×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Windows Servers Beat Linux Servers

samzenpus posted more than 8 years ago | from the say-it-aint-so dept.

709

RobbeR49 writes "Windows Server 2003 was recently compared against Linux and Unix variants in a survey by the Yankee Group, with Windows having a higher annual uptime than Linux. Unix was the big winner, however, beating both Windows and Linux in annual uptime. From the article: 'Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and Linux distributions from "niche" open source vendors, are offline more and longer than either Windows or Unix competitors, the survey said. The reason: the scarcity of Linux and open source documentation.' Yankee Group is claiming no bias in the survey as they were not sponsored by any particular OS vendor."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Same as last year. (4, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487921)

Lets look at last years survey being debunked in a business week analysis. [businessweek.com] ('cause I'm sure not a damn thing's changed since last year's study).

The biggest criticism of the study is this:

Only people running w2k3 AND linux were allowed to respond. Hmmmmmn, so how many MS shops with an evaluation linux server (installed by their clueless MSCE) were included in this "survey"

Yankee group can claim no bias all they like - but I am sick of Laura DiDio [wikipedia.org] fud being posted here (Oh she of 'SCO's claims are justified after looking at the source' fame).

Call this ad-hominem if you like, but if someone pushes a POV year in, year out, you tend to dismiss them.

Re:Same as last year. (4, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487951)


It was by Laura DiDio. They may as well have had Steve Ballmer make the judgement.

Re:Same as last year. (5, Insightful)

semifamous (231316) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487977)

Another tech site has an editorial article on this report [neowin.net] .

From the editorial:
I administrate both Windows and Linux servers and was interested to see this report. However, reading into the article a bit more makes me question the validity of their assessment.

The Yankee Group states that Windows 2003 Server led Red Hat Enterprise Linux with nearly 20% more annual up time.

I had to do a double take when I saw that. 20% more!? Assume for a moment that you have two servers, one running Windows Server 2003 and one running Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4. Assume that your Windows box ran non-stop, without rebooting (which means you probably are not loading any Microsoft security updates) for 365 days. For your Linux box to have 20% more downtime it'd have to only be up for 292 days. If that is the case, your machine is no longer a server and is nothing more than a space heater.

Re:Same as last year. (1)

muhgcee (188154) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488023)

There is an inconsistency:
nearly 20% more annual up time.
to have 20% more downtime

Getting this wording consistent makes a big difference in assessing the validity of the report.

Math Nitpick (3, Informative)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488053)

That would be about 304 days, as 20% of 304 is 60.8 (304+60.8=364.8). The 20% must be taken as 20% of the RedHat uptime, not the Windows.

But yeah, that's way too low for RedHat.

Re:Math Nitpick (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488118)

More to the point -- is "uptime" the opposite of "downtime" or is it "uptime" as in the output of the "uptime" command?

With the latter, the 20% difference is at least plausible; if the former, I agree that it's absurd.

Re:Same as last year. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15488123)

Your math is off. If Windows has 20% more uptime than RHEL then a Linux server would have 365/1.20 ~ 304 days of uptime, compared to a Windows server staying up 365 days. Still a space heater though.

Re:Same as last year. (4, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487978)

Call this ad-hominem if you like, but if someone pushes a POV year in, year out, you tend to dismiss them.

You shouldn't dismiss them just because they're consistent; they could in fact be consistently right (e.g. RMS).

Did you perhaps mean that if someone continues to push a POV after their reasoning has already shown to be flawed once you tend to dismiss them because the situation (and their flawed reasoning) is not likely to have changed?

Re:Same as last year. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15488008)

I'm a linux user myself, but I find it rather annoying that nobody here will even entertain the notion that microsoft could produce anything worth using.

I know, I know, borg this, closed source that, but c'mon that doesn't mean that anybody who finds some benefit in something MS produces is on the payroll.

Re:Same as last year. (2, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488022)

Only people running w2k3 AND linux were allowed to respond.

Shame they didn't ask me. While my win2k3 server is up and has been for a while, that's a far cry from saying it's trouble free. More than that, my linux boxes have been up without complaint for far longer AND are more trouble free AND are running apps that don't run on windows.

So, were they to ask me, the headlines might have read something like, "Linux more versatile and trouble free than windows counterpart".

I'll grant you, the win2k3 server is acting in a role that wouldn't be done nearly as well as the linux boxes.

Re:Same as last year. (4, Insightful)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488024)

Documentation for linux is bad. Theres no arguing the point

I just switched a box from fedora core 4 to core 5 and was real pleased nobody had bothered to document the changes to the default install of Apache. I also can't count the times I have looked for things on the LDP or the HOWTO's and found yes this is a very good howto but the distribution is entirely freaking different.

Now I'm not saying microsfts documentation is any better, but they make up for it with consistency in the setup. Pretty much once things are set with M$ they are there. By example, You may not like the registry but its pretty consistent in how it works from win95 to win 2003.

That said once a server is setup and in production why the heck will a lack of documentation bring it down ? I have had Novell servers up for 4+ years at customer sites and they don't even get the docs.

