Linked by David Adams on Thu 17th Jul 2008 05:59 UTC, submitted by Caffeine Deprived
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Microsoft's Windows beat operating system rivals Mac OS X and Ubuntu in a three-month test of update server uptime, according to Pingdom, a Swedish uptime monitoring company.
Thread beginning with comment 323333
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Wow...
by Jokel on Thu 17th Jul 2008 07:03 UTC in reply to "Wow..."
Jokel
Member since:
2006-06-01

The point is that using Ubuntu you have a 1.4% risk you have to wait longer than 10 full endless minutes to get your updates if you are only using two specific mirrors. That's very, very, very, very, very, very bad!!!! You can't use Linux because it's totally unreliable!!! Use only Windows, because Windows is allway's reliable and up-to-date and..... ehh, wait a moment here...

It sounds a bit strange to me they choose only one populair distro to measure the (implied) reliability of the complete Linux range. Canonical is big, but not that big. How about RedHat? Would they be a bit more reliable, just because they have more physical servers available? What about Linux from Novell (Opensuse, SUSE Linux Enterprise)? They have far more update servers available than Canonical. What about Debian? Etct. etc.

Do they really need something like this to put Windows in a better daylight? If that is the case Linux must be gaining more momentum than I was thinking. On the other hand - Microsoft is a company that wont accept any competition at all. They are willing to throw in billions of dollars amd lots of "payed research", just to stamp out something that is threathning to gain more than 0,000001% of their market share. Linux must be a total nightmare for them by now...

Reply Parent Score: 20

RE[2]: Wow...
by Stephen! on Thu 17th Jul 2008 11:34 in reply to "RE: Wow..."
Stephen! Member since:
2007-11-24

you have to wait longer than 10 full endless minutes to get your updates


Oh well, patience is a virtue, as they say ....

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Wow...
by TaterSalad on Thu 17th Jul 2008 13:36 in reply to "RE: Wow..."
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah because Microsoft COULDN'T POSSIBLY make a good server OS that would stay up 100% of the time for 3 months?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Wow...
by systyrant on Thu 17th Jul 2008 14:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Wow..."
systyrant Member since:
2007-01-18

Of course Microsoft can make a server that can stay running for three contiguous months. Server 2003 is a pretty good server OS. I'm sure 2008 is a good one as well.

The reality is that Ubuntu and Apple servers aren't down enough for anybody to really notice. It's truly a pointless article.

Now if Ubuntu or Apple servers were down 25% or more this article would have some relevance since the end user might actually notice the down time.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Wow...
by ashyanbhog on Thu 17th Jul 2008 14:30 in reply to "RE[2]: Wow..."
ashyanbhog Member since:
2006-08-24

Netcraft "what's that site running" shows www.update.microsoft.com was rebooted one day ago. Average uptime is shown as 23days and max uptime of about 30 days

http://www.update.microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.update.micro...

Does that mean W2K3 server can only run 23 days before a reboot?

The point here is that the article is without basis and creates its own standard of measurement before declaring victory. There is no way anybody can repeat the benchmark to confirm its findings.

Reply Parent Score: 3