Comments

  1. This doesn’t surprise me one bit. Any OS can be either reliable/unrealiable, secure/insecure. It’s how things are set up. There is no such thing as a 100% reliable OS and there never will be.
    People are always looking for some panacea and they will never find it. People will always be the weak link where software is concerned. Use Linux where Linux excels and use MS where it excels.

  2. This doesn’t surprise me one bit. Any OS can be either reliable/unrealiable, secure/insecure. It’s how things are set up. There is no such thing as a 100% reliable OS and there never will be.
    People are always looking for some panacea and they will never find it. People will always be the weak link where software is concerned. Use Linux where Linux excels and use MS where it excels.

  3. Can’t forget the forgotten Windows XP x64 edition, which also is based on Windows 2003 SP1. I really like that OS, one of the best ever made by Microsoft, just lacks support :(

  4. Can’t forget the forgotten Windows XP x64 edition, which also is based on Windows 2003 SP1. I really like that OS, one of the best ever made by Microsoft, just lacks support :(

  5. When Windows is clearly show to be more reliable, we see comments such as “just use what ever is suitable for the job”. When Linux is shown to have a 0.0000001% advantage over Windows in something, we see comments such as “Linux beats Windows everywhere”.

  6. When Windows is clearly show to be more reliable, we see comments such as “just use what ever is suitable for the job”. When Linux is shown to have a 0.0000001% advantage over Windows in something, we see comments such as “Linux beats Windows everywhere”.

  7. windows XP x64 is fun. just wish the world could drivers out there for it. I am hoping that Vista will support 64bit too.

    Why have a 64bit machine if you can’t run a 64 bit OS.

  8. windows XP x64 is fun. just wish the world could drivers out there for it. I am hoping that Vista will support 64bit too.

    Why have a 64bit machine if you can’t run a 64 bit OS.

  9. “Guess what’s built on top of Windows 2003 Server’s code base? That’s right, Windows Vista.”

    Robert, we can see what you are trying to say here, but it doesn’t work. If something is stable and you add to it, that doesn’t guarantee the result is stable. In fact, you are likely to mess things up.

  10. “Guess what’s built on top of Windows 2003 Server’s code base? That’s right, Windows Vista.”

    Robert, we can see what you are trying to say here, but it doesn’t work. If something is stable and you add to it, that doesn’t guarantee the result is stable. In fact, you are likely to mess things up.

  11. Someone should submit this story to slashdot; we can grab some popcorn and watch the fireworks! (Assuming slashdot has the guts to post this story.)

  12. Someone should submit this story to slashdot; we can grab some popcorn and watch the fireworks! (Assuming slashdot has the guts to post this story.)

  13. Slashdot? The fact that Laura Didio’s name is attached to the report means that it’s too easy to dismiss the entire report as biased.

  14. Slashdot? The fact that Laura Didio’s name is attached to the report means that it’s too easy to dismiss the entire report as biased.

  15. OK… just to play devil’s advocate. This is the same Yankee Group that for how long has done reports on how great Windows is? Only this time it must be true, because this one report is not sponsored by Microsoft?

    Every salesman will through a freebie in when they’re hoping to get more sales soon!

    I’m not saying if they got it right or not, but I am saying that as far as I’m concerned, they’re a little ‘tainted’.

    Bad analogy time: you’re a supermodel, paid to make a particular makeup sell. Your contract expires, but you know that the new product is just around the corner and will need some talking up, too. Are you going to just bad mouth the old product, just because you’re no longer paid to advertise it?

    Hey: like I said, Devil’s advocate.

  16. OK… just to play devil’s advocate. This is the same Yankee Group that for how long has done reports on how great Windows is? Only this time it must be true, because this one report is not sponsored by Microsoft?

    Every salesman will through a freebie in when they’re hoping to get more sales soon!

    I’m not saying if they got it right or not, but I am saying that as far as I’m concerned, they’re a little ‘tainted’.

    Bad analogy time: you’re a supermodel, paid to make a particular makeup sell. Your contract expires, but you know that the new product is just around the corner and will need some talking up, too. Are you going to just bad mouth the old product, just because you’re no longer paid to advertise it?

    Hey: like I said, Devil’s advocate.

  17. If it gets to /., you can be sure that Laura DiDio’s name in the cited article will garner most of the comments. In the opinion of many, her participation in the SCO insanity taints any report she attaches her name to.

