Microsoft's Linux Guru says Windows More Reliable


Recommended Posts

The_Decryptor

It's definitely hardware related. That particular error usually indicated overheating or bad memory.

But it can also indicate that two devices are sharing an IRQ that don't get along. That can be a trickier one to diagnose, though.

It happens even if I'm cold booting (actually more-so i think), and MemTest reported no problems, and Ubuntu runs fine with it. (I'll probably end up running MemTest again though anyway.)

And if it is IRQ related, I'll have to find some way of fixing that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
vancity001

All of this talk about blue screens is really strange to me. I personally have four XP machines in my house and have NEVER seen a BSOD. The few times I have had to work on client machines that were bluescreening it was because of hardware issues or crappy driver issues. This is microsofts fault? And by the way, ever heard of a kernel panic? Same thing. Some windows users get BSODs, some dont, just as some linux users will never have an issue and some will have non-stop problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Miuku.
Personally, I've found Linux systems to be extremely unreliable. A few years ago when I was still in school, we had a lab that was run by another student

It was run by a student.. yes, a student. A person that completely lacks any real world experience on how to build a reliable, dependant infra. That's definitely an excellent example. I applaud you.

Needless to say, when the Windows 2000 machine surpassed the uptime of all the others (just after the main FreeBSD server got hacked by some Italian goofs that littered the hard drive with text files and messed with his user accounts)... he was even less happy :)

I have a Linux machine here at work that has been serving as a webserver for over 3 years now without a reboot, it has never had any downtime and reliability.. well since it has never had downtime apart from software upgrades during the night (max. 5 minutes to update Apache, PHP, MySQL and so forth) and occasional SCSi hotwapping.

Can you show me a Windows 2000 box that has been on the web (as in public IP space) that has comparable downtime (ie. none), has never been compromised and is in production use still today?

I sorta expected you couldn't either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
j79zlr

I have to reboot about a third of the time after installing Windows updates, so once every quarter of a year. Yup, real pain in the ass that is. I recall having to reboot Ubuntu after installing the update package too. Big deal.

When Microsoft even suggests bundling an AV and spyware program, people start screaming Monopoly. Blame it on the self-proclaimed monopoly watchdogs who keep Microsoft from putting in necessary components. And yes, AV and spyware are necessary for average users due to the ubiquity of Windows.

The registry does get messy, but whose fault is that? If hardware fails to be recognized on Linux, you blame the hardware manufacturer for not supplying proper drivers, but if the registry gets bloated up in Windows, people blame Microsoft, not the programmers who wrote the damn un/installer script.

I find that for an OS that is half a decade old, WindowsXP does a pretty damn fine job of holding its own against the latest Linux distributions.

So I take it you never install updated drivers for your video card or your sound card. Adobe updates usually require a reboot. Lots of stuff requires a reboot. As far as Ubuntu asking you for a reboot, that is because Ubuntu is a noob distro. They don't expect you to know how to restart a service like Samba without rebooting, although it is entirely possible. The only reason you have to reboot Linux is for a kernel upgrade, and you really shouldn't have a package manager update your kernel, but Ubuntu again being noob friendly, does that for you as well.

What the hell does the registry have to do with drivers? It is a just the worlds largest and most unfriendly configuration file. I am not complaing about the bloat, just the whole concept of the registry. I'd say go back to INI files.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MajorSham

Right.

Having administered what I consider a rather sizeable corporate environment (50,000 Windows workstations and a few hundred Windows servers in addition to a few hundred Linux stations with a good share of Linux servers on top of it) I can pretty much laugh at this and everyone who has expertise on the field would agree (And with that comment you can flush those MCSE kids down the toilet because majority of them have no clue - of anything).

I spent months on end fixing Windows related issues, crashes, security breaches, poorly designed software, faulty software.. anything imaginable under the sun and boy was I fed up all the way.

I'd say the time I spent fixing the Windows servers vs Linux servers was around 90-95/10%-5% - so I can pretty well flush down the toilet any Windows vs Linux reliability discussion as yet more FUD from people who are downright scared.

I've replaced all but few of the Windows servers here at my new work and reliability has gone thru the roof in comparison to the infrastructure that in place previously. Not to mention I've saved a bundle of corporate funds - everyone is happy.

It sounds a lot to me like the words of someone who is very experienced with Linux, but inexperienced with Windows. The cynical nature of your post reads like that of a slightly more mature "Linux pwnz j00 n00blet!" comment from a Linux fanboy. I spoke with the sysadmin for a small internet business, concerning how reliable, stable, and easy to use Linux is when compared to Windows. This person was very knowledgable, and had a large farm of machines hosting web based CRM software for their customer service, databases, multiple web servers and load balancers, etc. However, he told me a story about how it took him an hour to configure a dial up connection in Windows, because the OS was so horribly designed, unreliable, et cetera, et cetera. Turns out, some kid in the office tried to help him configure the DUN connection, but he was too arrogant and proud to let some "Windows n00b" help him with a connection that should take less than a minute to configure.

