The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: Jonathan Kirwan
Subject: Re: IBM chip fab will use Linux
References: <3D6E8E0E.email@example.com> <3D6FDA8F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3D7185FA.7060408@BOGUS.earthlink.net> <3D729879.87AE09FB@bellatlantic.net> <email@example.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 18:01:10 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 18:01:10 GMT
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 19:28:33 +0200, "fred bartoli"
>Well, given the cost of off time in a $billions factory, I really don't
>think that IBM will play that game just to "buy" a good new image to their
>piece of software. The point is undoubtly reliability.
>About the same point a friend of mine that is currently administrating a
>2000+ machines parc tells me that windows servers *have* to be restarted at
>least once a week. Unix/linux ones they have are *never* restarted.
>Also run on the same hardware windows serves less clients than linux. Sure
>this again is not the reason for IBM choice, but this might be a good
>additionnal reason for personnal use (of course provided SW is available).
I can add my own experience to this, as well. Worked at FEI for a
time where there were two parallel network systems set up. Each
network had a dedicated server system (nearly identical hardware, as
they purchased all their machines so that the support folks didn't
have any variety to deal with.) One was an NT 4 server system and the
other used Linux. No other software was operated on these servers --
they were dedicated.
Roughly each week, the NT based network would "get slow" (which either
really did mean very slow or else meant completely stopped for all
intents and purposes) and would need to be rebooted. I'd never heard
of the Linux system needing that. The guy responsible for the network
had some 30 years experience in programming and I'm not sure how many
years with networks (but he was a very smart and respected guy) took
me over to the Linux server one day and showed me the "up time." It
was 9 months. He said that was when they had brought it down to add
some memory to it.
He told me he never had any problems with Linux. I had figured that
with the "stone soup" nature of Linux, that it would be worse than
this. But my feeling now is that the open source nature, having many
eyes looking at it, is what allows it to be as robust as it is.
But whatever the reason, at least for networking, Linux is darned good
by comparison to anything Microsoft has fielded.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup