• On GameSpot: Looking to buy a video game console?
July 11, 2008 1:10 PM PDT

Microsoft ahead of Apple, Ubuntu in OS update reliability

by Stephen Shankland
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 80 comments
Share

Canonical's update service for the Ubuntu operating system had more downtime than Apple's or Microsoft's services.

Canonical's update service for the Ubuntu operating system had more downtime than Apple's or Microsoft's services.

(Credit: Pingdom)

A company that measures Internet service reliability has given Microsoft the top score in a test of operating system update services.

Microsoft's Windows Update was available 100 percent of the second quarter of 2008, Pingdom said in a blog posting Friday. Apple's service was down 2 hours and 34 minutes, with 99.9 percent uptime, and Canonical's Ubuntu version of Linux was down 1 day, 5 hours, and 45 minutes, for 98.64 percent uptime.

"Microsoft wins this one hands down," Pingdom said. It noted that Ubuntu's service also is available through mirror sites, however.

The company tested the three services every five minutes.

Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank.
advertisement
 
Business supplies and services can get expensive. Get smart spending tips and learn about new cost-saving opportunities for your business
Recent posts from Business Tech
On2 answers questions on Google merger
IBM: Envisioning the world's fastest supercomputer
Apple MacBook vs. HP Envy (part 2)
Google Chrome now bundled with Avast
Intel: Initial Larrabee graphics chip canceled
Week in review: Old faces in new places
Apple updates Mac Pro with 3.33GHz chip option
Cisco works percentages toward Tandberg takeover
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (80 Comments)
by Harlan879 July 11, 2008 1:34 PM PDT
this isn't "update reliability". An unreliable update is one that crashes your computer. OS updates aren't like Google Docs; it's not necessary that there be 100% uptime for you to be able to get your data. It'll just get delayed and install when it's done.

This is a totally pointless article.
Reply to this comment
by Kwasiowusu July 11, 2008 3:03 PM PDT
What is the good of a critical OS update if the site from which one downloads said OS update is down for to the tune of 1500 minutes and unavailable?
by Penguinisto July 11, 2008 3:52 PM PDT
Too bad that you (Kwasi) are too dim to realize that the "report" says no such thing. ;)
by Kwasiowusu July 11, 2008 5:47 PM PDT
Too bad you can't read and understand. Ah well.
by cnetcensorssuck July 11, 2008 11:26 PM PDT
Kwasiouwusu, did you read the part about mirror sites, dipsh1it?
by blinkdt July 19, 2008 1:57 AM PDT
The point of the article is simple, easily digestible:

Microsoft wins, Apple loses. Deal with it.
by Penguinisto July 11, 2008 1:34 PM PDT
Eh? Ubuntu's update service is a huge series of mirrors... which would mean that ALL of the mirror servers would have had to be down. What methodology did these jokers use?
Reply to this comment
by Penguinisto July 11, 2008 2:28 PM PDT
ah - found it... they monitored just one server. So in order for Ubuntu to match such a flawed methodology, Ubuntu would have to get an account with Akamai, eh? The website claims to do professional performance monitoring, and yet they lead out with such a crappy methodology as 'oh we look at a box and ping it a lot'. Yeah... bunch of amateurs at best over there.
by Vegaman_Dan July 11, 2008 2:47 PM PDT
Wow. And you call yourself an IT Security Professional. Your comments would tend to indicate that the 'amateurs at best' aren't Pingdom, but perhaps the person you see in the mirror every day.


Seriously, get a life.

by Penguinisto July 11, 2008 3:12 PM PDT
Dan, please keep your passive-aggressive fanboyism to yourself, k thx. Taking a flawed methodology ("ping a box") and drawing a flawed conclusion ("THE WHOLE THING IS DOWN TWO HOURS A MONTH! OMGWTFBBQ!!!11!") is amateur behavior at best.
by Vegaman_Dan July 11, 2008 7:18 PM PDT
Penguinisto wrote:


"("THE WHOLE THING IS DOWN TWO HOURS A MONTH! OMGWTFBBQ!!!11!") is amateur behavior at best."


And yet you still make the comments. You might consider checking the definition of 'double standard' for you've just demonstrated it perfectly.


This is a classic sign that you really need to get a life isntead of trying to feed your ego by the ridicule of others. Not very... 'professional' behavior at all for you, Tim.


I'll leave you be. You need nobody to mock or ridicule you at all- your own comments are by far more daminng to your character and reputation than anything anyone else can say.

by The_Decider July 11, 2008 9:46 PM PDT
Good job Vegehead!!!

A new low for you.

Since you don't know anything about computers you probably don't know that a server(or any other computer) can be up and not respond to pings. So that is an extremely flawed way to measure reliability.

Secondly, with the dozens of mirrors, the downtime is zero, regardless what these amateurs say. There are HTTP servers out there that would get reported as 100% downtime from these mental midgets even though it is up and serving request 100% of the time.

