Since NT4SP3 is not even Y2K ready, I doubt that anyone would feel it is a fair comparison. I suppose you could compare it to Linux 2.0.*. My experience is that NT, Windows and Unix can be very stable platforms - they also can be unstable and I have seen it in all three systems.
What about the bugs that are found in various kernel versions, my system at home can be crashed by USB printing until I moved to 2.4.10. Its a known bug but took about 4 months to fix. I'm not trying to single out one system over another, but they all have strengths and weaknesses. Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Burton West [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 24 January 2002 16:16 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Advocacy thoughts - was Re: bad nasty evil thread > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 04:00:41PM +0000, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > > >Neither of you can predict the future. I don't know the specifics of > >this case, but Win2K (or even NT3SP3) is hardly an unreliable file > >serving platform*. > > In my experience they both are (assuming you meant NT4SP3). > > >And Penderel is hardly a testament to the reliability > >of Linux machines. > > I don't know who set up Penderel. I do know that no Linux machine I've > set up has had downtime from anything other than hardware failure. > It's > my job to get these things right, and I do. > > I can't go into much more detail of this particular case, for obvious > reasons; suffice it to say that technical issues were not a factor. > > Roger > > -- > He's a suicidal guerilla barbarian whom everyone believes is mad. > She's > a virginal hypochondriac mercenary with an MBA from Harvard. They > fight > crime!
