Pfft.. Bill Gates needs to keel up in a corner and die.
A bit harsh? Not really.
Sometime here recently, Microsoft has started this "Get the Facts" campaign, slamming Linux as much as possible. What is their #1 claim? "Lower cost of ownership."
Think about it... The higher cost, if it really exists, is worth it. Linux is more reliable, robust, and secure, if you have a good administrator. Sure, that last part is where the money is, but like I said, it's worth it.
Only once have I tried to remotely administer a Windows server, and it was enough to make me never want to do it again.
Granted, I have pretty much no experience with Windows servers, only Linux, but I am still very entitled to my opinion that this campaign sucks!
Their reports are dripping with falsity and misleading figures.
i remember their:
"Windows PC Lower TCO than Linux Mainframe"
well... DUH. Cost of mainframe > Cost of Dell. they didn't ever figure in all of the other windows necessities, downtimes, and crashes either.
Once in awhile i check netcraft for the popular sites. Most of them either use Linux or Solaris, but once in awhile i see a BSD or even Windows.
Typically Solaris and BSD have the longest uptimes (w/ high loads), linux has a highest of 200 some? i forget the reporting error there, but generally they last as long as other *nix, just don't have the numbers for some reason.
Windows usually gets up to 40 or so days. while others get several hundred days, if not years.
I know uptimes mean little, but nontheless, it shows a little bit into the unstability brought by windows servers
- Posted by Siplus (Guest) on May 25, 2005 at 08:45:15PM