Carl Parrish wrote: > it would almost be worth setting up a M$ box
> to learn how you do the voodoo that you do to
> get that to work.
I think it's more a matter of what you DON'T do.
MS software is vulnerable to a sloppy driver,
a corrupt DLL, or whatever. People load all sorts
of junk onto their machines, and a MS system --
especially in the 9x series -- is going down
any time an application goes stomping through
the petunias. And of course the 9x systems
tend to have a different grade of usage --
more toys and frivolous, ill-thought-out
applications.
I gather that the NT series systems are capable
of staying up more or less indefinitely if you
run a conservative mix of applications, but the
unix-type systems tend to protect themselves
from applications a little better. So the odds
are better with the unices, but that doesn't
mean MS uptimes always have to be terrible.
I also have heard of MS systems staying up for
months. Of course that comes to an end when
you want to do certain types of upgrades, but
even unix-type systems *occasionally* need an
administrative bounce.
It's a design feature of an MS system to have
the OS much more tightly entangled with the
applications, because the purpose of the OS
is to SELL the applications by making them
look as good as possible. This happens to be
very successful, in terms of the performance
you get as long as the system stays up. But
it also increases the need for administrative
bounces, and the somewhat increases the OS
vulnerability to application misbehavior.
You pays your nickel and you makes your choice.
Room for both, in my opinion.
(text/plain)