Windows more reliable than Linux?

**xXKelbaXx** · March 23, 2006, 16:00

I'm not completely sure but I can point out some things that would make companies choose Microsoft over Linux.

1. There is much better support for Microsoft products than Linux products.
2. Maybe there is a shortage of finding someone to hire that knows how to upkeep a server on Linux well. Maybe someone who didn't know what he was doing was hired.
3. Microsoft is more user-friendly (It acts like you're an idiot).

**Deviant Ollam** · March 23, 2006, 16:47

linux i associate with reliabliity of five nines. microsoft will give you nine fives.

**Pythonily** · March 23, 2006, 17:07

Linus created Linux to be more reliable and better than DOS. After using DOS he wanted to write a better and more stable command line and he discovered Minix, from Minix he wrote Linux. :) No matter what any article says I will always know that Linux is more reliable than Windows anything.

**xXKelbaXx** · March 23, 2006, 17:25

Originally posted by Pythonily

Linus created Linux to be more reliable and better than DOS. After using DOS he wanted to write a better and more stable command line and he discovered Minix, from Minix he wrote Linux. :) No matter what any article says I will always know that Linux is more reliable than Windows anything.

I don't believe it was a reliability issue, I thought it was just that DOS did not suit his needs.

**Pythonily** · March 23, 2006, 18:07

Well, reliability feeds into the whole stable issue and what not. By not suiting his needs he means that it was a crappy command line and was not reliable or stable enough.

**xwred1** · March 23, 2006, 20:54

2. Maybe there is a shortage of finding someone to hire that knows how to upkeep a server on Linux well. Maybe someone who didn't know what he was doing was hired.

Apparently its hard to find people who know how to take care of Windows machines well also :p

Microsoft is more user-friendly (It acts like you're an idiot).

This is important when you are hiring professionials, because now you can get away with employing idiots.

**bascule** · March 23, 2006, 21:42

See, here's the problem:

If something gets really fucked up on a Linux system, chances are you can repair it because of the granular way in which most Linux distributions are packaged. You can remove, reinstall, and reconfigure the broken components of the system individually.

With Windows (or for that matter, OS X) you're basically fucked. Did you screw up when deploying Exchange? Well tough luck buddy, because chances are misdeploying Exchange has fucked things up to the point that Exchange won't even want to uninstall, and even if it will, it will probably hose your Active Directory tree in the process. Your best bet to repair the ensuing damage to your system is... reinstall.

**INIT_6** · April 8, 2006, 22:38

"If the possibility can be allowed that said purpose can be well or even completely defined, it should present a means for at least considering objectively whether the software is, in fact, reliable, by comparing the expected outcome to the actual outcome of running the software in a given environment, with given data. Unfortunately, it is still not know whether it is possible to exhaustively determine either the expected outcome or the actual outcome of the entire set of possible environment and input data to a given program, without which it is probably impossible to determine the program's reliability with any certainty."
quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softwar...of_reliability

This is just talking about software not OS's. If software design has this much trouble just think how much hard it is for an OS. I am sorry to say this but as far as reliability goes Linux and Windows are on the same level.

Now the question is witch OS can handle the errors with out effecting everthing else. I would say Linux.

**converge** · April 9, 2006, 06:17

Originally posted by INIT_6

I am sorry to say this but as far as reliability goes Linux and Windows are on the same level.

why?

Originally posted by INIT_6

Now the question is witch OS can handle the errors with out effecting everthing else. I would say Linux.

why?

**INIT_6** · April 9, 2006, 20:21

The reason why I said "Linux and Windows are on the same level when it comes to reliability" is because....

Both can not predict the input for all users in all environments. Also, All programers will error at the same rate. Therefor all programs should have the same error rate. I have been trying to find out more info on human error rates while programing but yet to find a good source. If you have any please let me know.

I think Linux can handle errors better because it is open source and anyone can make a patch for it. I know when I have gotten errors in my Gentoo linux it was able to keep the system running and I was able to just kill the programs I needed to. Lot of the times when programs in windows crash so does the system.

I do use Windows XP and Linux-Gentoo equally. I can't work with out using both.
I feel no one can answer this question. "Windows more reliable than Linux?" I am sure you can make windows more reliable then linux and I know you can make linux more reliable then windows. It's all up to the user.

**xwred1** · April 9, 2006, 21:24

Windows seems to have more anecdotal evidence of shitting the bed at random times under random conditions when everything otherwise looks to be in order. That seems to imply that it is less reliable, by your measure.

**klepto** · April 9, 2006, 21:36

This is the stupidest and most misinformed discussion ever on the defcon forums

**converge** · April 9, 2006, 22:37

Originally posted by INIT_6

Also, All programers will error at the same rate. Therefor all programs should have the same error rate.

why?

Originally posted by INIT_6

I think Linux can handle errors better because it is open source and anyone can make a patch for it.

why?

Originally posted by INIT_6

Lot of the times when programs in windows crash so does the system.

..you must be running a different version..

Originally posted by INIT_6

I can't work with out using both.

why?

Originally posted by INIT_6

I feel no one can answer this question.

No one, or just you?

Originally posted by klepto

This is the stupidest and most misinformed discussion ever on the defcon forums

.. hmm.. I dunno, there are some good contenders out there.. this one is definately in the running though.

**TheCotMan** · April 9, 2006, 23:47

This is what is called, "calling someone to the carpet for making broad, generalized comments / opinions without citations."

There may be people here who agee, and there may not, but it is very easy for those without knowledge to mimmic statements from those that do by emulating them.

A direct suggestion to INIT_6 and others offering only opinion:
Cite some reasons for your opinions.

Without context, and value, a thread based only on opinions is really just a "bitch session" where people complain, but aren't specific.

"I hate it when stuff sucks."
"Me too, and I hate it when junk sucks."
"Yeah, Junk and stuff sucking, sucks."

Windows more reliable than Linux?

Windows more reliable than Linux?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment