Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th Jun 2006 21:54 UTC, submitted by Ricus
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y 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.
Thread beginning with comment 131253
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
On Discrediting
by atsureki on Wed 7th Jun 2006 07:32 UTC
atsureki
Member since:
2006-03-12

I knew I recognized the Yankee Group's name from other pro-Microsoft pieces. I searched OSNews and didn't get much, so then I tried Get The Facts and Microsoft's website.

http://search.microsoft.com/results.aspx?mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&q=...

1,687 results.

Whether or not they're a shill or paid advertiser, they've found quite a niche in providing quotes and statistics for Microsoft.

While we're on the subject, here's my all time favorite Fact: http://www.microsoft.com/smallbusiness/case-studies/CaseStudy.aspx?...

Because they switched to Linux, this company contracted the Blaster virus, which caused them a full day of downtime, despite being nothing but a DDoS worm that only affects Windows systems. Amazing.

Reply Score: 4

RE: On Discrediting
by atsureki on Wed 7th Jun 2006 08:00 in reply to "On Discrediting"
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

This is very strange. I was sure I got that 1687 number right where 184 is now. Maybe the site glitched. I'd fix it, but the edit command seems to have gone missing. Nonetheless, it's many, many pages of references to this firm.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: On Discrediting
by DigitalAxis on Wed 7th Jun 2006 15:22 in reply to "On Discrediting"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Is it possible they meant their Linux gateway failed to filter out the Blaster worm, and the rest of their system went down? I mean, I know what it looks like. And their before/after system looks surprisingly similar to my untrained eye, except that there's now a remote computer bypassing the firewall? And mail is now handled internally, rather than via the internet.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: On Discrediting
by atsureki on Thu 8th Jun 2006 06:14 in reply to "RE[2]: On Discrediting"
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

Yes, I think that's what they're getting at. Because they didn't run their mail through clamav, the workstations got the worm, and they had to go in and do Windows Update manually because you need a Microsoft server to manage it centrally or run Symantec server.

They word it in a way that makes it sound like Linux crapped out and couldn't help itself. Until I re-read it recently, I thought that's what they were actually saying occurred, and just could not believe they were pusing such a blatant lie. But what actually happened is that the Windows machines were vulnerable and couldn't be protected adequately in a heterogeneous network. Basically, vendor lock-in is Linux's fault for being a poor product.

Reply Parent Score: 1