Back to the question

**Dolda2000** · 02-09-2003

I know, amazing, isn't it? 6 months! And for a system which doesn't even have half the functionality of any given Unix. I think I'd actually prefer UNIX v7 before Windows...
I said this elsewhere in this forum, but in case you didn't read it: At the Windows 2000 unveiling, the audience actually applauded when Bill told them that NT4 could actually run an entire week without requiring a reboot.

**genlee** · 02-09-2003

The Microsoft.com operations team is focused on helping the Windows Server 2003 product team improve the reliability and availability of Windows Server 2003. For example, Stucky, Montgomery, and other Microsoft.com engineers track every time they need to reboot a server, and they pass that information to the product team. They rarely reboot Windows Server 2003 with IIS 6.0—perhaps a tenth as often as Windows 2000 Server with IIS 5.0, they estimate. "We're seeing crazy uptime numbers now, like three months, six months.

That quote was taken directly from the MS site. Sad isn't it?

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...gondotnet.mspx

**Dolda2000** · 02-09-2003

"... I fully expect we'll see a year of uptime when Windows Server 2003 is finished", Stucky says.

It doesn't really get much sadder! I really can't believe that they see rebooting that acceptable!
I could almost bet that there are some old Sun unix mainframes out there that have never been rebooted since they were delivered in the mid-80's.
One of the DNS root servers scored 1000 days of uptime in -98 or -99, I think, and they're probably serving hundreds of millions of requests daily. I think that server was a Sun machine. I'd like to see a Windows server handling that stress for even a week.

**kpzani** · 02-16-2003

I use both XP and Redhat 8. At home I use Linux for web design no problems at all. GIMP for graphics very smart package a bit wierd compared to windows graphics suites like photoshop but once you get used to it you will be fine.

I use QUANTA for web dev as it is nice and simple. At the end of the day all you need is a text editor and a simple FTP package. I do like the source code highlighting for PHP (which is available as an option or addin for almost all linux text-editors). I do also use Dreamweaver MX as this version now understands PHP.

If I was you I would dump windows and get linux installed, you can setup Apache and MySQL on your local machine and create/test serious data driven sites not just pretty ones in flash.

If you want a simple system to install then try Redhat or Mandrake they experts here may knock them a bit but they work on first install and provide a zillion different software packages for you to play with.

**thehemi** · 02-24-2003

Originally Posted by Dolda2000

Well, I can't think of a way that linux is inferior if you do know your way
around a computer. But maybe that's just me? If anything it would be if
you need to run some program that only exists on Windows.

Mainstream hardware/software support is what I want to see.
I see Windows and Mac OS all over the place, why not Linux?

**Dolda2000** · 02-24-2003

Actually, Linux has succeeded MacOS and taken the second place in the number of worldwide counted desktop installations.

**slacker** · 02-25-2003

Oh COME ON Dolda, where did you hear that?

**Dolda2000** · 02-25-2003

I don't really remember; it was a month or so ago, but I think it was somewhere reliable. Windows had like 96% and Linux 1.3%.

**wassy121** · 02-25-2003

I have heard similar, but what I have heard is "Unix based systems are #2" which include Mac OSX as a Unix based system. I don't know about Apple in general getting taken over by linux.

**genlee** · 02-25-2003

I wonder how they come up with those stats. But I also read that most stats are no where close to being accurate.

Thread Tools

Display

Back to the question

Posting Permissions