Re: [OT] RAID

[Ian Oliver <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In article <00d701c7cd12$bc99cd10$0201a8c0@xxxxxxx>, Ian Lowe
wrote:
> Server 2003
> wipes the floor with it for a non-geek every time.

I use both and disagree, but there you go!

Our 2003 Servers take just as much admin, if not more, and the error
messages they kick out are 10x as geeky as anything from Linux. They
also thrive on regular reboots as memory in various pools seems to
slowly leak, but this does seem to depend on which
applications/hardware we use, with our SCSI-based tape backup being a
big offender.

Our Linux servers just sit their humming, doing their stuff, and we do
all admin via SSH with reboots once a year, if that.

For a home user, I really can't see Server 2003 being a sensible choice
due to its high cost but the *really* good thing is that we do have a
choice of Windows or Linux (or BSD, etc.) and the fact that there are
arguments about which is best shows that in reality they aren't too far
apart.

But, of course, Linux is much better and free. :-)

Ian Oliver
Sunny Leeds, UK
Using Java on Tini for control via Dallas 1-wire