Re: Linux is for losers...!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter Köhlmann
  • Start date Start date
P

Peter Köhlmann

dennis@home wrote:

>
>
> "NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:fpqc0q423i7@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>
>> What dennis fails to realize is that because of Linux, production is far
>> more efficient, so the company saves money even if having to pay Linux
>> personal a higher hourly wage. For one thing, he's not wasting his time
>> maintaining a p.o.s. toy operating system like Windoze, trying to keep it
>> afloat with all it's builtin insecurities.
>>
>> Cheers.
>
> 100% system uptime is 100% system up time whichever OS is being used.. its
> hard to improve.

You mean MS is lying when they crow about "crazy uptimes" of 3 month?
That they are lying about uptimes of 5 nines (which are impossible to
achieve with windows, as it has to reboot every so often due to "updates")

> That is what you fail to realise.

What you fail to realize is that forced reboots make your claim of 100%
system uptime impossible for windows. If you patch it, you must reboot it
*at* *least* once per month. That way, you can't even achieve a 99% uptime,
much less the often lied about (by MS) 99.999%

< snip more clueless idiotic babblings >
--
The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
 
In article <fprghr$200$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
Peter Köhlmann . wrote:
>
>That they are lying about uptimes of 5 nines (which are impossible to
>achieve with windows, as it has to reboot every so often due to "updates")
>

You cluster your systems and fail one node, update that, fail the
running node to the updated one, etc. No downtime.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> dennis@home wrote:

>> 100% system uptime is 100% system up time whichever OS is being used..
>> its hard to improve.

Do you ever run "Windows Update" with all its attendant reboots. How often
do you update your virus definitions and all of the other "anti-malware
rubbish"? /That's/ downtime!

> You mean MS is lying when they crow about "crazy uptimes" of 3 month?
> That they are lying about uptimes of 5 nines (which are impossible to
> achieve with windows, as it has to reboot every so often due to "updates")

Exactly. MS "uptimes" are usually a fiction. and their claimed reliability
figures are simply nonsense.

>> That is what you fail to realise.
>
> What you fail to realize is that forced reboots make your claim of 100%
> system uptime impossible for windows. If you patch it, you must reboot it
> *at* *least* once per month. That way, you can't even achieve a 99%
> uptime, much less the often lied about (by MS) 99.999%

Precisely!

C.
 
Back
Top