NT vs. Linux

[Luberti, Carl]

We just got word of downtime.  NT servers?  3 hours for maintenance.  Linux
server?  Five minutes for a reboot.  Just another glaring reason why Linux
is superior - it doesn't need a maintenance contract due to poor design
and/or implementation.

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Luberti, Carl  
> Sent:	Thursday, March 01, 2001 7:17 PM
> To:	NFLUG mailing list (E-mail)
> Subject:	NT vs. Linux
> 
> I know most of you have heard the news regarding tests pitting NT servers
> against Linux servers, in which the NT servers "win" the test (rigged as
> hell, if you ask me...).  Anyways, on to my point.  I wanted to let
> everyone know that within our organization, we had two major server
> outages today (nothing causing loss of data, due to failover) in which two
> NT4 and one W2K file and print servers for our SouthEast region (from
> Texas east to Florida and north to Kansas, and all states between).  We
> also had a Red Hat server running kernel 2.0 crash today as well, along
> with the Windows servers.  All over the company bulletin boards were
> employees bashing linux, saying "look, it crashed too, just like the NT
> servers".  What they neglected to see was that the Red hat server had an
> uptime of 2 years, 3 months, 6 days, 2 hours, and 36 minutes, with an
> average load of 62%.  The NT servers?  Up for 1 week, 3 days, 11 hours and
> 6 minutes.  Average load?  28%.  Anyone want to argue with me on this
> now???  Oh, and we have just as many Linux servers as NT servers in our
> server farm in the SouthEast region... :O)
> 
> Carlo Luberti
> EDS - NYSC Support Team
> 25 Northpointe Pkwy.
> Amherst, NY 14228
> * phone: +01-716-564-6678
> * pager: +01-716-623-9062
> * mailto:carl.luberti at eds.com
> http://www.eds.com
> 
>