Then perhaps
Dave you should keep out of the conversation - your
above comment shows you are still stuck in the 90's and have no
comprehension of current technology whatsoever. As a manager of
various Solaris, Linux and Windows servers for one of Australia's
largest banks, I find very, very little difference in the
reliability, performance and uptime of any of them.
I'm "stuck in the
90s" because I'm not a Windows fanboy??
If you are unable to distinguish between not reflexively bashing
Windows based on out-of-date perceptions of it and being a Windows
fanboy...well, then, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but in
that case you deserve at least some of the epithets thrown your way.
Not that I like Windows. I don't. It's a horrible, horrible OS in
multiple respects for almost every purpose I care about. (Indeed, the
only exception I can think of is the purely pragmatic one of being
popular as a game loader, and for my use even that is far outweighed by
other considerations.)
Without more data than Lance gave - indeed, without data that Lance
probably should not give - we are not in a position to tell _why_
Linux, Solaris, and Windows exhibit comparable reliability, whether
this indicates an improvement in Windows or a deterioration in the
other two (or perhaps some of each), to what extent it is due to
idiosyncracies of the workload in question, what level of sysadmin
attention is required to achieve those levels of reliability, how much
work (for whatever measure) gets done per capex dollar and/or recurring
dollar, etc, etc - the list is long and mostly pretty boring. Since it
is unlikely to change anyone's mind much, it'd also be pretty pointless
even were the data available.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at
rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
