Open Source

Windows Vs Linux yet again...

The latest annual report on server

reliability from the Yankee Group has put Windows 2003 Server above

Linux—Windows 2003 Server was actually reported to boast almost 20%

more annual uptime than Red Hat Enterprise Linux!  The most solid server

operating systems were UNIX based, HP-UX for example.  Linux systems

were said to be offline more often and for longer than Windows and UNIX

systems; the main reason was cited as scarcity of documentation.  I do

agree that this can be an issue—although there is an abundance of

documentation, man pages and mailing lists; finding useful information

or direct answers can often be a nightmare.  My experience is that you

will normally find ten other people trying to solve the same issue as

yourself, nine of who have given up and one who's still trying.  That's

not always the case of course, but neither is it infrequent.

The Yankee Group did make sure it was clear that this review is

independent, their work not being sponsored or commissioned by any of

the companies in question.  Most will remember a campaign made by

Microsoft, boasting that Windows 2003 Server beats Linux for

reliability—the source of information used in this campaign was seen by

many as suspicious.  The most recent report has caused similar

accusations to pop up on forums all over the internet; one claims that

these findings are based on the firm Sunbelt Software—a Microsoft

consulting firm!

What are your opinions on the subject?  It would be interesting to hear

from people who use both platfo

Editor's Picks

Free Newsletters, In your Inbox