Banks Want to Swim with Penguins

Wired News ^ | 3 February 2003 | Michelle Delio

[Knitebane]

What's not to laugh at? "Linux doesn't crash?!?" Even you -- a diehard ABMer Linux ideologue -- can't seriously be selling that sewage-laced Kool-Aid...

If Linux crashes are to laugh at then how much more laughing should there be at Microsoft crashes, since there are so many more of them?

Or are we being just a bit hypocritical again?

[Bush2000]

If Linux crashes are to laugh at then how much more laughing should there be at Microsoft crashes, since there are so many more of them?

I'm not laughing at Linux crashes. Every OS crashes. What I'm laughing at is the delusion of some OS adherents (mostly of the Linux and Mac persuasion) who are convinced that their altar of choice is incapable of crashing:

Keith Codell, a systems administrator for a Wall Street firm. "Linux is reliable -- it never crashes..."

What an aquamaroon!

[flashbunny]

Yeah, I just had to shut down a heavily used linux server. It had been up for 400+ days. I had to replace a SCSI hard drive fan that had died. Darn that linux unreliability!

BTW, the box was up for a year before that. The only reason it was shut down before the 400 day run is that it was moved from one server rack to another.

[Bush2000]

Yeah, I just had to shut down a heavily used linux server...

Whoopie. Are you asserting that Linux never crashes?

[Quix]

GIVEN THE *YEARS* OF EXTREME HYPERBOLE ON THE PART OF MICROSOFT--AT CUSTOMERS' EXPENSE

. . . .

I think Linux lovers ought to be allowed some loud crowing.

[Bush2000]

GIVEN THE *YEARS* OF EXTREME HYPERBOLE ON THE PART OF MICROSOFT--AT CUSTOMERS' EXPENSE . . . . I think Linux lovers ought to be allowed some loud crowing.

Point me at some reference where MS has ever claimed that Windows can't crash.

[Quix]

THEIR OVERALL GESTALT, ADVERTISING, DEMEANOR, ETC.

HOLD THEMSELVES OUT AS

THE CAT'S MEOW; THE BEGINNING AND ENDING OF THE BEST, MOST WONDERFUL, MOST/ONLY USEFUL, MOST INNOVATIVE; MOST STABLE ETC. ETC. ETC. ETC.

SOFTWARE AVAILABLE IN THE GALAXY.

If you haven't gotten that flavor from them, perhaps you haven't been paying close attention.

They wouldn't dare claim it would never crash--they'd be sued by a host of angry customers.

The Linux fellow was clearly speaking slight exaggeration or hyperbole. Nevertheless, my Linux friends report MUCH, MUCH, MUCH LESS CRASHING than my very robust WINDUD systems.

[flashbunny]

Are you asserting that Linux crashes more than Windows???

Here's the key, to help you understand:

I use linux wherever I can because it rarely ever crashes. In a server environment I have NEVER had a server crash. Many years ago, when I was playing around with linux on a desktop (before I knew how to set it up) I had a desktop crash. However, all I had to do to fix it was switch terminal screens and kill the process. I did NOT have to reboot to fix it.

Now on my windows desktop, which I use in business, meaning time is money, I have at least 1 or 2 crashes a day. I can't just switch terminals and kill the problem. I have to reboot- which takes 3 -4 minutes (I don't know, it seems longer, but I haven't timed it).

Now here's the key that MCSE's and raving microsoft fans must remember or ignore at their own peril:

As soon as I can get all of my biz apps available on a linux platform running on a nice workstation (Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, Shockwave, Quark, High-end 3D stuff, Quickbooks - although I may put that on another 'lesser pc') I will be switching to Linux as my main desktop. I need stability that Microsoft can't seem to provide. Every time I reboot I lose money. The only thing keeping a lot of users tied to microsoft are the applications that run on it. Remove that limitation, and you have removed the incentive to stay with microsoft.

People DON'T stick with micrsoft for the high licensing prices, security holes that get ignored, or constant reboots. They stick with it because it runs the things they need. Until microsoft seriously addresses those problems, they are in danger of having their lunch eaten by linux.

[Bush2000]

THEIR OVERALL GESTALT, ADVERTISING, DEMEANOR, ETC. HOLD THEMSELVES OUT AS THE CAT'S MEOW; THE BEGINNING AND ENDING OF THE BEST, MOST WONDERFUL, MOST/ONLY USEFUL, MOST INNOVATIVE; MOST STABLE ETC. ETC. ETC. ETC. SOFTWARE AVAILABLE IN THE GALAXY.

