. But it had to be said.