They cannot beat my uptime. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488043)

09:18:29 up 487 days, 22:39, 1 user, load average: 0.65, 0.48, 0.29

And that server is handling DNS/DHCP/RADIUS/NTP etc for the entire company.

Go ahead. Tell me that Windows can get more uptime than that server had in the past 365 days.

At this point in time there should not be any discussion of availablity. In 2006 it is just unreasonable to have a production server crash due to anything other than hardware failure.

My Linux boxes are rebooted ONLY when I upgrade the kernel or physically move them.

Re:Same as last year. (1)

KhaymanUCSD (801306) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488113)

Call this ad-hominem if you like, but if someone pushes a POV year in, year out, you tend to dismiss them.

If I dismissed them then I wouldn't ever take anything people on /. say seriously... Not that it's incorrect, but the point of view of most people on this site regarding windows vs. *nix is fairly consistent.

Re:Same as last year. (1)

wolenczak (517857) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488124)

[root@muyil webmast]# uptime
  11:24:44 up 589 days, 22:08, 6 users, load average: 1.56, 1.13, 0.86

Don't know you but that's stable enough for me. (production server running 6 ecommerce backends)

Re:Same as last year = more BS (5, Insightful)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488131)

What the hell kind of shops/businesses/people are they surveying? People that have their servers running for a couple of days a year??

"According to the Yankee Group's annual server reliability survey . . . Windows 2003 Server, in fact, led the popular Red Hat Enterprise Linux with nearly 20 percent more annual uptime."

I would think that most businesses want to have their servers up 24/7/365 minus a few hours of scheduled reboots and upgrades, and unless something breaks or crashes. So, assume a Windows 2003 server had PERFECT uptime record for the year.

365/1.2 = 304.17. So, in order for Windows to beat Linux with 20% more uptime, they're trying to say that a server running RHEL is down more than SIXTY DAYS a year? My BS meter just crashed.

Re:Same as last year. (1)

jm91509 (161085) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488141)


Only people running w2k3 AND linux were allowed to respond. Hmmmmmn, so how many MS shops with an evaluation linux server (installed by their clueless MSCE) were included in this "survey"


How do you explain that HP-UX and Solaris 10 scored higher than Windows then? Guess clueless MSCE's are handy around HP-UX/Solaris and not linux...

That argument doesn't hold up.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15487924)

What's the use of this?

stop rebooting (-1, Flamebait)

Douglas Simmons (628988) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487927)

Debian users: Unless you've changed your kernel, rebooting is not going to get your sound working, so stop unnecessarily skewing the results of these tests for everyone else. As the #debian mantra goes, "If you're interested in sound, you should not be running Debian."

Re:stop rebooting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15487987)

lol, same goes for video! :P

Re:stop rebooting (1)

Kookus (653170) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488019)

Are you smoking something? I haven't found anything yet in the mass-produced consumer market that hasn't been relatively easy to get working.
I've got things from external usb sound systems to internal cards of all flavors of things made by creative to work just fine.

I think you need a new mantra.

20% more UPTIME? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15487929)

From the article:
Windows 2003 Server, in fact, led the popular Red Hat Enterprise Linux with nearly 20 percent more annual uptime.
That means that Red Hat Linux has to have at least 1,461 hours of annual downtime, which is 60 days. (This is so that it would then have no more 5,844 hours of annual uptime, in order to allow 20% more of that to fit into one year at 365.25 days.)

I don't think so.

I hate writers who don't understand math.

I'm just not seeing it (5, Informative)

waif69 (322360) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487932)

I have run both windows servers and linux servers over the last 10 years and my experience is higher uptime with linux servers. Windows machines deal poorly with memory leaking apps and need rebooting for every service pack or required update. I only need to restart specific processes with linux when there is a justified upgrade.

Re:I'm just not seeing it (3, Insightful)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488017)

I, on the other hand, see just the opposite.

For years the Linux mantra was that Windows cannot do enterprise, wasn't secure, and on and on... however with a good, well trained administrator behind the console of ANY operating system, it can be made secure, it can do enterprise.

here, because of the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitudes of the Linux support team, the Linux environment (limited to some Web server farms, SMTP servers and a few SAMBA servers), the uptime is around 99.0%. The Windows environment, which is a lot larger, over 1000 servers in total (a mix of 2000 and 2003 but mostly 2003) has a current uptime of 99.95%.
No viruses internally, no spyware/malware internally, inexpensive (compared to what IBM wanted to charge us for Linux support across three years), and reliable.

Yes, sometimes Windows works quite well. For some of us it's cheaper and easier than any Linux distro. People sometimes seem to forget while a linux distro may be free, support for it, from both the admin side, and the overall support at higher levels, is far from it.

Before anyone comments, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15487935)

Before anyone gets emotional and decides to comment, remember these words: confirmation bias.

linux servers used by more n00bs? (1)

drtsystems (775462) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487938)

Maybe this is because Linux is used by more n00bs. I know my first web server (i assume thats what they are talking about?) was linux because linux is free. Most n00bs are goign to use the free alternative rather than the expensive one, and the companies using the expensive OS are going to be the companies who also pay a lot to their sys admins

Yup, agreed. (4, Funny)

Bazman (4849) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487939)

Our Windows 2003 TS servers have a much longer uptime than our Linux servers that are accessed from our lab. Simply because fewer people choose to use the Windows service....

