Do you find MS Servers to be inherently unstable?

[clutch 1]

I wrote the following response to a gentleman claiming that Linux was so stable because you could easily modify what the OS would load by recompiling the kernel:

 

Quote:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by jfrayzier

Yes... and I recently started using Linux myself. You must also know that it is not as easy to configure as Windows. Most everything you do will no doubt require you to recompile the kernel to implement your changes.

 

However, that is what makes Linux so stable. People can write their own code into the kernel to make it work exactly as they want it to. i.e. if you use it on a machine without a soundcard (like me... how many webservers need a sound card??) you can take out everything in the operating system that has to do with sound and recompile it. lower the overhead.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

No, that is not what "makes" Linux-based OSs so stable. While the ability to streamline code can contribute to stability by removing things that YOU perceive as not needed, that is by far not the reason it is getting this wonderful reputation for speed and stability.

 

So, why is it getting this reputation? First, the average admin of a Linux box is far better at administering his system than the average NT admin. This person has gone through a LOT of effort to learn the OS (many of which were from the command line days) and some of them are also Unix admins with classic training as opposed to downloading a ***** copy of NT and learning on your own. When I first starting fiddling around with Redhat 5.1 to see what was so special, I got *acquainted* with the term "kernel panic" as I kept crashing it out. Also, when all I wanted to do was to get a Redhat 6.0 system to be seen on my MS network, it took me a few days to get SAMBA up and running and some more tuning for stability (I am sure it is much more stable now, not to mention that I would be able to set it up much faster as well). Most MS admins are undertrained, as you will usually the "computer guy" in a small office winds up working with the server because he happens to know how to change the ink in the printer. If MS kept administration as complicated as *nix or Novell (), then you would see a lot less people playing admin on NT systems.

 

The second reason is the great lack of applications that can be installed locally on a server. There are very, very, very few applications that should EVER be installed locally to a server. These are usually databases and collaboration based packages (like MS SQL and Exchange), however I have seen people install things like PC Anywhere (which had that lovely little side effect of crashing out Win2K systems with 9.0 and some 9.1 releases that claimed to be Win2K compliant) and desktop applications like Office* so that it can be used as a workstation. When someone sets up a Linux box to host an Oracle DB, chances are that person isn't going to throw on Word or something else onto that system because that box is now pretty much function specific.

 

So, combine an improperly trained admin with having the ability to install just about anything on a server (not to mention that many programs that were written poorly to begin with can STILL be installed on a server because of backward compatibility) and it's amazing that half the servers run at all. I am not saying that all of the problems NT-based servers have encountered are merely through poor administration, but the majority are. There's a reason why you see high-end applications and hardware that have "Yes:Netware" logos on them for Novell approval, or why there's a lot less hardware out there for Sun (non x86) boxes; those companies want to keep the low-end hardware/software off of those systems. Why introduce more variables to the situation? Why beg for problems? They control what goes into the boxes as much as possible through certifications and marketing, and then stand back and laugh while some joker has 4 realtek NICs shoved into the new MS Small Business Server that he "built" out of an old PC with a couple of new hard drives, trying to get ISA to host his ftp site from work, and all the while getting hardware issues and all kinds of other problems. But that's OK, MS *should* have seen this coming and made ANOTHER wizard for this problem, right?

 

 

 

*Outlook does have to be installed for use by MS SQL 2000 so it can generate emails to admins, plus using proper transforms you can install Office 2K/XP on a Win2K server running Terminal Server in Application hosting mode so that thin clients may use it. However, the comment I made is more reflective of low-level admins just using it as a workstation and in effect inviting problems to occur on these servers. If they are using the servers to check their email (viruses/worms) and word docs (worms), it would be logical to say these same people are browsing the web (more viruses and worms) and begging for more instability.

 

That's my response, and now I am interested in hearing yours.

[Lactic.Acid 0]

d00d! Wutr u smokin man??/? linux owns j00! it's so 1337! m$ sucks linux's harry *****

 

Okay. Real answer: I agree.

/L.A

[sapiens74 0]

Well said dude.

 

 

 

You are completely right . You know what really gets me piping mad is that if MS servers were run, like I run them, they wouldnt crash at all. People are lazy and companies are too cheap to either hire techs that know thier stuff, or train those who do not. The server is a stable as the admin. I guarantee you I can have an MS server up longer then your linux server, providing they are doing the same thing. You cannot blame MS for people not knowing how to do thier jobs

[Brian Frank 0]

PC's aren't exactly easy for many people (hence PC techs and such) and Linux and easy to use are words I'd use together in a discriptive sentance. I'm still finding out new stuff about Windows. I've tried Linux out and there is a good reason it is not the #1 OS: it's harder to use. MS ain't perfect, but the NT code is rather stable in the hands of a competent person (I don't always fall into this category). I don't want to sound like I'm selling my soul to MS (too late anyway:p), but Windows is a helluva lot easier to run, install, and use than Linux.

[AndyFair 0]

Another thing that annoys me is when the Linux people start going on about how many viruses Windows has, and how few viruses Linux has...like that is some measure of the inherant instability & insecurity of Windows.

 

I don't think it's anything to do with insecurity at all - it's all to do with how many Windows machines there are compared to how many Linux machines - nobody's going to write viruses that only infect a handful of machines, it defeats the whole object of viruses!!

 

Rgds

AndyF

[clutch 1]

Not a lot of people sitting around dreaming of being infamous for writing a worm/virus to infect a lesser populating OS eh? Who would have thought?

 

[OLEerror 0]

One of my biggest gripes about Windows servers: Why in the hell did Microsoft include games and OpenGL screensavers in a server environment? It's hard to believe the number of times someone has whined to me that their Windows 2000 Adv Server was running slow and it turns out they were running the 3D Pipes screensaver on it. There is absolutely no reason for the average server to have a media player on it, as well. Or Active Desktop. Heck, I'd prefer it to have a stripped down version of Internet Explorer. But that's just me.

[sapiens74 0]

i agree the less the better. I had an old boss that liked to install Direct x 8 on the server. What the hell for ? I asked

[Vampyr 0]

I've seen people playing Quake3 on their 2K servers. Yep.. quake. Nuff said.

[Brian Frank 0]

Oh, speaking of games, didn't Loki Games file for bankrupcy? The biggest supplier of Linux game ports. Of course their major fall was from not having a port of half-life and counterstrike:p

[sapiens74 0]

Also has to do with the fact that Linux terrible for playing games (or being a workstation IMO).

 

 

I remeber when APple users were saying how much more stable they were, then when apple started using more hardware and thier OS got more bloated you began to see it has the same problems as Windows based PC's. You see the same thing with Linux when trying to do anything like that too. Hell it's way more bloated then Windows, unless you gut it.