Roy Schestowitz wrote:
Microsoft: Open source 'not reliable or dependable'
,----[ Quote ]
| The software giant characterises open source as mainly of interest to
| local community projects, without the benefits of a commercial model
| A senior Microsoft executive told a BBC World documentary that people
| should use commercial software if they're looking for stability.
Stability?!?!?! Of all arguments available, one primary weakness is described
as a strength.
Case study: Maybe they should explain why the IT folks over he have been
running for the past week trying to fix the Exchange server. This has gone
on for _several_ months <
. In fact, the mail server will down all day today, until 5PM. "Due to
maintenance", they say.
my old Windows webserver had uptimes measured in hours. It couldn't
handle traffic, at all. Anything more than two concurrent sessions on
the webserver (Abyss X1) and it'd just fall right over and require a
reboot. That was an AMD Athlon XP2400+ (2GHz 512MB RAM). Now I run my
server on a Compaq T80 terminal server (PIII/1.0, 320MB RAM) running
SuSE 9.3 and Apache 2. Uptime is in its fifth week now, it's showing no
signs of slowing down, and it's had probably 6 error hits. Stability?
Here's real-world: Windows can't handle real-world loads, particularly
as a webserver. Linux /can/.
When all else fails...
Use a hammer.
Some people are like Slinkies
They serve no particular purpose
But they bring a smile to your face
When you push them down the stairs.