__/ [Erik Funkenbusch] on Saturday 15 October 2005 07:09 \__
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 03:03:29 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> As I attempt to connect (5 minutes ago) to a site and see the state of my
>> new machine's delivery, I notice the aspx suffix and soon realise that
>> the whole site is down. This is embarrassing to any company that is the
>> size of the company in question.
> There are many factors that can contribute to a site being down, most of
> them having nothing to do with the software used. I've seen plenty of PHP
> and Perl based sites go down as well (Slashdot goes down regularly).
The folks at Slashdot are nice folks and all, but I never think of the
administrators and editors there as major IT experts.
>> Linux machines can endure that stuff without sweating. I have has no
>> memory leaks and as a matter of fact, the last time I shut down this
>> machine, it was for no particular reason. I can't recall ever being
>> forced a downtime
>> on this work-thirsty desktop machine. We are talking about the past 2
>> years here. And no, I was never forced to re-compile my kernel either.
> Most ASPX sites (much like PHP sites) are highly data driven. That means
> if your database is offline, so is your site.
The error message implies otherwise. The server does not respond at all.
It's just not there. Why is it that whenever a site I reach is down, a
quick Netcraft query confirms it's Windows?
>> It is usually the small things that serve as a proof of concept for the
>> fact that Linux just /works/. Windows, from my very, very long experience
>> with it, simply cannot cope. Windows opens a whole new world of
>> error-prone operation and plenty of maintenance (scans, FS checks,
>> defragmentations, etc.).
> That makes about as much sense as me saying "it's the small things that
> serve as proof that linux doesn't work". ...
Excuse me? You don't explain why. It's a a ridiculous statement.
> ...My sites run for months on end
> without reboots. Rebooting is only necessary when certain patches are
i.e. every Tuesday! *LOL*
> You're clearly showing how little experience you actually have with
> if you claim you can't make it work.
Ask colleagues who see me use it when no other choice is available. I master
almost every keyboard accelerator and have excellent orientation in all
versions (back to version 3) as I support many Windows users for a living.
> Do you honestly thing ANYONE would
> use windows for a production environment if it failed regularly?
> No, they wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't.
Complacency does not imply ideali$M. I may as well bring up the famous
holocaust analogy, but I'd rather not. You already know it.
>>> The viruses he wrote, while benign were proof of concepts that could be
>>> used maliciously.
>>> My point was that Monad was no more insecure than any Linux shell.
>> Perhaps at the level of scripting, but that's not the point /at all/.
> Then I fail to understand what your point is.
Monad was apparently programmed badly and sitting on top of a system that's
badly layer (hence badly understood) meant that it could be hack. Not
hacking _via_ Monad, but hacking _Monad_.
Good luck with your Windows-powered sites. You have my sympathies.
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Have you compiled your kernel today?"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
7:45am up 50 days 19:59, 5 users, load average: 0.57, 0.58, 0.50
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms