RE: [OT] RAID

["Ian Lowe" <ianlowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Someone touched a nerve. ;-)

You betcha ;)

> If you really believed that statement then why did you go on to
explain
why windows is better or/and linux is worse?

Not really what I was saying - each has it's forte, and I would happily use
either in the right situation. In the SOHO server space, I think Server
2003
blows away Linux. In web serving applications or in the embedded space, I
think the tables are turned, and Linux is the default choice.

> I've experienced this just as much on any platform I've ever used so
this
seems like a
weak argument against Linux to me.

It wasn't an argument against Linux - it was an argument against the view
that "linux is superior". Ubuntu on the desktop crashes no less
frequently
than windows, it's not any faster, and it's gui is not really any better. I
like it, and I install each new version without fail (more recently, in a
VM
rather than on physical hardware).. But it's a long stretch to say that
it's
better than XP, let alone Vista.

> For me, on Linux, the most unstable drivers tend to be with drivers
that
are not part of the core kernel - madwifi, etc. Fortunately, I don't
need these on my linux servers - not sure why you would to be honest
since servers don't generally need them.

Same applies to server 2003 - run decent hardware that's on the WHQL list,
don't install superfluous crud on the server, and you won't see a BSOD -
ever. My server (an SBS2003) powered off last night when the main breaker
on
the house went: last reboot was a good six months or so ago (and was
planned).

> My linux servers all have uptimes of several hundred days.

And my windows server behave similarly - I wonder if that's more a factor
of
our experience of running these servers and judicious selection of decent
hardware, rather than any great factor of the OS...

> Sigh. It was a hobby platform in 1991 but I think it's big business
now
and has been for a while.

I was really meaning more "in the home" servers as a hobby - I
really don't
see anyone running a linux server in their home without any issues if they
don't at least view it as a hobby (and have a circle of pet unix geeks to
call on for help when it fails).

Not to say that the windows servers are any more stable overall - but it's
a
shedload easier to find solutions for the common issues they will see.


> Why would a non-geek care about the OS on a server? A non-geek
shouldn't care if their set-top box, router or HA server runs Windows,
IOS, freebsd or Linux because that layer should be invisible to them.

Very good point.

> I think the state-of-the-art today means that if you are running a
server (windows or linux) to automate your home, then I think you need
to be a geek if you want it to be able to maintain it.

Yeah, I'll agree with that - and clearly, the more embedded appliance style
objects we have in our home networks, the more linux systems there will be,
hidden away, working nicely, just doing their jobs.

> Personally, I don't care what those doing HA today are using; I just
think we should concentrate our efforts on improve the state-of-the-art
so that users don't need to know.

Zero disagreement from me ;)