Re: Linux vs Windows

[Louis Sabet <louis mobiles co uk>]

> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ben Russo" <Ben umialumni com>
> > To: <redhat-list redhat com>
> > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 15:45
> > Subject: Re: Linux vs Windows
> >
> > > Louis Sabet wrote:
> > > > Quite. The proof is in the pudding as they say...
> > > > Find me a windows box that'll do this:
> > > > 3:22pm up 306 days, 2:18, 0 users, load average: 0.05, 0.09, 0.08
> > > >
> > > > This is an apache/mod_ssl machine running a ton of perl, and a bunch
> > > > of log analysis stuff. The day I see a publicly visible win32 box
> > > > running IIS with a similar uptime I'll eat my ascii.
> > >
> > > Get some salt and pepper:
> >
> > http://uptime.netcraft.net/up/hosted?netname=VRIO-198-106,198.106.0.0,19
> > 8.1 0 7.255.255
> >
> > > ;-)   These are probably artifacts of the netcraft monitoring, but
> > > maybe not?
> > >
> > > -Ben.

--On Tuesday, April 01, 2003 09:27:30 +0100 Gary Stainburn 
<gary stainburn ringways co uk> wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 Apr 2003 12:58 am, David Busby wrote:
> > The real one:
> > http://uptime.netcraft.net/up/today/top.avg.html
>
> The downer from that page is that there's not one Linux box listed but
> there  is 1 Win2K

A minor downer, but still considerably better than the first one, which 
almost head me reaching for my knife and fork...

I don't think anyone can deny that BSD-derived OSs are exceptionally 
stable. The one win2k box means I might just nibble a bit of ascii later 
on. Not really hungry at the moment though.

--
Louis Sabet - IT Manager
http://www.mobiles.co.uk
http://www.gadgets.co.uk