My point is, that just because you're a l33t Linux admin doesn't mean you know everything (or anything) about Windows. . and few people in this world are truely qualified to identify who is in front in this retarded pis sing contest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
h3xis

All of this talk about blue screens is really strange to me. I personally have four XP machines in my house and have NEVER seen a BSOD. The few times I have had to work on client machines that were bluescreening it was because of hardware issues or crappy driver issues. This is microsofts fault? And by the way, ever heard of a kernel panic? Same thing. Some windows users get BSODs, some dont, just as some linux users will never have an issue and some will have non-stop problems.

i've never heard of anyone just sitting in the middle of doing work on a *nix box and suddenly getting visually raped by a kernel panic.

Edited by h3xis
Link to post
Share on other sites
davewalden

I agree with you. Linux can do some powerful things but it can be a real pain actually setting it up to do it. Windows makes things seem "easier" which is what alot of people want, they don't care how it's done, they just want it "done".

I feel your pain. I manage several HP Rx2620 Integrity servers (Itanium II) servers running RHEL3 AS. These are clustered with Oracle 10g. The servers are rock solid. The OS is rock sold. BUT.... when you attach them to an EVA5000 SAN..... install Secure Path.... and then Oracle.... you can pretty much kiss upgrading the kernel good by. Oracle has required kernel levels..... Secure Path has required kernel levels.... on and on and on.

Microsoft OS's like Linux OS's have their own unique problems. You just have to find the OS that best fits the job at hand.

As for the Linux Guru at Microsoft spewing hot air and contributing to global warning...... Bah! Anyone that seriously listens to someone pat their on back has more pressing problems to deal with. Server OS's are a lower priority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
davewalden

i've never heard of anyone just sitting in the middle of doing work on a *nix box and suddenly getting visually raped by a kernel panic.

Now you have.... Try running x64 Itanium II (Madison Core) HP RX2620 Integrity servers.... with RHEL3 AS.....

attached to a SAN..... and Oracle 10g.

Just sneeze..... or blink..... and you could lock up a node.

The really sad part is..... HP is blaming Oracle..... Oracle is blaming HP..... and Red Hat is just hard to get much information that is useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
msg43

About ppl saying linux is to hard.

I'd like to conduct a experment.

Neither of these groups have used a computer before (possibly people from 3rd world countries or younger people) ...

Group A:

Learns how to operate a computer with Windows Xp

Group B:

Learns how to operate a computer with Linux.... (gnome or kde)

Then Group A: try's linux and Group B: Trys Windows and see what they have to say....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael1406

Haven't read the thread, but my response to the topic title is that I would hope so, looking at the price of Windows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MajorSham

About ppl saying linux is to hard.

I'd like to conduct a experment.

Neither of these groups have used a computer before (possibly people from 3rd world countries or younger people) ...

Group A:

Learns how to operate a computer with Windows Xp

Group B:

Learns how to operate a computer with Linux.... (gnome or kde)

Then Group A: try's linux and Group B: Trys Windows and see what they have to say....

They both would have difficulty. It's pretty hard to find someone who has only used Unix-like operating systems, and never a Windows box, but I found one in the sysadmin I spoke of a few posts up. He had just as much trouble finding his way through Windows as a Windows sysadmin would have finding their way through a Linux box.

Link to post
Share on other sites
h3xis
The really sad part is..... HP is blaming Oracle..... Oracle is blaming HP..... and Red Hat is just hard to get much information that is useful.

i agree with you on the Red Hat bit. i live in north carolina (where Red Hat's main headquarters are) and have been friends with a guy who works there for a really long time. he says things have to started to change around there and he's beginning to look for a new job (novell, i think?). i don't like Red Hat's approach to linux on the business market. i guess you know a bit about the company though so i'm going to make an observation. is it just me or does Red Hat seem like they're in it for themselves and the sole purpose of making as much profit as they can? i remember running redhat 7.x on my system and remembering how small of a company it was. i'm not sure how well it ran as a server OS though...but still, i miss the old days :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen
is it just me or does Red Hat seem like they're in it for themselves and the sole purpose of making as much profit as they can?
It's a bit off-topic for this thread, but let me also point out that Red Hat has purchased several technologies, just to release the source to all under the GPL. They honor the GPL to a fault and have all their sources for their enterprise products on down available for anyone to download and use (even people to repackage them like CentOS adn White Box). It would be nice if all companies obeyed the GPL this faithfully (unlike Linksys, Sony, Motorola and Acer to name a few).

Selling services for Open Source software can be a tough business, and that is probably reason for changes in the company. They have stockholders to look after, after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
water.hammer

They both would have difficulty. It's pretty hard to find someone who has only used Unix-like operating systems, and never a Windows box, but I found one in the sysadmin I spoke of a few posts up. He had just as much trouble finding his way through Windows as a Windows sysadmin would have finding their way through a Linux box.

I know more than one person who have never touched a windows box. Most of them have been running linux since 1998 and that's the only thing they know. The world is a big place, I suppose. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
+InsaneNutter

Can you show me a Windows 2000 box that has been on the web (as in public IP space) that has comparable downtime (ie. none), has never been compromised and is in production use still today?

I sorta expected you couldn't either.

Will a windows 2000 box with 4year and 167day uptime do you?

http://it.uptime-project.net/page.php?page...ofile&uid=28126

These arguments are silly I would say both OS's are as reliable as each other it all boils down to which you prefer.

Windows has a bad reputation of not been reliable probably because of Windows 98/ME and previous Win9x OS's but any Windows OS based on Windows NT such as 2000/XP is just as rock solid as any Linux os.

Linux has a reputation of been harder to use and needing you to type loads of commands in the console to get anything done. But again distributions like Linspire are just as easy as Windows XP to use.

Its all about personal preference I wouldn?t say either os is more reliable than the other. I prefer Windows because I want my computer to work for me, Not me working for it. Windows gets all the jobs done I want with no fuss, easy to use with a nice simple UI. Im also a gamer and the majority of pc games are built for the Windows OS. My mate prefers Linux because he ?likes a challenge? and is big on open source software.

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen
Will a windows 2000 box with 4year and 167day uptime do you?

http://it.uptime-project.net/page.php?page...ofile&uid=28126

To be honest, the netcraft survey are for servers that are on the publicly-accessible internet, not something that is self-described as

this is a compaq proliant 2500 old pentium computer sitting in our data center not doing much...
and on a private LAN.

That PC is likely vulnerable to many of the issues that have been fixed since October 2001! (reference)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unholy Moley!

I will slap that Linux "guru".

Link to post
Share on other sites
neufuse

I've seen Windows boxes that were very reliable...

at displaying the blue screen of death.

never seen an NT 5 kernel or higher "reliable" at displaying a BSOD... heck ive seen more kernel panics on Mac OSX then I've seen blue screens on windows since Win2k

Link to post
Share on other sites
Syntax_Error

This is a very interesting thread!

Why do I like Windows?

Used it since I was a kid (3.1 :rofl: )

99% of the software you find in a shop is for Windows

Never had problems with it - must be good hardware and drivers :p

Easy to use and looks nice (Royale can't go back to Luna now)

It "just" works.

Why do I like Linux

Seems to be growing in popularity

KDE 4 looks pretty

Config files seem easier but way tooo many options

Has the geek value

It's different to Windows and offers a challenge.

I have a Linux box in my room that sits there 24/7. I have a Windows desktop but I don't think I would be able to run that 24/7, why? Well because yes I find Windows slows down it's not Microsoft's fault really it's the blooming developers that write bad software which loads up the Registry! My desktop has never crashed or BSOD on me, it runs fast and reliably.

At work we have loads of Windows boxes, they sit there happily for months and never cause a problem :)

The people that mentioned "out of box" experience - I don't see why Linux distro can bundle loads of free software that they like and not others, where as Microsoft get the stupid EU and DOJ slapping them on the wrists for including a media player. Honestly I use WMP because it works a whole lot better than RealPlayer\Quicktime\WinAmp whatever, Microsoft make good software is that so hard for other companies to accept. They can always make their own OS and include their own software :rolleyes:

I should also say Linux apps have the worst names ever!

Back to the original post, he used the work for IBM and uses Linux - positive points. Now works for Microsoft so yes his wording may lean towards Microsoft.

Basically you can't compare them directly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+InsaneNutter

That PC is likely vulnerable to many of the issues that have been fixed since October 2001! (reference)

Yes it will be as it says its only running Win 2000 SP2 and SP4 is out now, I just posted the link to show that a windows system can be reliable and have an uptime of many years the same as a Linux system can :)

I?m sure a Linux system that hasn?t been patched since 2001 would be vulnerable to many security issues as well.

Both Windows and Linux are equally reliable its just personal preference which one people favour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen
I?m sure a Linux system that hasn?t been patched since 2001 would be vulnerable to many security issues as well.
Very true. But can patch a *nix box to update Apache, etc. without rebooting (except the kernel).
Both Windows and Linux are equally reliable its just personal preference which one people favour.
100% agree.
Link to post
Share on other sites
MrA

My point is, that just because you're a l33t Linux admin doesn't mean you know everything (or anything) about Windows. . and few people in this world are truely qualified to identify who is in front in this retarded pis sing contest.

And that right there is the source of so much crap. Especially with the reverse. Just because you're an expert in Windows doesn't mean you know jack **** about linux (or anything other than windows). People use windows all their lives and when linux comes along, they'll say all sorts of not-so-nice things about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen
And that right there is the source of so much crap. Especially with the reverse. Just because you're an expert in Windows doesn't mean you know jack **** about linux (or anything other than windows). People use windows all their lives and when linux comes along, they'll say all sorts of not-so-nice things about it.
In the case of Bill Hilf, and this article, one can not say that he is a newbie when it comes to Linux.
Link to post
Share on other sites
ichi

Yes it will be as it says its only running Win 2000 SP2 and SP4 is out now, I just posted the link to show that a windows system can be reliable and have an uptime of many years the same as a Linux system can :)

I?m sure a Linux system that hasn?t been patched since 2001 would be vulnerable to many security issues as well.

Patching affects uptime. Linux can be patched without rebooting, Windows can not.

Anyway, if you do nothing with the computer everyone would expect it to keep runing forever (until hardware breaks or something) but you know, people usually do use their computers to get stuff done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.