Linux down time may be due to missing documentation or changing ...

If there are any actual data in this article, I couldn't find it.

This article was idiotic - full of half-baked notions, ridiculous assertions and much confusion in evidence.

I work at a fortune 100 company which runs its data center infrastructure on linux, and the assertions in the didiot article and the related study simply fly in the face of the facts.

First of all, there has been no downtime on any production linux servers in the 7 years or so we've been using linux in that role, except for one dell server with hardware issues. period.

Secondly, if there were a problem, we would not go "scouring the internet" for support, we would pick up the phone and call HP or Novell. It's called support and yes, virginia, you can get support for linux, just as you can for HPUX, Solaris, AIX or any other data center OS.

Bleh, the article is so stupid I don't want to waste any more time thinking about it.

Laura, Your check is in the mail. Bill

A very telling bio on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_DiDio

BTW, I apologize to lovers of tripe. I should not have insulted a perfectly good food.

the Wikipedia entry is funny. :)

Amityville, eh?

Maybe that's why she looks at Windows and sees an OS.

Amityville, paranormal investigations WTF? Jeff Gannon eat your heart out!

Disclaimer: I am a "linux extremist" so just ignore my "attacks"

Didio: "...I'm like 'Pass the hookah please!'"

It appears to me that she has already passed something or other. First she conducts paranormal investigations and now she expects to be taken seriously in Tech?? I'd say she's lacking a serious dose of reality checks. Her analysis reflects that lack.

BTW: I want some of what she's smoking!! :-)

Don K.

dek,

When you're finished could you pass the hookah over here please?

lol

What a tough crowd. Surely you recognize the paranormal nature of SCO's lawsuits? Which makes Ms. DiDio the perfect expert analyst for them. Which has little to do with this thread, but i want to join in the fun too.

As has been pointed out many times, we need to dispute the article content, and not the Author. However in this case, there appears to be no content, so, Ms. DiDio seems the perfect subject for a witch hunt. Sometimes the witch really does exist.

jimf:

Don't be maligning witches, please. I think you mean Ms. DiDio is the perfect subject for a shill hunt.

Once again I have offended 'someone' ;-)

Um.....

*raises hand*

I used to do paranormal investigations.

O.k., so she's a paranormal technology analyst. She investigates and analyzes paranormal technologies, such as MS Windows. Or has everyone forgotten grouch's recent article, Newbies and Magic (http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/61010/index.html), about the "magic" boxes that suddenly reboot for no apparent reason? Isn't that a paranormal technology phenomenon?

Either paranormal technology analyst or simply a billg pump, er, I mean bilge pump, no, right the first time: billg pump.

Quoting: Windows Server 2003 had nearly 20 percent more annual uptime in similar deployment scenarios over Linux. ... The Yankee Group found that corporate Linux, Windows and Unix servers experience on average three to five failures per server per year, resulting in 10.0 to 19.5 hours of annual downtime for each server.

Ok...lessee...

10-19.5 hours is less than 1 full day.

There are 365 days in the year, so downtime is less than 1/365, for an uptime greater than 99.7%.

So..............

How does WIndows 2003 have 20% more than an uptime that is already greater than 99.7%?

Doesn't inspire much confidence in any of the "facts" they provide, does it?

dinotrac:

The Yankee Group never allows facts to interfere with their conclusions.

"The customers who received these 1,500 letters from SCO have been told this isn't going anywhere," DiDio told TechNewsWorld. "I don't think anyone should listen to such empty assurances."-- Laura DiDio, 2003-07-22 http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31166.html

Typical DiDiot tripe! Those who read Yankee Group postings regularly will understand that she needs to be taken with a whole bag of salt!

Iwanna be an anal-yst when I grow up!! Only thing is I might have an attack of conscience . . . scary thought!!

Don K.

dinotrac:

What it means is that over a 365 day period, according to Yankee, Windows servers have 2-4 hours more uptime than Linux. It's all in how you do the math and phrase the words. :-)

The facts that they have are probably correct, the presentation of those is heavily biased.

Without reading the article do they include the difference between scheduled and unscheduled downtime? 'Cause in my world the 'dows servers are forever going down for scheduled outages. Solaris and Linux servers? Almost never.

stevem:

>It's all in how you do the math and phrase the words. :-)

Mebbe so, but math and words have meaning. If 20% more uptime means 2-4 hours, then you can't run the server more than 10-20 yours all year long.

Your point about scheduled vs. unscheduled downtime is right on target, and actually supports one of the article's contentions. When you bounce a system all the time, it becomes routine.

Well, Since the Yankee group did the study...

They could have hired a Linux sys admin with irritable bowel syndrome... that would account for a good hour of the 2-4 hours...

My own unscientific study (no M$ checks likely for me):

Bought a P4 box in 2004; installed RH8; left running; two years later:

uptime 9:35am up 710 days, 18:47, 1 user, load average: 0.12, 0.14, 0.11

system then crashed due to hardware issues (graphics card). Replaced and rebooted

uptime

8:31am up 44 days, 11:32, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

Software relate downtime since purchase 0secs.

Bottomline:

Save money and buy Linux.

Tale of a wistful Linux support person:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16261099

I agree...I've had a Windows 2000 server at work running side by side with a Linux server (CentOS).

Windows Uptime: 42 days CentOS Uptime: 147 days

Windows Reboots in past 60 days: 3 CentOS Reboots in past 60 days: None

I would have greater uptime but I only started working here about 180 days ago :)

"The poorest performing operating system was Debian GNU/Linux, while SUSE Linux from Novell had the best performance, even topping some of the big Unixes. But it's used so little as to be statistically irrelevant, said DiDio."

Yeah. Debian is the worst, especially since It received Carrier Grade stamp of approval...boy does it suck. Especially since Ubuntu runs on it. Especially since it's got more development in it than any other flavor of Linux. Worst my foot.

And Novell being statistically irrelevant...in the UNITED STATES MAYBE...but not worldwide.

Second favorite quote: "DiDio said the only thing that could come close to mainframe performance is the high-end Unix systems from Hewlett-Packard, Sun and IBM. "And even that is debatable.""

Right! Like SCO Unix? This lady is too much. Coming from one analyst to another, she's the worst analyst of anything in the world. Mincing words, misleading perception. Present the facts, not twisted, and let your readers decide. Else, you aren't an analyst, you're a preacher...you have a message intended to sway your audience. Now to find out what 'church' she ascribes to...in the past it was SCO...but methinks she bailed on that ship to hop onto the M$ one.

All together, this 'analyst' sounds like a politician with too many lobbyists.

Ummm....devent....

Mainframe reliability is...well...reliable.

dino,

I was referring to the "And even that is debatable" part. :D

If you haven't seen the study from Yankee Group that explains why you should switch to windows to protect your self from the (Windows only) blaster virus, it really is worth a read.

http://www.microsoft.com/smallbusiness/case-studies/CaseStud...

Best I can tell, the linux server's failure was in the fact that it didn't patch the windows boxes the necessary two times a day that a Windows server would have done.

You know Windows, it needs it's daily fix to stay functional. The way I see it, Linux is the rehab counselor of the Operating System world, it doesn't offer windows the fix. A little bit of suffering is an unfortunate but necessary step in the recovery process. Of course, the first step is always to admit that you have a problem.

-> Fritz