Another 'study' by the Yankee Group... (4, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487940)



Why does Slashdot continue to even acknowledge 'studies' performed by the Yankee Group? You think we would have learned [slashdot.org] our lesson [slashdot.org] by now...

Hard evidence of collusion may be lacking, but it's still patently obvious that Laura DiDio [wikipedia.org] is a Microsoft shill [groklaw.net] .

Past experience should be enough to show this, but just in case it's not clear enough yet, here's a snippet of TFA:
But standard Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and Linux distributions from "niche" open source vendors, are offline more and longer than either Windows or Unix competitors, the survey said. The reason: the scarcity of Linux and open source documentation.


Translation: "We don't know how to support Linux, so it's Linux's fault."

Also from TFA:
The Yankee Group made a point of stressing that the survey was not sponsored or supported by any server OS maker.


I'll bet they did...when you turn out such a ridiculously skewed 'study', you pretty much have to make certain everyone knows how 'unbiased' it is.

Re:Another 'study' by the Yankee Group... (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488014)

Translation: "We don't know how to support Linux, so it's Linux's fault."

I agree that the study is a load of bullshit. However, we shouldn't use that as an excuse to discount everything they say. The idea that Linux's documentation needs improvement might still have merit.

Re:Another 'study' by the Yankee Group... (1)

raehl (609729) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488038)

Why does Slashdot continue to even acknowledge 'studies' performed by the Yankee Group?

Well, you wouldn't get all worked up and keep looking for new comments on the article if they just had articles that were not fragrantly biased against prevailing Slashdot opinion now, would you?

Slashdot is just trolling you, and you bought it.

Re:Another 'study' by the Yankee Group... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15488048)

A more accurate translation would be "How do you use this man thing?!?!!"

How Blame Gets Assigned (1)

carpeweb (949895) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488151)

Translation: "We don't know how to support Linux, so it's Linux's fault."

Managers (PHBs) don't blame the OS, the blame the SysAdmin.

Unfortunately, when the blame game starts, the best defense is still "we're using the industry leader", and it's why FUD is such an appropriate tag for this thread.

Did someone say "confirmation bias"?

LINUX GOT OWNED (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15487942)

INSECURE AND SLOWER

-zzzzz

In the end this matters not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15487945)

since organizations will use what works for them, not what some "paid-to-speak" mouthpiece states they should believe (smart organizations, anyway).

Defensiveness (2, Insightful)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487947)

We'll see lots of defensiveness over this study in the comments, although if the conclusions were different, it would be cheered. Why not accept it and fix the documentation issue?

Re:Defensiveness (1)

waif69 (322360) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487971)

Although the study is skewed and easily debunked, OCG does have a good point here, let's improve the documentation. Unfortunatly, most IT geeks that understand Linux, "don't write so well."

Re:Defensiveness Because it defies everyone's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15488004)

experience! Duh.

Re:Defensiveness (2, Insightful)

RevDobbs (313888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488018)

Are you serious?

What documentation comes with Windows? The help system is shit, there is little usefull logging or debugging available in many of their services.

I haven't used a Linux distro in the past several years, but I'm sure that their documentation is worlds better than what comes with Win2k/2003. And I can tell you that OpenBSD's documentation is superb. (Not to mention that the *BSDs trace a direct lineage to AT&T UNIX; does that suddenly make them as good as HP/UX? I have never done 3D modeling on OpenBSD, but if the needed application is available for OpenBSD I would pick it over the comercial unixes any day of the week..)

Re:Defensiveness (1)

Brunellus (875635) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488052)

Ah, but a rich and lucrative private sector has emerged, giving users their choice of Windows documentation....for a price. Linux documentation lags well behind the development of the actual software.

In fairness, however, the most-used, best-established software in Linux tends to be exhaustively (obsessively?) documented, I think. The most aggravating no-docs situations seem to arise on desktop apps under heavy development.

Conclusions? More like wild speculation. (1, Redundant)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488029)

The frustration around these "studies" isn't defensiveness, it's that they're drawing conclusions based on... what? Random number pulled from a powerball machine? Paw prints their cat left on the hood of their car? Stats taken from a Diebold machine? Tea leaves in the dregs of a cuppa Earl Grey? We'll never know.

Saying that poor docs are the issue sounds correct to me (anecdotally) but there's nothing in the article to confirm this is more than FUD. The documentation issue is improving (it's still not good, or consistent, but getting better). That said, it's still easier to resolve issues by googling than by looking through TFM.

Re:Defensiveness (2, Insightful)

digidave (259925) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488036)

The defensiveness comes from the fact that Yankee analyst Laura DiDio repeatedly makes ridiculous claims against Linux. She's the one that said Linux definitely stole SCO's code.