Of course they could have sent a syn packet every so often to the main update servers and all the mirrors but such a simple program would be beyond these idjits. Of course if they did that they would probably send the packet with the wrong port number.

What they did is exactly like monitoring one google server and using that as a metric for the entire Google system. Does that make it clear how idiotic they are or do you need a drawing in crayon for you to understand it?

Of course since you work for the biggest pack of amateurs in the world, what these clowns did must seem cutting edge.

Knock of your peacemaker routine, When you are off your meds you are the biggest flamer this side of Boy George.
by Penguinisto July 12, 2008 10:06 AM PDT
No worries - Dan just can't stand that articles (and linked blogs) is the best that passes for anti-FOSS FUD these days. He apparently doesn't understand that ICMP packets are certainly not the only way to measure the life of a server, nor that one server does not an update system make. The 'test' was flawed anyway, in that the bloggers used the generic Akamai-hosted generic address for MSFT (which would obviously always respond), versus individual servers for everyone else.


A proper test would have been to set up a continuous dummy update routine for each, then probe the update systems... but apparently that seemed like too much work for the 'professionals' at Pingdom.
by orgthingy July 13, 2008 4:32 PM PDT
dude, use your brain!!! They were down at different times! so, it doesnt really matter, because "technically" they were up all of the time
by MSSlayer July 11, 2008 1:41 PM PDT
YAAAWWWWNNN

Does it matter since MS takes its sweet ass time pushing security updates out the door? Getting MS to even admit there is a problem takes a few months, then a few more months for a fix. That is what is important.

OSS fixes come in just days or even hours after it gets reported and is pushed out the door then, not on the second Tuesday of the next month.
Reply to this comment
by robvme July 11, 2008 8:43 PM PDT
Think you have your facts backwards. OSS announces issues before there is a fix available and then on average takes 120+ days, and in some cases much much longer to publish a fix. Meantime, there is all kinds of mischief. Microsoft, does not announce critical vulnerabilities until there is a fix and typically has the fix within 30 days. The company calls this Responsible Disclosure. OSS simply cannot do that due to all of the different players in the LAMP stack. The coordination just isn't there.

Lastly, having the patch does no good unless it can be deployed. For most users on this website, their only concern is their single desktop, so deployment and change management issues are not a concern, but if they were, Apple and Microsoft do all of the work in advance to provide a commercially reasonable effort to make sure that your desktop will function in whole after a patch. Is it always 100%? No. But with OSS, you absolutely cannot assume that a fix for Apache is not going to impact MySQL. You cannot assume that a code fix using Perl for the Linux Kernel is not going to impact other OSS dependent apps.
Apple on the other hand does not even rate the severity of their patches and they are often discovered by outside researchers. Apple then usually responds within 82 days after being embarrassed in public by some lab or researcher.

I would argue that OSS requires more know-how ( I use Slackware) than your average user compared to Windows or Apple. So, I would say that getting the patch to market is important and commercial software tends to do that in a more coordinated manner than OSS, but since OSS users tend to be more knowledgeable, they often are more guarded against any vunerability in the first place. They are less dependent on having someone else do the work for them.
There are a variety of websites that watch and measure this activity and I think you will find that your assessment of Microsoft is somewhat unfair and your assessment of OSS a little generous.

Now if you want to argue about quality, I'm not going there. Companies should admit mistakes and be completely transparent when it impacts users. OSS believes that information is neither good or evil but that is should be shared. The idea is good on paper, I like the idea and it is appealing. But there are people that will take a vunerability that has been exposed prior to a fix being issued and create more havoc than what would have occurred with a little more confidentiality.
by Penguinisto July 12, 2008 10:13 AM PDT
robvme: you're trying to make a simplistic argument for complex issues, and by doing so you end up presenting false information. You also mixed up your terminology. "Responsible Disclosure" only involves the actions of those who discover the flaws (e.g. folks who aren't employed by the vendor.

The Vendor of proprietary code is obviously not going to be so open or transparent about its own flaws, which, if there is a workaround before the patch, would be irresponsible on the Vendor's part. This (partially) explains why Windows is so drop-easy to penetrate and zombify.
by rrod182 July 11, 2008 2:11 PM PDT
How much is Microsponge pay for this ad?
Reply to this comment
by whas8020 July 11, 2008 2:28 PM PDT
I second what the prior commenters have said...

This is really unbelievable, even by CNET's MSFT-cheerleading standards:

To draw a connection between update server availability and "OS update reliability" is more than a stretch, it's a misrepresentation.

For the record I use Vista, and the updating has been shaky at best on my end: In the first 6 months or so, while I still had the default auto-update set to ON, Vista managed to disable my paid/legal copy of MS Word during a nightly update, with no clear recourse on how to fix it (tried all of the MS Office patches, nothing worked).