  18. If it gets to /., you can be sure that Laura DiDio’s name in the cited article will garner most of the comments. In the opinion of many, her participation in the SCO insanity taints any report she attaches her name to.

  19. Vista starts with Windows 2003 Server’s codebase…

    I guess it’s good that they’ve got the “start” part accomplished, but I think people are more interested in when the waiting and delaying will end.

  20. Vista starts with Windows 2003 Server’s codebase…

    I guess it’s good that they’ve got the “start” part accomplished, but I think people are more interested in when the waiting and delaying will end.

  21. The Yankee Group has serious credibility problems.

    It’s pitiful that they have to describe their report as “independent, non-sponsored”.

    A reputation is a terrible thing to lose.

  22. The Yankee Group has serious credibility problems.

    It’s pitiful that they have to describe their report as “independent, non-sponsored”.

    A reputation is a terrible thing to lose.

  23. Oh Please, Linux gives Windows 2003 Server a great run for the money and keeps everyone honest. Lets hope that the Windows FIle and Print Server gets better than before.

  24. Oh Please, Linux gives Windows 2003 Server a great run for the money and keeps everyone honest. Lets hope that the Windows FIle and Print Server gets better than before.

  25. Yeah, of course Robert left off a point from that link:

    According to the Yankee Group’s annual server reliability survey, only Unix-based operating systems such as HP-UX and Sun Solaris 10 beat Windows on uptime

    So it’s not like Windows was #1 here.

    Furthermore, what does that 20% mean?

    Additional key results for the independent, non-sponsored Yankee Group 2006 Global Server Reliability Survey show that on average, individual corporate Linux, Windows and Unix servers experience three to five failures per server per year, resulting in 10.0 to 19.5 hours of annual downtime for each server.

    So, considering Linux is near 19.5 hours and Windows near ten, that’s a difference of 9.5 hours. In a year.

    If that’s the only server you have running, that’s bad. If you follow best practices with regard to redundancy, then that’s how long it takes to reimage and restore changed data with no loss of productivity whatsoever.

    That’s hardly a major difference, especially considering that Solaris and other high-end Unixes beat Windows. (By how much, we don’t know. Funny how that got left out.)

    Maybe Vista should have been built on top of Solaris 10 instead.

    Of course, since I wasn’t able to find the actual survey data, we’re stuck with what the Yankee Group chooses to tell us. That alone makes any results, good or bad essentially meaningless, since we can’t study raw data and methodology.

  26. Yeah, of course Robert left off a point from that link:

    According to the Yankee Group’s annual server reliability survey, only Unix-based operating systems such as HP-UX and Sun Solaris 10 beat Windows on uptime

    So it’s not like Windows was #1 here.

    Furthermore, what does that 20% mean?

    Additional key results for the independent, non-sponsored Yankee Group 2006 Global Server Reliability Survey show that on average, individual corporate Linux, Windows and Unix servers experience three to five failures per server per year, resulting in 10.0 to 19.5 hours of annual downtime for each server.

    So, considering Linux is near 19.5 hours and Windows near ten, that’s a difference of 9.5 hours. In a year.

    If that’s the only server you have running, that’s bad. If you follow best practices with regard to redundancy, then that’s how long it takes to reimage and restore changed data with no loss of productivity whatsoever.

    That’s hardly a major difference, especially considering that Solaris and other high-end Unixes beat Windows. (By how much, we don’t know. Funny how that got left out.)

    Maybe Vista should have been built on top of Solaris 10 instead.

    Of course, since I wasn’t able to find the actual survey data, we’re stuck with what the Yankee Group chooses to tell us. That alone makes any results, good or bad essentially meaningless, since we can’t study raw data and methodology.

  27. Is anyone else annoyed by the damn Apple adds that show Windows being unstable? It hasn’t been unstable for more than six years now.

  28. Is anyone else annoyed by the damn Apple adds that show Windows being unstable? It hasn’t been unstable for more than six years now.

  29. RedHat sucks. Duh.

    Real people use OpenBSD. OpenBSD will kick Win2k3′s ass. I run an OpenBSD 3.9 server, and I just migrated from Windows Server 2003 Enterprise.

  30. RedHat sucks. Duh.

    Real people use OpenBSD. OpenBSD will kick Win2k3′s ass. I run an OpenBSD 3.9 server, and I just migrated from Windows Server 2003 Enterprise.

