<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:series="http://unfoldingneurons.com/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is Windows Server 2003 less reliable than Linux?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://4sysops.com/archives/is-windows-server-2003-less-reliable-than-linux/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/is-windows-server-2003-less-reliable-than-linux/</link>
	<description>For Windows Administrators</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:59:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/is-windows-server-2003-less-reliable-than-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-61991</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:32:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/archives/is-windows-server-2003-less-reliable-than-linux/#comment-61991</guid>
		<description>Greg, you’re right, that is certainly Microsoft’s strategy. However, that is quite okay with me. I rather prefer a problematic desktop OS over an unreliable server OS.

GlenH, the good thing about my sentence (Downtime is downtime) is that it is always true because it is a tautology. ;-) Seriously, I certainly agree with you. There usually is a big difference between a scheduled reboot and a system crash and not only because a crash might destroy data or the system configuration. I exaggerated a little in my article because I find those constant reboots quite annoying. However, it also depends on the environment. It might not be an issue if you reboot an internal file server during the night. It is something different, though, if you have to shutdown a web server that is supposed to be online 24 hours a day.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Greg, you’re right, that is certainly Microsoft’s strategy. However, that is quite okay with me. I rather prefer a problematic desktop OS over an unreliable server OS.</p>
<p>GlenH, the good thing about my sentence (Downtime is downtime) is that it is always true because it is a tautology. <img src='http://4sysops.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' />  Seriously, I certainly agree with you. There usually is a big difference between a scheduled reboot and a system crash and not only because a crash might destroy data or the system configuration. I exaggerated a little in my article because I find those constant reboots quite annoying. However, it also depends on the environment. It might not be an issue if you reboot an internal file server during the night. It is something different, though, if you have to shutdown a web server that is supposed to be online 24 hours a day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GlenH</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/is-windows-server-2003-less-reliable-than-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-61960</link>
		<dc:creator>GlenH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:49:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/archives/is-windows-server-2003-less-reliable-than-linux/#comment-61960</guid>
		<description>However, downtime is downtime.

I have to disagree with this statement.  Downtime in the middle of the night, on a weekend, for a scheduled update, when no users are on the system, is a LOT different than downtime (e.g., a crash) during critical business hours.  

I wish everyone would start being clear about the difference.  I want to see &quot;maintenance times&quot; vs. &quot;crash (down) times.&quot;  My downtime due to crashes over the last three years is more along the lines of zero (for most servers) to a few minutes per year and certainly no where near nine hours per year.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>However, downtime is downtime.</p>
<p>I have to disagree with this statement.  Downtime in the middle of the night, on a weekend, for a scheduled update, when no users are on the system, is a LOT different than downtime (e.g., a crash) during critical business hours.  </p>
<p>I wish everyone would start being clear about the difference.  I want to see &#8220;maintenance times&#8221; vs. &#8220;crash (down) times.&#8221;  My downtime due to crashes over the last three years is more along the lines of zero (for most servers) to a few minutes per year and certainly no where near nine hours per year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/is-windows-server-2003-less-reliable-than-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-61572</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Apr 2008 02:52:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/archives/is-windows-server-2003-less-reliable-than-linux/#comment-61572</guid>
		<description>WS08 already Benefits as being delayed release.
Nice tactic, &#039;throw&#039; the workstation version in the trenches. Then apply the results to server rtm. I mean WS08sp1. whatever...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WS08 already Benefits as being delayed release.<br />
Nice tactic, &#8216;throw&#8217; the workstation version in the trenches. Then apply the results to server rtm. I mean WS08sp1. whatever&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Is Windows Server 2003 less reliable than Linux? &#124; Windows 2008 Security</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/is-windows-server-2003-less-reliable-than-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-61342</link>
		<dc:creator>Is Windows Server 2003 less reliable than Linux? &#124; Windows 2008 Security</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:58:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/archives/is-windows-server-2003-less-reliable-than-linux/#comment-61342</guid>
		<description>[...] View original here: Is Windows Server 2003 less reliable than Linux? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] View original here: Is Windows Server 2003 less reliable than Linux? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