I don't have access to the full report, but I wonder how the "lack of documentation" came into play. Was a certified admin working each system? Did the admin call vendor support for help resolving any of the incidents? Was the particular problem experienced by each server the same? Hardware or software problems? Were all the servers configured in the same role? These differences play a role in how each of the operating systems scored.

Re:Defensiveness (2, Informative)

vidarlo (134906) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488040)

We'll see lots of defensiveness over this study in the comments, although if the conclusions were different, it would be cheered. Why not accept it and fix the documentation issue?

Because there are no documentation problems. Do you find an OS with a more well documentet API than Linux? More documentation than Gentoo has? The problem is that they have not studied what I'd dare say is the serious users, they've studied those without in-house competence on Linux.

*NIX-admins are probably more expensive than windows-admins, since there is fewer of them. Those organizations running old UNIX's typically have quite competent admins in-house, and quite different hardware. Windows and linux often runs on off-the-shelf hardware, which I guess explains why UNIX beats both of them

With Linux, the effect is double. A lot of companies have windows admins with some level of degree, but those who know unix, works in the serious business with big unix-machines. Those who adopt Linux have typically not used Unix before I guestimate.

What would be interesting would be to see a study between HP's [hp.com] Windows and Linux servers, since they provide the hardware themself, and should have in-house competance on both OS's.

Compare real things, do not compare different things. Anyone remember Microsoft UK's ad? I think it was along the lines of a x86 off-the-shelf with mssql and win2k compared to a IBM POWER machine. Of course, the ad proved that Linux was more expensive.... This reminds me of that.

Re:Defensiveness (1)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488042)

Because it's Slashot, it's best to just label the story FUD on the front page, even though it may very well be true (regardless of the reasons).

But the world would more than likely stop spinning if anything on Slashdot was remotely negative to Linux, but postitive to Windows in any manner...

Re:Defensiveness (1, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488049)

Why not accept it and fix the documentation issue?

Because it's hard to have purty pictures showing you where to click while using a CLI.

Re:Defensiveness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15488098)

Good lord that sums it up perfectly... I've never read a more perfect comment here.

Re:Defensiveness (4, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488102)

What documentation issue?

There are boatloads of documentation available. Ever hear of The Linux Documentation Project [tldp.org] ? Plus, most distributions offer lots of very good documentation. Why there was a Slashdot story [slashdot.org] just two days ago about the excellent Ubuntu documentation. There are no fewer than 600 books available about Red Hat distros [amazon.com] available for sale on Amazon. Not to mention that Red Hat Enterprise Linux itself includes lots of lots of documentation and most of it is available on the Web gratis [redhat.com] . Plus the hundreds of open source apps that include very good documentation with their package. Have you actually read the documentation and free books available on the Samba website [samba.org] ? It's darned good!

Any perceived documentation issue is Laura DiDiot's head.

Re:Defensiveness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15488105)

because the open source fanatics think they can do no wrong. if you can't understand it or make it work, it's because you are stupid and/or lazy, and not because the open source fanatics are stupid and/or lazy.

About the author... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15487948)

my Math more reliable than Yankee survey (4, Informative)

yagu (721525) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487956)

Another article claiming my OS is better than yours, another article with virtually no information, and the information therein is off-the-scale incomprehensible and inconsistent.

Here's a casual observation: the article says, "

Windows 2003 Server, in fact, led the popular Red Hat Enterprise Linux with nearly 20 percent more annual uptime.
" Later in the article, this:
"..., On average, individual enterprise Windows, Linux, and Unix servers experienced 3 to 5 failures per server per year in 2005, generating 10 to 19.5 hours of annual downtime for each server.
" Let's just say a Linux server has 24 hours of downtime a year (higher than the "survey" says). That leaves 364 days of uptime in a year, 365 days in a leap year.

Implied in the article then, a Windows 2003 server would have to be "up" approximately 20% more to satisfy the "claim". Now, I am not a calendar "expert", but I'm having a difficult time believing that Windows 2003 server is up an average of 364 * 1.2, or 436.8 days a year. If it is, I'm buying.

Also from the article: "..., But standard Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and Linux distributions from "niche" open source vendors, are offline more and longer than either Windows or Unix competitors, the survey said. The reason: the scarcity of Linux and open source documentation...."

First, this is a survey, it hardly points to data that support this survey, in my book a no-no when trying to prove a point. Secondly, assuming there's truthiness in this, my inference from the previous paragraph is, "Red Hat would be a little easier to set up and use if it had better documentation..."

Re:my Math more reliable than Yankee survey (4, Funny)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488037)

Implied in the article then, a Windows 2003 server would have to be "up" approximately 20% more to satisfy the "claim". Now, I am not a calendar "expert", but I'm having a difficult time believing that Windows 2003 server is up an average of 364 * 1.2, or 436.8 days a year. If it is, I'm buying.
Maybe they are measuring "subjective uptime": it only seems like 436.8 days a year when you are supporting a Windows server?

Re:my Math more reliable than Yankee survey (1)

MrSquishy (916581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488066)

IAACE (I am a calendar expert), and there are not 436.8 days in an Earth Year. Even a Leap Earth Year.

Re:my Math more reliable than Yankee survey (1)

Joey7F (307495) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488090)

I would guess that "math" works out like this:

Surveys show Linux downtime per year is 6 days a year compared to 5 for Win2k. 6-5=1 1/5 = 20%.

The writer (either?) does not understand English or Math.

--Joey

Re:my Math more reliable than Yankee survey (1)

vidarlo (134906) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488111)

" Let's just say a Linux server has 24 hours of downtime a year (higher than the "survey" says). That leaves 364 days of uptime in a year, 365 days in a leap year. Implied in the article then, a Windows 2003 server would have to be "up" approximately 20% more to satisfy the "claim". Now, I am not a calendar "expert", but I'm having a difficult time believing that Windows 2003 server is up an average of 364 * 1.2, or 436.8 days a year. If it is, I'm buying.

sighYou don't know what percent is. It is a relation. If a Win2k3 server is down 10 hours, and the Linux server down 20% more, then it is 10hrs*1.2=12hrs. Which makes sense.

So the linux server has 20% more downtime, not 20% of the total year, which you calculated.

duh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15487959)

sh$ man 'where are they hiding the documents?'

Pssh. (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487966)

I'm glad they backed up their allegations with facts and figures...Oh wait.

Every time I see an article like this, I view it as utter crap. There are no numbers, there are no sources, and it utterly contradicts my daily experience...Well, except for the "stability of regular unix" bit, which is pretty much a no-brainer.

I run linux in a work environment, I run linux in my home environment. I get occasional hardware failures, but that's about it. Applications don't lock things up irretrivably. It needs less babying than my windows systems do, and I generally run more different applications on the linux machines than I do on the windows machines.

Windows 2003 is better than 2000, but this article is fact-free fud.

Lets google this shall we? (1)

Psionicist (561330) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487967)

Let's for the sake of amusement Google "Yankee Group" funded microsoft [google.com]

Or, let's try site:slashdot.org "Yankee Group" [google.com]

Unbiased? No freaking way.

Re:Lets google this shall we? (1)

LordKazan (558383) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488076)

try "Yankee Group" [google.com] - /. is the second result

Article empty of content (1)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487968)

No information on how these "results" were obtained (self-reported?) or anything else that would allow people to figure out if their statistics are biased or not.

So the study wasn't funded by Microsoft? What does that tell us? If this was research done by asking Windows admins which OS they found had the greatest uptime, wouldn't you expect results along these lines? Of course, we can't know how or why these results were obtained, because the article is essentially four paragraphs saying Windows roxors, Linux is the suxor!

I'm not new here, but the hype in the article titles and the lack of content is starting to be annoying. Is it just me, or is it getting worse?

Downtime? (2, Insightful)

Alioth (221270) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487969)

Three to five down events per year totaling 10 to 19 hours of downtime per year? I'm not SuperAdmin, but NONE of my servers are ever down for that long or that often. Who are they letting run these boxes? What are they doing? Taking the machine into single user mode and recompiling the kernel before rebooting them or something?

Re:Downtime? (1)

mabu (178417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488073)

I found a picture from the study [bucknell.edu] . I think this explains a few things.

Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15487972)

As opposed to the overwhelming amount and quality of Windows and other proprietary software documentation? You've got to be kidding me.

Anyway, I still choose Linux! Haha!

Documentation for running a server? (2, Interesting)

nuggz (69912) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487973)

How does documentation affect the uptime of a server?

You need documentation to make changes, not to leave the server alone.

If you're making changes you're not measuring the reliability of the OS/software, you're measuring software and admin performance.

Re:Documentation for running a server? (2, Funny)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488149)

How does documentation affect the uptime of a server?
I keep trying to plug my USB key into the power switch.

Beating how? (0, Offtopic)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487974)

"Windows Servers Beat Linux Servers"

I think they're using this [wikipedia.org] definition of beat.

BSD (2, Interesting)

Fireflymantis (670938) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487981)

So where would *BSD fall in. Along with Linux because of the clueless people rebooting it because they don't understand /etc/init.d, or along with UNIX because (I'm linux user myself) BSD users actually do seem a bit on the more experianced side of the fence.

my 2 cents... (1, Interesting)

revery (456516) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487982)

This sounds completely bizarre to me. I have never, ever, ever had a problem with a Linux distro that brought the system down, that I couldn't diagnose within five minutes of web browsing. I have, however, had many, many, many Windows problems that kept a system down that Microsoft themselves couldn't solve. (Frequently the solution was reinstall)

Granted, Windows has been more stable recently, but in my experience, everything on a Linux system can be logged, whereas half of the stuff on a Windows systems happens in a way that you can't get to it or see what's going on.

The one thing from the study that I'll readily agree with wasn't quoted in the linked article, but instead can be found here [yankeegroup.com] on the Yankee Group's news page:

Underlying these findings is the crucial point that TCO metrics such as reliability, performance, security and management ultimately depend on an individual company's implementation.

When are these fools gonna learn (1, Interesting)

linuxkrn (635044) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487984)

How many times to we have to tell people that Red Hat != ALL OF LINUX.

That's like saying Windows 2003 is all of Windows. I still doubt that they played fair in FUD report.

