Posted on 02/15/2006 6:06:44 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
Survey: Research has found that administrators are more productive when working with Linux servers rather than those running Windows, but not everyone agrees with the results
(Excerpt) Read more at news.zdnet.co.uk ...
I've never managed a mac network, but I'd imagine the end result would be about the same. Windows machines require babying. Linux doesn't.
Unix in general measures uptime in months or years, not days or weeks as Windows does.
Largo, Florida switched to Linux and had six admittedly underworked guys (counting the head of IT) running 400 systems and 800 users. They also had some Windows machines left, and those took up much of their time.
LOL! Hours or minutes in some cases.
...such as?
it's statements like that make linux users out to be complete asses.
i've got 2 XP boxs that have never been down ever. they are always on and never crash.
98 on the other hand........well we all know.
i love my two linux boxs(pclinuxos)but lines like that are just plain stupid.
You mentioned a total of four computers.
Try dealing with four hundred servers and thousands of users, then get back to me.
I don't manage the Windows boxes, just Unix.
However, it is easy to note that the Windows side of the IT shop has it a lot harder when it comes to constant, unscheduled maintenance.
have more unschedudled maintenance i would agree with. we could argue why that is and might come to a different conclusions.
i take case with your statement that windows crash every few days. it's like reading slashdot or digg. it is always "bush sucks, bill gates sucks. we are so much smarter then everyone else."
i'm sick of it. i would like to read tech post without all that crap. if i wanted that i would just read slashdot.
If you look at the overall Windows server farm containing hundreds of boxes, you will see a crash every other day from one box or another. More likely, the frequency will be greater than this.
The same cannot be said of the Unix boxes taken collectively together.
i would like to read tech post without all that crap.
I would like to read a tech post without someone calling the facts "crap" and "stupid".
lets do the math with your numbers.
hundreds of boxes: at least 200
a crash every other day: say 200 crashes a year.
if 200 servers have a total of 200 crashes collectively
that would be one crash per year per box. hardly every few days.
when you take an average of one year uptime per box and refer to it as crashing every few days.
sounds like crap and stupid to me.
Let's put it another way. The Windows shop has to deal with a critical failure almost every day. I'm talking about a failure which impacts company productivity.
The same thing happens in the Unix shop about once per year.
Both shops being otherwise equal... same number of servers, admins, etc, which would you rather support?
You can play with number all you want, but you can't bury the fact that Unix is far more reliable than Windows.
why do you have a window server then if productivity is so important and they are crashing everyday* on you.
*note:your crashes have went from every other day to everyday just in this thread. someone needs to stop the bleeding.
Very good question. Were I the owner of a company, there would be no Windows servers whatsoever.
Twisting the facts to suit your agenda again?
"Twisting the facts to suit your agenda again?"
no agenda, just following what your saying.
post 15: The Windows shop has to deal with a critical failure almost every day
post 13: you will see a crash every other day from one box or another.
btw: you can have the last word. i'm done with this. have fun with your bill gates sucks club.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.