I'll ask again: Point me at some advertising which illustrates what you're saying.

[Quix]

If this were that much of a priority for me, I might search such advertising out. Others may if they are so inclined. I won't bother.

If you haven't been paying better attention at their presentations of themselves than seems evident, I doubt any list of ads I dug up would influence you in the slightest.

[Bush2000]

If this were that much of a priority for me, I might search such advertising out. Others may if they are so inclined. I won't bother.

Of course you won't. Because these mythical ads of yours only exist in your ABMer mind.

[Bush2000]

Now on my windows desktop, which I use in business, meaning time is money, I have at least 1 or 2 crashes a day. I can't just switch terminals and kill the problem. I have to reboot- which takes 3 -4 minutes (I don't know, it seems longer, but I haven't timed it).

Unless you're using Windows ME (which truly was a piece of crap), I'd have to say that you're smoking crack. My Windows box hasn't crashed once since I bought it a year ago. I'm not foolish enough to believe that it can't crash. But, then again, your fellow ABMers have ground the stability axe so much that nobody believes you anymore. Linux and Windows stability are comparable. Any other assertion is the muttering of incompetents who shouldn't touch computers...

[Quix]

You are welcome to your blindness and delusions about your god Microsoft.

[Quix]

On the whole, MS's ads have been very slick and sharp. But It still think there have been some where the gestalt of the company has still leaked out around the edges.

[MarkL]

Unless you're using Windows ME (which truly was a piece of crap), I'd have to say that you're smoking crack. My Windows box hasn't crashed once since I bought it a year ago. I'm not foolish enough to believe that it can't crash. But, then again, your fellow ABMers have ground the stability axe so much that nobody believes you anymore. Linux and Windows stability are comparable. Any other assertion is the muttering of incompetents who shouldn't touch computers...

I've got a client who's in a mixed environment of NetWare, MS (WinNT & 2K Servers), and Linux, and by far, the most reliable server that doesn't need to be shut down (or have services regularly stoped and restarted) are their Linux systems. I went out on site the other day to check out a system (Compaq Proliant 800) that had crashed: It was a Linux system. The crash came due to a hardware failure of the array controler. According to their system logs (they've got a very serious data center administrator), that server had not been shut down for nearly 4 years. The next closest reliable systems have been their Novell servers, which have only been shut down over the years for patches and upgrades. No crashes. Their Windows servers very rarely crash, although they do have to shut down and restart services on a regular basis. Sometimes the services refuse to restart. Something that they've found over the years is that if they shutdown and restart the NT servers every 60 days, they had fewer problems with the different services. In fact, the problem got to the point that they stopped using the Windows servers for DHCP or DNS, moving that functionality to the NetWare servers. And they've got eDirectory running on everything, which helps make management a bit simpler as well.

Mark

[Bush2000]

I went out on site the other day to check out a system (Compaq Proliant 800) that had crashed: It was a Linux system.

Congratulations! You're the first Linux user to admit that the OS crashes!

[MarkL]

I went out on site the other day to check out a system (Compaq Proliant 800) that had crashed: It was a Linux system.

Congratulations! You're the first Linux user to admit that the OS crashes!

Congratulations to you for being such a great LIAR!!!!And you wonder why you have no credability! Propagandists know that the best way to lie was to use a little bit of the truth... And that's exactly what you do here. Of course, a Linux System will crash when the array controller fails! Are you telling me that Windows servers won't crash when they can no longer access the storage systems? Let's take a look at exactly what I posted, shall we?

I've got a client who's in a mixed environment of NetWare, MS (WinNT & 2K Servers), and Linux, and by far, the most reliable server that doesn't need to be shut down (or have services regularly stoped and restarted) are their Linux systems. I went out on site the other day to check out a system (Compaq Proliant 800) that had crashed: It was a Linux system. The crash came due to a hardware failure of the array controler. According to their system logs (they've got a very serious data center administrator), that server had not been shut down for nearly 4 years.

Notice that you managed to ignore the part about the hardware failuer, as well as the report that the server had not been shut down for almost 4 years... Or how their most reliable servers are their Linux servers, followed by their Novell servers, and trailed by their MS servers, which seem to need to be shut down every 60 to 90 days...

I have no great love for any OS, only that you choose the best one for the job. If you have to run Windows apps, then you're pretty much stuck, and you're forced to do the best you can. This client was in that situation, but they've been porting their apps to Linux over the last few years, and they hope to be free of the MS servers within the next 5 years. They like the Novell systems for the file and print services, and Linux for their application services.

Mark