[huskerlug] Linux, Unix more reliable than Windows
- From: GreyGeek <jkreps@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: HuskerLug <huskerlug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:28:58 -0500
By Sylvie Barak
<http://www.theinquirer.net/articles/flameAuthor/gb/inquirer/news/2008/04/15/
linux-better-windows-worse>[1]: Tuesday, 15 April 2008, 10:07 PM
*LAST YEAR, WE* wrote about a controversial report
<http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2006/06/06/windows-more
-reliable-than-linux>[2]penned by technology research and consulting outfit
the Yankee Group, claiming that Windows was more reliable than Linux.
The Yankee Group has been busy again this year, but its latest report seems
to offer a very different story to last year’s, with Windows now
performing significantly worse than its Linux and Unix rivals.
The Yankee Group's second annual Server Operating System Reliability survey
takes pains to note that all the major operating systems are in fact fairly
reliable when it comes down to it, but that some have come
on leaps and bounds, while others have slipped since last surveyed.
Like last year, UNIX, the main Linux distributions from Novell and Red Hat
aswell as open sauce Ubuntu, was again found to be heads and shoulders above
the rest, with 99.999% reliability, taking the title of undisputed victor in
Yankee’s 2007-2008 Global Server Operating Reliability Survey.
The study points out that IBM's AIX UNIX came out on top reliability wise,
with only about 30 minutes of annual downtime per server. HP and
Sun Microsystems also came out shining.
Managing to take the medal for “best improvement in reliability” was Red
Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Novell SuSE Linux, who were each able to
cut per annum downtime per server by about 75 per cent.
Window was slammed by the survey, however, for increases in downtime of
approximately 25 per cent, totaling about nine hours of per annum
downtime per server -significantly more than last year.
Explanations for Windows’ fall from Yankee grace seem to centre on the
factthat the Vole put out a number of security alerts last summer and
autumn,which meant that network administrators took their Windows Server
2003machines offline for notably longer in order to apply
remedial patches to them.
So, in a turning of tables, Windows 2003 Server is now considered a less
reliable server operating system than Linux.
The Yankee Group claims to poll about 700 users hailing from 27 different
countries. Preliminary findings from the report are published by the
Institute for advanced Professional Studoes, here
<http://www.iaps.com/2008-server-reliability-survey.html>[3]. µ
-- Q: what's the difference between a teddy bear and Steve Ballmer? A: they
both have sawdust for brains but one is smart enough to keep his mouth shut.
--- Links ---
1
http://www.theinquirer.net/articles/flameAuthor/gb/inquirer/news/2008/04/15/linux-better-windows-worse
2
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2006/06/06/windows-more-reliable-than-linux
3 http://www.iaps.com/2008-server-reliability-survey.html
----
Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
Other related posts:
