[NTLUG:Discuss] Why it can be argued MS is better than Linux (RANT!)

[Chris Cox]

Stephen Davidson wrote:
> Greetings.
> 
...
> 
> I have just finished repairing a machine (Linux) that had suffered a 
> hard drive failure several months back.  Not linux's fault, and that was 
> a fairly easy fix.  The reason that I only now just finished repairing 
> it is that I have been occupied with dealing with other Linux failures.  
> The most recent of which was a printer port failure -- that took 6 weeks 
> to find the workaround (Note: workaround -- not Fix) for.  And only for 
> my printserver.  My laptop still does not recognize its printer port 
> (both machines are OpenSuSE 10.0).
> 
> Yesterday afternoon, due to several security advisories, I decided to 
> apply the outstanding security patches for SuSE Pro. 9.2 to my server, 
> located at a Colocation site downtown.  Mistake.  BIG Mistake.  By 2:00 
> it was apparent that the system was not going to come back up w/o major 
> intervention.  So, I good bye to spousal unit, and head out, with master 
> disks in hand in case something was thoroughly corrupted and needed to 
> be reinstalled.  Get downtown and over to server.  It was trying to do a 
> fsck because none of the filesystems had been checked in the last 49710 
> days.  20.4% through the fsck of /home, and it hangs.  Everytime.  Ok, 
> that's what rescue disks are for, and I had brought mine.  Pop them in, 
> run them, and everything works out smooth.  Woohoo, I think.  I will be 
> home in time for dinner!  Reboot system, no checks in 49710 days, 
> restarting checks.  Ok, no biggie, I think.  They passed the rescue 
> disk.  Hung at 20.4%.  At least with MS, when one version of Scan disk 
> says your filesystem is fixed, the others will as well.  So, rescue disk 
> again.  Rescan.  Everything still ok.  Fine.  telinit 3.  No network, 
> and messages about how the system can't find half the files it needs.

When things go bad, either due to filesystem corruption or other
problem usually caused by a hardware error or hw glitch, there's not
too much you can do (and it's OS independent).

Sometimes when dealing with faulty hardware, reboots can be a healthy
thing.  Bad sectors can be caught before the count gets astronomically
high (just one example).  Windows is pretty good about forcing
periodic reboots.  Perhaps it is a hw reliability check/feature.


....
> I have never had this much trouble from my MS machines.  If things get 
> so bad a reinstall is needed, 1.5 hours is the most I have ever had to 
> spend, plus about the same for the services -- not 8 hours, and still no 
> luck even getting the install to work.

Well... I certainly sympathize, but I don't think it's a fair
treatment of the two OS's.  It's possible that an errant user
initiated configuration could have caused a problem, but I'll give
you the benefit of doubt.  Really sounds hardware related.

But, if you really feel that Microsoft gives you superior stability,
I don't think anyone will stand in your way, even if we disagree.

One thing I have learned using Linux is that hardware does fail.
Something you don't notice as much when you're constantly rebooting
and rebuilding things.  Just my own observation.