  31. That is what we generally call a lie.

    For Windows to have 20% more uptime than Red Hat, Red Hat would have to have an uptime of less than 85% and Windows 100%. A few pico-seconds of thought would show they got the numbers wrong.

    (they may have meant 20% less down time but if you can make a stupid mistake like that how could we believe them)

  32. That is what we generally call a lie.

    For Windows to have 20% more uptime than Red Hat, Red Hat would have to have an uptime of less than 85% and Windows 100%. A few pico-seconds of thought would show they got the numbers wrong.

    (they may have meant 20% less down time but if you can make a stupid mistake like that how could we believe them)

  33. “OK… just to play devil’s advocate. This is the same Yankee Group that for how long has done reports on how great Windows is? Only this time it must be true, because this one report is not sponsored by Microsoft?”

    Back off man! You’re in my space.

    Anyhow, eveyone knows Didio is a shill.

  34. “OK… just to play devil’s advocate. This is the same Yankee Group that for how long has done reports on how great Windows is? Only this time it must be true, because this one report is not sponsored by Microsoft?”

    Back off man! You’re in my space.

    Anyhow, eveyone knows Didio is a shill.

  35. Scoble, you really need to get more plugged in to the analyst world and who shills for Microsoft and who shills for other vendors before you get a woody over these types of reports. I bit more even handed analysis would have helped your credibility here.

  36. Scoble, you really need to get more plugged in to the analyst world and who shills for Microsoft and who shills for other vendors before you get a woody over these types of reports. I bit more even handed analysis would have helped your credibility here.

  37. JAJAJAJAJAWindowsJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAmoreJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAstableJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAthanJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAlinuxJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA*tears*JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA*rollingon floor*JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA

    Thanks, man, you’ve made my day! :-)

  38. JAJAJAJAJAWindowsJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAmoreJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAstableJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAthanJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAlinuxJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA*tears*JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA*rollingon floor*JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA

    Thanks, man, you’ve made my day! :-)

  39. found that Windows 2003 Server led the popular Red Hat Enterprise Linux with nearly 20% more annual uptime.

    As someone who has significant firsthand experience overseeing administration of Linux (not Redhat, tho) servers and Windows 2003 servers (exchange, yuck), I can conclusively say that finding is complete bullshit.

    One machine is still running on the same Slackware install for two years serving web apps, getting updates with no downtime and getting a scheduled restart every 110 days.

    The exchange server running Windows 2003 is restarted about once a week and has already been wiped twice with a complete OS reinstall in the last 6 months because it was compromised even within the corporate firewall.

    Guess what’s built starting with Windows 2003 Server’s code base? That’s right, Windows Vista.

    I doubt that’s true, but an operating system used for client and server faces completely different points of failure. While a server runs a limited set of applications pretty much all the time, a desktop client goes through a lot more application starts and stops and as a result is more prone to developing memory leaks which cause crashes.

  40. found that Windows 2003 Server led the popular Red Hat Enterprise Linux with nearly 20% more annual uptime.

    As someone who has significant firsthand experience overseeing administration of Linux (not Redhat, tho) servers and Windows 2003 servers (exchange, yuck), I can conclusively say that finding is complete bullshit.

    One machine is still running on the same Slackware install for two years serving web apps, getting updates with no downtime and getting a scheduled restart every 110 days.

    The exchange server running Windows 2003 is restarted about once a week and has already been wiped twice with a complete OS reinstall in the last 6 months because it was compromised even within the corporate firewall.

    Guess what’s built starting with Windows 2003 Server’s code base? That’s right, Windows Vista.

    I doubt that’s true, but an operating system used for client and server faces completely different points of failure. While a server runs a limited set of applications pretty much all the time, a desktop client goes through a lot more application starts and stops and as a result is more prone to developing memory leaks which cause crashes.

  41. use MS where it excels.

    MS Windows excels for video gaming, but I still think that’s more a function of marketshare than any technical superiority.

    When it’s time for content creation, I use Macs. When it’s time to serve or reach out to customers, it’s time for Linux.

  42. use MS where it excels.

    MS Windows excels for video gaming, but I still think that’s more a function of marketshare than any technical superiority.

    When it’s time for content creation, I use Macs. When it’s time to serve or reach out to customers, it’s time for Linux.

  43. Why are they always comparing Windows to RedHat? Why the hell did they pick, out of all the *nix distros…RedHat?

    Lets see the same tests with THESE configurations:

    Windows Server 2003 vs OpenBSD 3.9
    Windows Server 2003 vs Gentoo 2600.0
    Windows Server 2003 vs Slackware 10.2
    Windows Server 2003 vs FreeBSD 6.1

    Comeon Yankee Group, or are you too scared because you know that if you tested Windows against a better *nix system, that Windows would lose. Thought so.

  44. Why are they always comparing Windows to RedHat? Why the hell did they pick, out of all the *nix distros…RedHat?

    Lets see the same tests with THESE configurations:

    Windows Server 2003 vs OpenBSD 3.9
    Windows Server 2003 vs Gentoo 2600.0
    Windows Server 2003 vs Slackware 10.2
    Windows Server 2003 vs FreeBSD 6.1

    Comeon Yankee Group, or are you too scared because you know that if you tested Windows against a better *nix system, that Windows would lose. Thought so.

  45. Adding clutter (yes, I don’t quite like the vista look) to the Windows 2003 code might affect/reduce the reliability.

    btw, windows 2003 is sure a lot stable.

  46. Adding clutter (yes, I don’t quite like the vista look) to the Windows 2003 code might affect/reduce the reliability.

    btw, windows 2003 is sure a lot stable.

  47. I’m sorry, did a marketing drone sit at your computer screen again? You should really lock your workspace when you leave it.

    God knows what idiots might type when you’re away, like ANOTHER bogus ‘MS is so great, linux totally sucks’ report.

    Have you ever tried a modern linux distro?

  48. I’m sorry, did a marketing drone sit at your computer screen again? You should really lock your workspace when you leave it.

    God knows what idiots might type when you’re away, like ANOTHER bogus ‘MS is so great, linux totally sucks’ report.

    Have you ever tried a modern linux distro?

  49. @ #19. I was going to post exactly the same thing about the 20%. 20% less down time (in hours) doesn’t mean 20% more uptime.

    It seems she concludes how well managed a system is makes more difference to up time than choice of OS. What next ? A report saying rain is wet ? HP-UX and Solaris are more reliable. Well with a fixed set of hardware support (a luxury neither Linux nor Microsoft enjoy), support contracts as the norm (ditto), and a much narrower range of applications, you’d expect that. If you compare Solaris boxes which run only Oracle, with a support contact, and dedicated IT staff, with a mixture of all Linux or all Windows environments what result would you expect ?

    It seems the people who have to find something intereting about the report in order to get customers for Yankee strugled – hence the “Windows better than Linux” line – which the trolls find so hard to accept. (e.g. #30), the report isn’t “MS is so great Linux totally suck” – it is “Linux and Windows are about as reliable as each other, but Linux takes a little longer to fix”. A total non story “OS reliablity: everything much the same” doesn’t get much attention.

    I was getting effectively 100% uptime from Novell Netware 2.0a back in 1989 (power supply to our building could only manange about 99.7%) – how did I manage it on software which wasn’t all that good ? The installation meant you couldn’t stray far from best practice, and once installed you left well alone. If that were true of todays systems (Linux or Windows) – we’d have better up time.

  50. @ #19. I was going to post exactly the same thing about the 20%. 20% less down time (in hours) doesn’t mean 20% more uptime.

    It seems she concludes how well managed a system is makes more difference to up time than choice of OS. What next ? A report saying rain is wet ? HP-UX and Solaris are more reliable. Well with a fixed set of hardware support (a luxury neither Linux nor Microsoft enjoy), support contracts as the norm (ditto), and a much narrower range of applications, you’d expect that. If you compare Solaris boxes which run only Oracle, with a support contact, and dedicated IT staff, with a mixture of all Linux or all Windows environments what result would you expect ?

    It seems the people who have to find something intereting about the report in order to get customers for Yankee strugled – hence the “Windows better than Linux” line – which the trolls find so hard to accept. (e.g. #30), the report isn’t “MS is so great Linux totally suck” – it is “Linux and Windows are about as reliable as each other, but Linux takes a little longer to fix”. A total non story “OS reliablity: everything much the same” doesn’t get much attention.

    I was getting effectively 100% uptime from Novell Netware 2.0a back in 1989 (power supply to our building could only manange about 99.7%) – how did I manage it on software which wasn’t all that good ? The installation meant you couldn’t stray far from best practice, and once installed you left well alone. If that were true of todays systems (Linux or Windows) – we’d have better up time.

  51. Does it state what version of RedHat they compared Windows Sever 2003 with?

    I don’t find any RedHat based linux distro (the kind that can use .rpm’s) very reliable unless you compile everythign yourself.

    Debian is one of the most rock solid distros out there. Most hosting companies use Debian because of this.

    I don’t understand WHY people use RedHat for a server, to me it just doesn’t make sense. I can uderstand if they are new to linux or are going to be using RedHat for a desktop.

  52. Does it state what version of RedHat they compared Windows Sever 2003 with?

    I don’t find any RedHat based linux distro (the kind that can use .rpm’s) very reliable unless you compile everythign yourself.

    Debian is one of the most rock solid distros out there. Most hosting companies use Debian because of this.

    I don’t understand WHY people use RedHat for a server, to me it just doesn’t make sense. I can uderstand if they are new to linux or are going to be using RedHat for a desktop.

  53. Who said Windows doesn’t have stability issues? I just had Windows XP crash twice this week, once at home and once at work. Not doing unusual things: losing my wireless network and trying to close IE after sleeping bonked my home laptop, and my office machine has had issues with task manager.

    Now, it’s still 1,000,000% better than Windows 98. I hardly ever ctl-alt-del anymore. I don’t think XP is better than 2000. If ctl-alt-del only appeared as quickly as it did in Windows 95, it would be perfect. Because now when something goes wrong, it really goes wrong, and I need a hardware reboot.

    Now, I don’t mean to be critical to MS. XP sp2 is a great product. Windows usually runs great on older hardware (up until Vista, they did better at this than anyone). They are too conservative in a number of areas, but I can still play Starcraft on XP and my company still runs Dos software (thankfully, I personally don’t, I log in to Linux). But the difference between Vista and Server 2003 has to be lightyears, or your marketing dep’t has some explaining to do.

    How odd that the X360 isn’t truly backwards compatible?

  54. Who said Windows doesn’t have stability issues? I just had Windows XP crash twice this week, once at home and once at work. Not doing unusual things: losing my wireless network and trying to close IE after sleeping bonked my home laptop, and my office machine has had issues with task manager.

    Now, it’s still 1,000,000% better than Windows 98. I hardly ever ctl-alt-del anymore. I don’t think XP is better than 2000. If ctl-alt-del only appeared as quickly as it did in Windows 95, it would be perfect. Because now when something goes wrong, it really goes wrong, and I need a hardware reboot.

    Now, I don’t mean to be critical to MS. XP sp2 is a great product. Windows usually runs great on older hardware (up until Vista, they did better at this than anyone). They are too conservative in a number of areas, but I can still play Starcraft on XP and my company still runs Dos software (thankfully, I personally don’t, I log in to Linux). But the difference between Vista and Server 2003 has to be lightyears, or your marketing dep’t has some explaining to do.

    How odd that the X360 isn’t truly backwards compatible?

  55. Well, if Laura DiDiot of Yankme Group said it, it HAS to be true, right?

    Like others have commented, you need to find an analyst with some credibility if you don’t want to be laughed at for repeating this stuff.

    Go ahead and submit it to slashdot! They’ll love it!

  56. Well, if Laura DiDiot of Yankme Group said it, it HAS to be true, right?

    Like others have commented, you need to find an analyst with some credibility if you don’t want to be laughed at for repeating this stuff.

    Go ahead and submit it to slashdot! They’ll love it!

  57. What a bullshit ‘study’.

    So if Windows had 20% more uptime than Linux annually, then that means the Linux system was down for *60 days straight*? Was an MCSE operating the Linux system or something?

    Scoble–who are you kidding with the “not sponsored by Microsoft” line? The Yankee Group and the Laura DiDio (people conducted the study) have a history of writing shill articles for Microsoft.

    Here’s an article written a year ago about the same people who conducted this study:
    http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2005/04/the_truth_about_1.html

  58. What a bullshit ‘study’.

    So if Windows had 20% more uptime than Linux annually, then that means the Linux system was down for *60 days straight*? Was an MCSE operating the Linux system or something?

    Scoble–who are you kidding with the “not sponsored by Microsoft” line? The Yankee Group and the Laura DiDio (people conducted the study) have a history of writing shill articles for Microsoft.

    Here’s an article written a year ago about the same people who conducted this study:
    http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2005/04/the_truth_about_1.html

  59. This is why marketing drones shouldn’t rush into heavy machine gun fire, (and should consult archives and do actual research) as so so so many problems with that study, including comparison and task similarity issues, analyst independence, tilted methodology (using only those that choose to deploy), weighted advertising, with a lack of raw data, third-party stooge as “cop-outtting”, Laura DiDio already a gadfly (see the SCO case) and etc. etc.

    But Scoble blindly walks in posting whatever moves…armed with not even a pea-shooter, nor a single-cell of brain-power, unaware of the history about it all.

  60. This is why marketing drones shouldn’t rush into heavy machine gun fire, (and should consult archives and do actual research) as so so so many problems with that study, including comparison and task similarity issues, analyst independence, tilted methodology (using only those that choose to deploy), weighted advertising, with a lack of raw data, third-party stooge as “cop-outtting”, Laura DiDio already a gadfly (see the SCO case) and etc. etc.

    But Scoble blindly walks in posting whatever moves…armed with not even a pea-shooter, nor a single-cell of brain-power, unaware of the history about it all.

  61. #38 — exactly my point at #19

    How can they get away with such blindly incorrect stats. They should retract and publish the stats the mathematicians say are accurate!

  62. #38 — exactly my point at #19

    How can they get away with such blindly incorrect stats. They should retract and publish the stats the mathematicians say are accurate!

  63. wow, christopher coulter is a real b***h. If you hate scoble that much, why do you even read this blog (as well as comment on it). I often disagree with alot of what Scoble says, but I know that he is infact genuine and its very rude to call him a mere “marketing drone” etc…

    I suppose this is off topic, so feel free to delete it.

  64. wow, christopher coulter is a real b***h. If you hate scoble that much, why do you even read this blog (as well as comment on it). I often disagree with alot of what Scoble says, but I know that he is infact genuine and its very rude to call him a mere “marketing drone” etc…

    I suppose this is off topic, so feel free to delete it.

  65. Oh that’s too funny that SuSE turned out to be the most reliable. As in a funny on Microsoft and Red Hat way.

  66. Oh that’s too funny that SuSE turned out to be the most reliable. As in a funny on Microsoft and Red Hat way.

  67. If Windows is so reliable I’m surprised you continue to host your blog on Linux. And you allow your son to use an iBook and you own an iPod. A Playstation 3 can’t be far behind. :-)

  68. If Windows is so reliable I’m surprised you continue to host your blog on Linux. And you allow your son to use an iBook and you own an iPod. A Playstation 3 can’t be far behind. :-)

  69. I didn’t choose WordPress because of its reliability. All of our Microsoft blogs are running on Windows and they are up just as often as my blog is and they have a lot more readers, too.

    As to iBook or iPod or Playstation, what does that have to do with the reliability of Windows? Well, the iBook might, but Patrick has a Windows machine too and now he wants an Intel machine so he can run Windows on that (Windows has a lot more games than his Mac does).

    Playstation 3? Nah. We already have an Xbox 360. Don’t see what I’d get by spending another $600.

  70. I didn’t choose WordPress because of its reliability. All of our Microsoft blogs are running on Windows and they are up just as often as my blog is and they have a lot more readers, too.

    As to iBook or iPod or Playstation, what does that have to do with the reliability of Windows? Well, the iBook might, but Patrick has a Windows machine too and now he wants an Intel machine so he can run Windows on that (Windows has a lot more games than his Mac does).

    Playstation 3? Nah. We already have an Xbox 360. Don’t see what I’d get by spending another $600.

  71. i’m using windows 2003 on my notebook … never had a system crash (no bsod no hangs etc…) since i installed it… i’m a software developer and an aggressive software installer/tester :P

    i don’t know if it’s better that redhat but windows 2003 it’s surely stable (and a lot better than xp)

  72. i’m using windows 2003 on my notebook … never had a system crash (no bsod no hangs etc…) since i installed it… i’m a software developer and an aggressive software installer/tester :P

    i don’t know if it’s better that redhat but windows 2003 it’s surely stable (and a lot better than xp)

  73. I would have to agree with you there, windoze is just plain unreliable. Nothing can bring down Ubuntu server, I have had it run for years without a single minute of downtime apart from a power outage. I think people should take linux more seriously because, Microsoft’s prices are rising and are already too high.

  74. I would have to agree with you there, windoze is just plain unreliable. Nothing can bring down Ubuntu server, I have had it run for years without a single minute of downtime apart from a power outage. I think people should take linux more seriously because, Microsoft’s prices are rising and are already too high.