In addition to this, they almost NEVER compare apples to apples. Apache != Linux either, just IIS != Windows.

How many patches require you to REBOOT windows to apply? Service Packs? The only thing you need to reboot Linux for is a new kernel. Did they factor that in as well?

But my guess is these guys either got MS funding from somewhere, or were fishing for some after giving this report.

Re:When are these fools gonna learn (1)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488095)

Well considering that a good admin knows what QChain is, at most there would be 12 reboots a year, for a downtime no more than it takes the server to reboot. Take an average HP ProLiant DL380G4 or 385 G1, which, with 4 disks in Raid 10 (HP's raid 1+0), takes less than 1 minute to reboot, you are looking at, at most, 12 minutes a year downtime.

In fact when building a new server, all the hotfixes up to that month are QChained and it requires ONE reboot to install all of them and get the server 100% current with all updates.

Personally I think a lot of anti-Microsoft/pro-Linux folks (not all pro-Linux folks are anti-Microsoft) are full of just about as much FUD, because it's apparent they don't know proper Windows server management.

Uptime vs. downtime (4, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487985)

Is it 20% more uptime? Or is it 20% less downtime? There's a very, very big difference there -- two months of downtime is pretty severe, and if you have that, you have some serious problems. From the reverse perspective, three nines of uptime allows for nearly nine hours of downtime per year. If that downtime is reduced by 20%, that's nice, but not really noticeable for most users.

Feel free to correct me but.. (1)

JonJ (907502) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487986)

"Lack of documentation"? First of all there's plenty of documentation pretty much everywhere, no mwatter what *nix you use(FreeBSD and Gentoo has excellent documentation) but, doesn't Red Hat come with support? If there's something you can't figure out on your own, why not call the support you've paid for?

More informative version of the article (2, Informative)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487992)

A more informative Summary of the 2006 Survey [iaps.com]

Mod parent Informative, please (1)

Soko (17987) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488148)

Thank you - that pointed out that it's a Yankee/SunBelt [sunbelt-software.com] survey.

SunBelt Software has always been dependant on Microsoft (through value adds to MS products) for revenue, so thier sponsorship of this survey casts it into a questionable light. I call this a fairly well disguised attempt at spreading marketing instead of a scientifically done survey.

Soko

Only Bad windows admins responded ? (1, Funny)

brufar (926802) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487994)

Because GOOD Windows admins PATCH their Windows boxes every month, and therefore would not have an continuous uptime of more than about 30 days at a stretch.. meanwhile most Linux patches can be done with minimal disruption and usually without a reboot.

Nope I'm not buying this report.. and I run both Win and Linux servers.

I for one, am moved. (1)

delire (809063) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487996)

At least someone still takes Laura and the Yankee Group seriously. Proof that Loyal fans such as Slashdot are not to be discarded easily.

For those of you unclear on the just what deserves this unerring trust, see here [wikipedia.org] .

Does it really matter? (1)

_damnit_ (1143) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487998)

I'm sure there will be another study which says the opposite soon enough. Linux is a major player and is here to stay. MS products are fine for a lot of applications and the same for UNIX. Just throw this in with the (rest of the) FUD and move along. Besides, until MS comes along with something as cheap as Linux (free as in beer) they'll never be able to kill Linux. Let's get back to the Apple adoration, BSD is dying, PS3 is great/expensive, hot grits, flame wars and ATI/Nvidia benchmarking that we've all come to expect from Slashdot.

yeah but... (1)

dallase (937398) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487999)

"not sponsored by any particular OS vendor" notice the addition of "OS". meaning they were sponsored, by "someone". i wonder which side this "someone" is on.

Article is FUD and flamebait (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488001)


Give me a fucking break. Its 2006. If your OS is down or crashes, you have bullshit admins, using a bullshit OS, or have crummy hardware or power.

I have had Linux crash in production once. In 1997, and the bug was fixed in a day or so. Also, it was my fault as a beginner admin who thought it was cool to download and install the "latest and greatest" untested kernel from kernel.org or where ever you got Linux kernels at the time.

Now, will slashdot give me serifed fonts back?

20% of *what*? (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488002)

I've had HP/UX machines with 2 years of uptime. FreeBSD machines with > 1 year were common too. Usually the machine had to be moved or repurposed before it crashed.
Sun machines weren't nearly as reliable as HP, generating 10 times the number of hardware service calls. That and the 250 day bug, gave them somewhat lower uptimes.
A properly configured Linux machine is at least as reliable. How could anything have 20% more uptime than a machine that's up 99.999% of the time?

I don't reboot windows either (1)

snizfast (763637) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488003)

I don't reboot my Windows Server's either because I don't like to touch them. I don't even bother putting the Linux servers on a UPS. They just work. Uptime is also a small part of what I consider when choosing a server OS. The monthly Windows updates usually want a reboot (I don't like having to wait until patch day for critical patches though). Linux keeps releasing the kernel updates so not too much better there. The applications that I will run tend to make that decision for me.

Total Bullshit (2, Insightful)

mabu (178417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488012)

First and foremost, the whole nature of the design of Unix/Linux provides a means by which software systems can be updated without any service outage. You cannot do this with any version of Windows. Most Windows-based patches and upgrades require a system reboot, which is downtime. Most unix-based upgrades merely require a quick stop/start/HUP of the services. If their main claim is that updating system components is the basis for downtime, they're smoking crack. Maybe their methodology for testing involved taking the entire system down while they upgraded? Unix doesn't require such drastic measures - Windows probably does, as you probably can't update a running service. By design, Windows is exponentially more prone to downtime in the process of patches and upgrades. It's virtually impossible for them to compare the two OSes on this issue and not be dramatically manipulating the test methods to create bogus results that are in no way reflective of how sysadmins patch and manage their server resources. I call BULLSHIT [bsalert.com] .

I have unix servers right now with uptime measured in YEARS. There are no Windows boxes that can make that claim. Period. I've had outages on occasion due to DDOS or system probes that caused a process to terminate over the years, but I've never had any type of wholesale outage that you'd typically get with most Windows installations. Does anyone have any details on the methodology of the testing? It's obviously bogus.

WxP Pro (2, Informative)

robpoe (578975) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488021)

We have a WinXP Pro box that's been up over a year ...

Another box that's Win2k pro that's been up almost 2...

The one app they run is heavily used (dispatch for a 911 center).

They got the wrong results (1)

Artem Tashkinov (764309) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488026)

I suppose for Windows 2003 servers they have computed in-between-reboots uptime which was "better" then Linux'es one.

Yankee (5, Informative)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488027)

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/ar chives/2005/04/the_truth_about_1.html [businessweek.com]
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/lin ux/story/0,10801,82070,00.html [computerworld.com]
Laura DiDio, an analyst at The Yankee Group in Boston, said she was shown two or three samples of the allegedly copied Linux code, and it appeared to her that the sections were a "copy and paste" match of the SCO Unix code that she was shown in comparison.
DiDio and the other analysts were able to view the code only under a nondisclosure agreement, ... "The courts are going to ultimately have to prove this, but based on what I'm seeing ... I think there is a basis that SCO has a credible case," DiDio said. "This is not a nuisance case."

Watch the "expert" Laura Didio on video from a credible source:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts /videos/didio_video.wvx [microsoft.com]

Enjoy her!

*lol*

Doesn't jibe with reality (5, Informative)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488030)

How come I never get any of these "impartial surveys"? I have racks and racks of RHEL Linux servers that I only reboot when:

a. a machine suffers a hardware failure (fairly rare) or
b. there's a kernel update that impacts security

In the case of (b), I apply the updated rpms and reboot which normally results in a downtime of approximately 60 seconds for that server. This might happen a few times a year (single digits).

For our small number of Windows 2003 server boxes, it seems that each "windows update" cycle recommends a restart. We'll call that a once a month reboot when Microsoft gets around to releasing their monthly cleanup. Total server downtime is maybe 2-3 minutes (windows takes a bit longer to reboot on the identical hardware used with our Linux machines).

So while I *could* say that our windows servers are down XYZ percent more than our Linux servers, in terms of actual downtime, both platforms are about the same, with Linux seemingly holding a small edge in my experience.

Cheers,

Re:Doesn't jibe with reality (2, Interesting)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488065)

I agree, we run our entire lab on Linux, with the exception of my WinXP machine and a laptop downstairs.

Reliability - thy name is Linux - we can't afford to keep rebooting our servers when our medical genetics perl scripts run days and weeks before crunching the DNA sequences and family inheritance statistical inferences.

Maybe shops that are only open for 9-9 each day can, but we have to be up all the time.

Windows Server is nice..... (3, Insightful)

ShyGuy91284 (701108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488035)

I don't know about uptime, but I used to be a Linux-Only person when it came to servers. After recently falling into a job where I have had to administer Windows servers, I'll admit they are slick...... I picked up workiing with them a hell of a lot easier then I would have a Linux server (if I was new to it). Good LAN support features, ISA, Exchange, license management, fairly easy remote user/computer maintenance..... I'm probably going to give it a shot for my next home server once I get the parts. Although the software is costly if you want to learn it as a hobby (I'm getting it for my home server through MSDNAA).

Re:Windows Server is nice..... (3, Insightful)

pl1ght (836951) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488147)

I'm glad you admitted it first. I work with about 300 Linux(slackware, redhat flavor) webservers. Which are great, no problems for the most part, but we also run about 45 Win2k/2k3 IIS/MSSQL/AD/Exchange servers for our Intranet apps and i must also admit that we have no problems with these guys. They are very very easy to manage and setup and ive yet to have a "crashing" problem that wasnt hardware related on either OS. To each his own. Both have their strengths.

What? (3, Interesting)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488039)

"Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and Linux distributions from "niche" open source vendors, are offline more and longer than either Windows or Unix competitors, the survey said. The reason: the scarcity of Linux and open source documentation."

Hmm, thats odd. Linux documentation has always been in great abundance. It's getting information about how OS interals worked that caused me the biggest OS to Application head-aches. (Both Unix and Windows)

On a broader note, said Yankee analyst Laura DiDio

Ohhhhhh, I see. Laura DiDio had her nasty little Microsoft-lead hand in this survey.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15488047)

OK, I have about 3 years of Linux experience under my belt now. The server I maintain was setup about a year ago, it has been restarted twice since then and one time was to install new hardware, the other for a kernel update. There has been no downtime at all besides those restarts and the twenty seconds it takes to update Apache (and other packages as well) to a new version and restart it. Are these people freaking clueless?

So Unix Windows Linux? (1)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488056)

That's not a formula that computes :-)

Bye Bye Slashdot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15488060)

I've noticed the increasing number of articles linked by Slashdot in which Microsoft is either blatently promoted or Linux is quietly undermined.

I am sure there are other sites for Microsofties to satisfy their habit. Slashdot used to be where I could find out about advances and innovation in various nerdy fields of interst, open source and Linux in particular.

Now it has turned into a truly commercial site where many of the articles are obviously promotional material containing spin in favour of the big corporations.

Slashdots loss will be LWN's gain.

No more Slashdot for me.

Bye bye.

The actual press release has less fud (1)

Zane Hopkins (894230) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488061)

The actual press release [yankeegroup.com] has the title
Yankee Group Finds All Mainstream Server OS Platforms Exhibit a High Degree of Reliability
which is a lot less fud, and headline grabbing than yahoo manages

As if this would deter us from *nix. (1)

zwilliams07 (840650) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488101)

Personally I don't believe this at all. I have a friend who runs a website that is 300,000 members strong, with about 1500 users online (both members and leeching guests) and his servers are almost never down because of Debian. The only time the site goes down is when MySQL crashes (last year it only happened twice, and we recovered within hours).

I know my servers, and all of my friends servers will remain *nix based.

And just by chance anyone want to donate to my Intel Xserve fund? Get myself some creamy OS X Server loving.

This is crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15488107)

All of my systems are redundant. I can yank the power from one of my servers and my services don't miss a beat.

I care about servicing my customers. And that's why I haven't had a loss of service in over 4 years.

And that's why I use Linux. The OS has never crashed on me. It's at the point where the hardware is much less reliable than the OS.

The thing is, it SOUNDS plausible. (3, Insightful)

Theovon (109752) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488134)

See, I know far too little about system administration. If I were to try to run a Linux server without help, it would be down all the time. If _I_ wanted a server, I'd pay someone a service feel to maintain it for me, and it would be up all the time.

So, it seems to me that ON AVERAGE, Linux servers would be down more than others, because so many people would be trying to admin themselves. The lack of documentation would definitely be a problem. (Actually, there's plenty of documentation. FINDING it is the problem. I don't know enough to come up with the right Google search terms! And posting to usenet is hit or miss.)

The question is what the uptime is like for Linux distros where you're paying out the ass for support (like you would for Windows or UNIX anyway). That's got to be such a small portion of Linux servers that it's not dragging the percentages up.

The real metric should be UPTIME / ($$ spent on support).

Be careful about those divides by zero.

Quick! (-1, Troll)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488135)

Trot out all the excuses of how this study was flawed! Not experienced enough Linux admins! Different amounts of memory in the machines! Little green martians that only Linux users can see!

Erroneous conclusions (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488138)

First, it's a survey, not a study (technically it's a study of what particular people responded with when asked certain questions worded in a certain way). Second, a proper study would use each operating system in the same situation, since that's the practical question anyone would have: which operating system should I use in my situation, given my requirements? For all we know, each operating system was used by the respondents in a different niche, each with differing requirements. As joked in another post, the Windows servers might have been in the niche of "servers which nobody uses/wants to use".

But I'm just responding to a trollish survey, exactly what they want.

retard admins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15488140)

I've run a windows 2000 box, windows 2003 and linux box. Never crashed.

Only have to reboot them to install and test software updates(windows + linux machines).
For example... check apache does start if server reboots for any reason.

I can only think people having any kind of uptime problem on any of these systems are just misusing the server. Stupid administraters are the problem not the OS alot of the time.

Windows and Linux platforms are both extreamly stable, if you UNDERSTAND how they work and you have spent the money of QUALITY components (buy a dell and you are asking for trouble, all of my ones are custom made). Hardware faults cause alot more crashes than people realise.

SHENANIGANS!!! (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488150)

Ok, point of fact, I used to be a web developer for a Microsoft vendor that had exzclusive contracts with them. As such I was FORCED to use Windows. Side by side comparison of good sys admins on both OS's would show that even Windows 2003 still has issues and that any update forces downtime unlike on Linux. In my current job, it's the Windows servers that crash, get wierd hiccups and viruses.

I call shenanigans!!

Linux Rocks!! (1)

ravee (201020) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488153)

When was uptime a factor in deciding whether an OS was better than the other? True uptime is one of the factors but not surely the decisive one. Security, how quick the patches are released for bugs and the stellar technical support should be the decisive factors in deciding the superiority of an OS. And taking all these factors, I feel tha t Linux comes way ahead of Windows.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?