> Hi Richard.
> > NT doesn't run anything for more than a day. It stays up, but
> > the applications always stop. This is considered "normal" by M$.
> > Even M$'s C++ environment needs to be rebooted between compiles
> > or it won't link.
> You think I don't know this? AUCC in its wisdom expects its students
> to use NT to do their computing work, and few of the systems stay up
> for more than 90 minutes without locking up. AUCC's answer to this is
> to limit students to not more than 60 minutes at a time...
I must admit that neither of these are my experience - I'm stuck with
NT at work but it quite happily lets me sit running VC 6, Emacs,
Rational Rose (what a memory hog!), SQL server and a host of also rans
and I most certainty do not need to reboot every 90 mins, or even
every day - I treat my machine to a reboot every month or so to clear
memory leaks (if installing some software or patch didn't need a
reboot, although that _is_ depressingly often) but otherwise it seems
basically robust. HP is willing to guarentee 99.9% availability for NT
on it's PC hardware - that's just 8 hours downtime a year. Mind you
it's prepared to guarentee 99.999% availability for HP-UX (to get
things in context).
I've noticed a distinct tandancy to knock NT in the Linux community -
whilst I'm no fan - my home machine (64Mb, 200Mhz Pentium MMX) is a
fine, powerful development platform with Linux and a depressingly
underpowered, memory short simpleton with NT 5/W2k beta 2 but just
repeating the NT is slow and needs rebooting lots is ignoring the fact
that it does a prefectly good job for many people most of the time.
If Linux is really to gain "world domination" making sure that NT's
strengths are Linux's strengths as well as making sure that NT's
weaknesses are Linux's strengths is required.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/