Linux, Unix more reliable than Windows
LAST YEAR, WE wrote about a controversial report penned by technology research and consulting outfit the Yankee Group, claiming that Windows was more reliable than Linux.
The Yankee Group has been busy again this year, but its latest report seems to offer a very different story to last year’s, with Windows now performing significantly worse than its Linux and Unix rivals.
The Yankee Group's second annual Server Operating System Reliability survey takes pains to note that all the major operating systems are in fact fairly reliable when it comes down to it, but that some have come on leaps and bounds, while others have slipped since last surveyed.
Like last year, UNIX, the main Linux distributions from Novell and Red Hat as well as open sauce Ubuntu, was again found to be heads and shoulders above the rest, with 99.999% reliability, taking the title of undisputed victor in Yankee’s 2007-2008 Global Server Operating Reliability Survey.
The study points out that IBM's AIX UNIX came out on top reliability wise, with only about 30 minutes of annual downtime per server. HP and Sun Microsystems also came out shining.
Managing to take the medal for “best improvement in reliability” was Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Novell SuSE Linux, who were each able to cut per annum downtime per server by about 75 per cent.
Window was slammed by the survey, however, for increases in downtime of approximately 25 per cent, totaling about nine hours of per annum downtime per server -significantly more than last year.
Explanations for Windows’ fall from Yankee grace seem to centre on the fact that the Vole put out a number of security alerts last summer and autumn, which meant that network administrators took their Windows Server 2003 machines offline for notably longer in order to apply remedial patches to them.
So, in a turning of tables, Windows 2003 Server is now considered a less reliable server operating system than Linux.
The Yankee Group claims to poll about 700 users hailing from 27 different countries. Preliminary findings from the report are published by the Institute for advanced Professional Studoes, here. µ
See Also
Windows
more reliable than Linux
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
Let me get this straight: the "Yankee Group" [1] is selling a "2008 Server OS Reliability Survey" [2] and they even do not list hp OpenVMS? Are we suppose to learn from this "Yankee Group" report that vole poo-poo stinks worse than penguin guana?

A quick search through the "Yankee Group's" web site shows that these people even do not know OpenVMS. Tomorrow you are going to cite a report from CNN, or what?

[1] www.yankeegroup.com
[2] http://lxer.com/module/newswire/ext_link.php?rid=101796
Same situation on the desktop, at least according to the results of the recent PWN2OWN contest, along with many years of my own experience running Ubuntu/Kubuntu, OpenSuse, and Mepis. These systems just run and run, with little problem from viruses, and updating programs and OS files typically does not require a reboot (except for occasional kernel updates). Most updates are really optional, due to the excellent security of *nix systems.
*
So this lends a new viewpoint as to the COST of operating systems and software. 
*
Microsoft and Windows software COSTS you to purchase it, COSTS you time and money to protect it with antivirus/ antispyware software that, even if free, COSTS you by loading and slowing down your machine, COSTS you by using more power than open-source solutions, and COSTS you your self respect by making you into a spoon-fed, remote-controlled, dependent "software-consumer" instead of being able to operate and control the computer you paid good money for. Apple is not much better in this regard, due to the whole Steve's- Koolaid-force-feeding thing.
*
Linux and open source software have none of these limitations, and offer you an almost unlimited free library of applications and a huge selection of excellent free operating systems to run these applications on. You can set up your own very powerful home or business network server (Samba and/or NFS), set up a Linux multimedia center ala Mythbuntu, set up all users on the network to run user-friendly desktops like Kubuntu, and even dual-boot or VM windows to those users who do not want to kick the windows habit cold-turkey. 
*
Sure, there is a small learning curve, but not much different than springing Vista or Office 2007 on some unsuspecting user. And the biggest difference - the learning curve for Open Source actually has benefits greater than just lining Bill Gates' wallet.
Seems like the Yankee Group has learned its lesson very quickly : it does no good to tout the MS line when it comes to reliability and security of Windows vs anything else.
Apparently, YG is reacting fast to the dreadful drop in credibility. Good for them, I wish them the best, but they are still part of the Tocquevilles of this world as far as I am concerned.
It's like having an STD - once you've got it, you've got it.