----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Russo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 15:45 Subject: Re: Linux vs Windows
> Louis Sabet wrote: > > Quite. The proof is in the pudding as they say... > > Find me a windows box that'll do this: > > 3:22pm up 306 days, 2:18, 0 users, load average: 0.05, 0.09, 0.08 > > > > This is an apache/mod_ssl machine running a ton of perl, and a bunch > > of log analysis stuff. The day I see a publicly visible win32 box > > running IIS with a similar uptime I'll eat my ascii. > > Get some salt and pepper:
http://uptime.netcraft.net/up/hosted?netname=VRIO-198-106,198.106.0.0,19 8.1 0 7.255.255
> ;-) These are probably artifacts of the netcraft monitoring, but > maybe not? > > -Ben.
--On Tuesday, April 01, 2003 09:27:30 +0100 Gary Stainburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 01 Apr 2003 12:58 am, David Busby wrote:The real one: http://uptime.netcraft.net/up/today/top.avg.html
The downer from that page is that there's not one Linux box listed but there is 1 Win2K
A minor downer, but still considerably better than the first one, which almost head me reaching for my knife and fork...
I don't think anyone can deny that BSD-derived OSs are exceptionally stable. The one win2k box means I might just nibble a bit of ascii later on. Not really hungry at the moment though.
-- Louis Sabet - IT Manager http://www.mobiles.co.uk http://www.gadgets.co.uk
-- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
