How is Linux so stable compared to Windows?
How can free software be so much better than the "best" engineers on the planet.
How is Linux so stable compared to Windows?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.uptime24.net
twitter.com
>linux is stable
Windows it also stable you just hear more about problems because its has a way bigger userbase thats thas also more retarded, dont believe in every shit meme.
I have used Windows for over 10 years.
It ALWAYS has problems.
hey boss, I can maybe make x more stable if I do these things and make them easier for other people to understand
>wtf user, how is that gonna make us money?
compared to
hey look that neckbeard made this part more stable by doing these things and in the process he made it easier for idiots to understand.
>by RMS' beard, thats euphoric! im pulling it!
make sense l0l
Best linux logo is best
Can a windows server stay running for 10 years lol
No, can any linux distro keep running for 10 months without suddenly becoming unstable which requires you to reinstall because no fix for natural disaster or getting updates that are literally intended to just FUCK SHIT UP?
yes
20:47:04 up 1500 days, 13:31, 4 users, load average: 0.73, 0.79, 0.68
Actually didn't know it was exactly 1500 days today.
>How is Linux so stable compared to Windows?
I haven't actually used Windows for my own systems in about 15 years (98 was the last I used), so I wouldn't really know, but when I've repaired or otherwise dealt with others' computers that run Windows, stability of the operating system itself hasn't really seemed to be a problem since NT became standard.
That's not to say that Windows doesn't have problems, among them being:
>Windows Update is an utter joke, using 100% CPU and disk bandwidth for many minutes just to DOWNLOAD updates, let alone installing them
>Requiring reboots just to upgrade user-mode software
>System and API complexity is completely runaway leading to subtle, hard-to-debug and harder-to-fix error modes...
>...which is compounded by the system not being open and transparent about its structure
>All this also leading to software development on Windows being cancer
I could go on, but the point being that I haven't really seen random system crashes since the 98 days (that haven't been caused by bad hardware), so I'd be hard pressed to complain about stability.
>how is having a better product going to make us money?
This problem is not inherent in companies, unlike what you seem to imply. Only in badly managed companies.
>only 10 years
lol but you're right
> He thinks 10 months is a long stable uptime for a linux server
desu if you don't download porn, install shitty malware infected applications from a torrent site or open up that email from M'tumbu telling you your dick is small and buy some of these pills blah, blah, you won't have any problems.
You'd have to look at VMS clusters to see systems running for more than 10 years.
Why are you comparing the stability of a kernel vs an entire operating system?
In any case, it's simply a matter of perspective. To even know about operating systems like Ubuntu requires a certain amount of proficiency, and so does installing it willingly. Which means most users are going to be better at maintaining the system, whereas on Windows that isn't the case due to appealing to the masses - so you get tech illiterates whining about viruses because they ran a gif.psd.exe.
>the "best" engineers on the planet.
I've read that a few years ago a Microshaft employee complained that the company had a hard time keeping its senior devs because the other big tech companies were more attractive so more and more MS devs are codemonkeys fresh out of college.
I don't think Windows is inherently more unstable than Linux, I think Windows users are inherently more retarded than Linux users on average.
en.uptime24.net
Your move winfags
GNU/Linux comes from paid professional skilled programmers.
Microsoft windows comes from Pajeets.
Because it doesn't do shit. Linux doesn't have half the function of windows.
You're conflating two points.
Other tech companies (largely just google, apple was already pretty much dead in the water from a software engineers perspective by then) being more attractive meant that the best grad talent went to google and avoided microsoft unless they got rejected by google.
Which means that when senior engineers retired/died/etc, these google rejects would struggle to fill their shoes.
Retaining senior devs has very little to do with the above, they have to be replaced eventually anyways. Especially years ago, where tech companies were wild with blacklists and a senior dev just switching from any of the major tech companies to another was pretty dramatic.
Can someone give me a (You) Please? ;_;
...
Thank You! :3
Microsoft is a terribly managed company.
All of them except memedistros like Arch.
Are you 12? Have you never experienced windows rot? No matter how well maintained a windows system is it slows down over time.
To the point of all for profit businesses, which is to create and sustain profit, they're perfectly managed.
>Are you 12? Have you never experienced windows rot?
>windows rot
>well maintained windows system
lol you must be 14
What is your reasoning there? They've done rather well for shareholders in the last years.
...
He's right though desu that's one of the things that makes Linux so great is it doesn't have to support decades of shit purely due to being under the same brand/company.
>implying there are companies that aren't badly managed
For now. You don't have to look hard to see people being disillusioned by Windows everywhere. Ignoring the long term is terrible management.
>doesn't have to support decades of shit
That's a different thing from having less functionality, though. It's just providing the same (or more) functionality in a less complex manner.
They're probably hard to find as long as you're looking at publicly listed companies. They tend to become badly managed due to just being treated as a vessel for a quick buck by shareholders.
To be fair you have to have a certain amount of knowledge to use windows but thanks to its spread people are taught it by schools and parents. If laptops shipped with ubuntu people would learn it and probably run stupid shit liKe notarootkit.gif.sh.
>"best" engineers
>pajeet squad
@65024770
@65024778
@65024789
Samefag.
>run stupid shit liKe notarootkit.gif.sh
Can't execute files without being given execute permission. Your move, Microshaft.
165d 2h 5m Windows 7
3y 332d 7h 33m Gentoo Base System release 2.2
wtf? why windows uptime is so short?
Every OS has its faults, I've seen both Linux and Windows break down.
>Microsoft windows comes from Pajeets.
Incompetent Pajeets that don't know the fuck how to code.
Arch is one of the most stable distros unless you're a retard.
Because all the "best" people in the "industry" are there because of nepotism.
Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.
>Arch users actually believe this
>mfw using Windows for enterprise stuff at work
>mfw everything is incredibly robust
>mfw I actually wasted my time on this bait
t. never used Arch.
>No matter how well maintained a windows system is it slows down over time
Comp Sci freshman detected. I've run the same Win7 installation for 6 years and have experienced absolutely no slowdown because I'm not a retard who can't maintain a Windows installation.
Current uptime: 78 days. Zero adverse side effects and zero slowdown.
If windows went open source today, how long would it take to people come up with popular forks?
Proprietary software is always shittier than free software because millions of programmers are better than a single companies bunch of programmers.
A long time. The NT kernel needs an overhaul badly.
>dude botnet lmao
>dude waste your time with a jank ass peice of shit freeware instead of working
>lmao
It always amuses me.
Stop with the ebonics, wigger. You are a waste of life.
Eh, Ive had more problems with linux than with windows, and Ive have used windows more
no u
And nice reddit spacing,
Because Arch users actually use it.