Anything other than a once monthly 5 minute overnight reboot is a sign of either bad hardware or an admin that shouldn't be an admin.
You seem to be missing the most common reason for the server reboots: software. I've seen implementations where you have to restart IIS at least weekly or it would lock up. Admins knew what theyre doing, hardware was good... such is life
Seriously, I've dealt with about 4 WinModems in the past, all working perfectly on Linux. I admit, you have to know what you're doing if you are to use WinModems on Linux... But you have to know what you're doing if you're using Linux, period.
Seriously, anyone who doesn't even have a clue how much their systems are costing them are only ever going to make it worse - and more expensive - by randomly moving to another platform because someone's friend told them it was free.
Seriously, anyone who doesn't have a clue how much they spend on their systems wouldn't even be in business for much longer... However, you don't have to spend another $100,000 to hire some analysts who would tell you the exact amount you're spending.
That being said, if you have a network of 30 Windows servers doing most of the work, and if you have to reboot at least half of them daily because of BSOD/freeze/randomly going down/etc, and if you also have a vague idea of how much you have to spend on the license fees, antivirus, management tools, salary for the admins, service pack install downtime and so on - then, if someone you know well says that you can have most of those functions moved to a free (no licensing fees) platform which is stable and not suspectible to most viruses, performs better and you don't have to reboot it unless you change hardware - all that at the expense of having to hire someone who knows what they're doing (more salary per person * much less people) - this should give you an idea how much you can save yearly.
- "The problem is that Linux cannot handle this hardware that is obviously able to be handled by windows created well before it was made because it can't handle 'compatible hardware'. This soundcard is obviously made to be compatible with the soundblaster standard, and the old versions of windows just see it as such AND WORK!"
I still remember the nightmares of installing Win95 'out of the box' and twiddling with floppies/CDs for hours loading the drivers from the manufacturers of the corresponding components to make it go from the 'just see it as such' stage to the 'AND WORK' stage. (By the way, which of the Win95 releases is mentioned? I recall there was quite a number of those, with different drivers and problems, e.g. with and without USB support).
Win98 and later had MUCH better support in terms of the number of devices supported. However, a particular hardware device is found, installed, and configured automatically ONLY if the driver was released prior to and was included into a release of the particular OS; otherwise, you go for manufacturer's drivers anyways... The 'obviously made to be compatible' hardware is usually nowhere near being compatible, it's just doing (mostly very poor) emulation of the standard it is claimed to be compatible with, and does so only after loading the custom drivers, which may or may not be certified by Microsoft...
On the contrary, Linux seems to go supporting CHIPSETS, not particular cards, which I find very convenient. Any, say, NIC with EEPRO100 chipset (I know of dozens of such cards from different manufacturers) will work with the same driver, when in Windows you need to load different drivers for each one. That concept would let you get support for almost any of the cards released in the future and having the same chipset. Convenient, eh?
As for Linux being unable to 'conquer the desktop world', I would agree. Also, I am perfectly happy with this fact. I would not like to see a perfectly good operating system being twisted into an unmanageable resource hog just "to serve the needs of customers" who buy computers just "because their neighbours bought one", and lack intelligence and desire to understand how it works (on a user level at least). Such people call support for 'broken cupholders' etc. I believe that it is possible to make a reliable and secure OS, but when you start satisfying the customers, the speed, stability and security are sacrificed for the sake of "convenience and ease of use". Myself, I am happy with Linux as it is.
- "It's not a problem if you know what you're doing" Perfect statement, with which I agree wholeheartedly. If you don't know what you are doing, you shouldn't be doing it. In this case, if you don't know how your computer/OS works, it honestly would be safer for you to wait until you do.
P.S. So, you have a computer. So you (supposedly) run Linux on it. You think it's too hard (and will take too long) for you to learn how to work with it? Then install Windows, and spend much more time dealing with constant updates, service packs, security holes, script kiddies/hackers/crackers, viruses, worms, trojans, application incompatibility, poor performance, crashes, blue screens, and other niceties of the Windows world. Good luck.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be missing the most common reason for the server reboots: software. I've seen implementations where you have to restart IIS at least weekly or it would lock up. Admins knew what theyre doing, hardware was good... such is life
http://linmodems.org/ anyone?
Seriously, I've dealt with about 4 WinModems in the past, all working perfectly on Linux. I admit, you have to know what you're doing if you are to use WinModems on Linux... But you have to know what you're doing if you're using Linux, period.
Seriously, anyone who doesn't have a clue how much they spend on their systems wouldn't even be in business for much longer... However, you don't have to spend another $100,000 to hire some analysts who would tell you the exact amount you're spending.
That being said, if you have a network of 30 Windows servers doing most of the work, and if you have to reboot at least half of them daily because of BSOD/freeze/randomly going down/etc, and if you also have a vague idea of how much you have to spend on the license fees, antivirus, management tools, salary for the admins, service pack install downtime and so on - then, if someone you know well says that you can have most of those functions moved to a free (no licensing fees) platform which is stable and not suspectible to most viruses, performs better and you don't have to reboot it unless you change hardware - all that at the expense of having to hire someone who knows what they're doing (more salary per person * much less people) - this should give you an idea how much you can save yearly.
I still remember the nightmares of installing Win95 'out of the box' and twiddling with floppies/CDs for hours loading the drivers from the manufacturers of the corresponding components to make it go from the 'just see it as such' stage to the 'AND WORK' stage. (By the way, which of the Win95 releases is mentioned? I recall there was quite a number of those, with different drivers and problems, e.g. with and without USB support).
Win98 and later had MUCH better support in terms of the number of devices supported. However, a particular hardware device is found, installed, and configured automatically ONLY if the driver was released prior to and was included into a release of the particular OS; otherwise, you go for manufacturer's drivers anyways... The 'obviously made to be compatible' hardware is usually nowhere near being compatible, it's just doing (mostly very poor) emulation of the standard it is claimed to be compatible with, and does so only after loading the custom drivers, which may or may not be certified by Microsoft...
On the contrary, Linux seems to go supporting CHIPSETS, not particular cards, which I find very convenient. Any, say, NIC with EEPRO100 chipset (I know of dozens of such cards from different manufacturers) will work with the same driver, when in Windows you need to load different drivers for each one. That concept would let you get support for almost any of the cards released in the future and having the same chipset. Convenient, eh?
As for Linux being unable to 'conquer the desktop world', I would agree. Also, I am perfectly happy with this fact. I would not like to see a perfectly good operating system being twisted into an unmanageable resource hog just "to serve the needs of customers" who buy computers just "because their neighbours bought one", and lack intelligence and desire to understand how it works (on a user level at least). Such people call support for 'broken cupholders' etc. I believe that it is possible to make a reliable and secure OS, but when you start satisfying the customers, the speed, stability and security are sacrificed for the sake of "convenience and ease of use". Myself, I am happy with Linux as it is.
- "It's not a problem if you know what you're doing"
Perfect statement, with which I agree wholeheartedly. If you don't know what you are doing, you shouldn't be doing it. In this case, if you don't know how your computer/OS works, it honestly would be safer for you to wait until you do.
P.S. So, you have a computer. So you (supposedly) run Linux on it. You think it's too hard (and will take too long) for you to learn how to work with it? Then install Windows, and spend much more time dealing with constant updates, service packs, security holes, script kiddies/hackers/crackers, viruses, worms, trojans, application incompatibility, poor performance, crashes, blue screens, and other niceties of the Windows world. Good luck.