Vista SP 1 finally brought it back, only by then I had long switched to the free and very handy OpenOffice Writer, really the only MS Office product I use anymore is Powerpoint.

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/alexschleber
Reply to this comment
by SeizeCTRL July 13, 2008 12:41 PM PDT
WHAT? "MSFT-cheerleading"?

Are we visiting the same site? Cause I could have swore 80% of the time, cnet reads like an Apple fanboy blog.
by blinkdt July 19, 2008 2:05 AM PDT
80% ?? I think that's generous, more than that to be sure. This article is simply stating facts. It's brief and to the point. The Mactoids can't handle it, like a slap in the face, and they can't strike back. So they whiiiiiiiiiiiiiine. Classic.
by ballmerisanape July 11, 2008 2:33 PM PDT
I can't believe anyone would "print" this article.. especially with such a misleading title. Seriously..

and.. how come this site refuses to "remember me" even though I always check the "remember me" box?
Reply to this comment
by ittesi259 July 11, 2008 2:40 PM PDT
More than likely you delete your cookies.
by dadsgravy July 11, 2008 3:23 PM PDT
more than likely, they don't want to remember you!
by The_Decider July 11, 2008 9:49 PM PDT
CNET programmers are incompentent as hell. It has only been recently since these boards recognized line breaks.

No, it has nothing to do with cookie, it is a bug with FF2 and FF3 at the very least. Even if you accept cookies.
by jezmondo July 11, 2008 2:37 PM PDT
What does this prove (apart from the fact the update server was always up). The number of times WGA breaks is amazing - then you can't get (some) updates. The report seems to forget this.

Ubuntu's updates are mirrored so what's the problem there?

How long does it take for Microsoft to admit they have a problem, then fix it? That's the real test - how long (in hours) does a user of a particular OS have to wait after a security risk (with a given severity rating) is found before the update is available (on average)? That's a proper test. Technically this figure should be multiplied by the number of vulnerabilities of this class there were in the given period. Then the results might be worth reporting.
Reply to this comment
by Kwasiowusu July 11, 2008 3:06 PM PDT
More to the point, how long dies it take Apple to even admit they have a problem, let alone fix it? The notoriosly arrogant Apple has taken to attacking the messnger, instead of fixing the problem first.
by robvme July 11, 2008 8:56 PM PDT
Agreed. The fact that a server is available does not speak what-so-ever to the reliability of any patch or update and its efficacy. Ignoring that Ubuntu is mirrored is just stupid if you are really measuring availability.

One could argue that Microsoft needs a more reliable update server because they have to issue so many updates. I won't comment on the reasons for this, but they are many, and not just the typical Microsoft hater that thinks everything Microsoft sucks. Although quality is an issue very often.
by Kalama July 11, 2008 2:37 PM PDT
OK ... I get it, I've charged a kajillion user$ for software that has a reputation of Swiss Cheese, but, gosh - by - golly, my support sites are up and running at the most reliable factor !

Damn those pesky Ubuntu folk's for offering me an OS that costs me my band width & a disk formatted in I.S.O.

And that arrogant Apple company for making me download massively rewritten updates for a prospective error in the OS.
Reply to this comment
by Kalama July 11, 2008 3:08 PM PDT
Opps, Now I really understand. If people are breaking into my stuff, I'll sit on my porch with my double barrel 12 gauge to keep them out ! When I have faith in my community, bad things might happen once in a while, but I don't sit there ( gee, does M$ have a crew manning their servers, ready to switch over at a second's notice) all a twitter waiting for the failure of my system.
by Penguinisto July 11, 2008 3:14 PM PDT
Ah - I take it you're referring to the recent 53MB download just so that you can add a half-dozen words to Vista's internal English dictionary?
by Vegaman_Dan July 11, 2008 8:10 PM PDT
Penguinisto wrote:


"Ah - I take it you're referring to the recent 53MB download just so that you can add a half-dozen words to Vista's internal English dictionary?"


Perhaps they added the term 'FUD'- something you are actively spreading now? Heh.

by Penguinisto July 12, 2008 10:17 AM PDT
Sorry Dan, but that ain't FUD... it's true: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/11/vista_update/

It seems that MSFT, in a blazing show of incompetence, has no mechanism for simply patching a few words into an existing dictionary system, but instead requires you to download the entire thing every time you update it. (and to be honest, 56.3 MB for a dictionary, when you could do the exact same thing on a couple of floppies back in the old days? That's just massive bloat, folks...)
by blinkdt July 19, 2008 2:20 AM PDT
Hey, Penguinisto, speaking of bloat download:

10.5.1 . . . 10.5.2 . . . 10.5.3 . . . 10.5.4 . . .

More: "It's only been a month since Mac OS X 10.5.3 came out, and today we have Mac OS X 10.5.4. As far as I can tell, Apple has never released operating system patches so close together. That's a clear sign that something wasn't quite right with 10.5.3 ? as indeed, there has been with Leopard in general. . . . I've also never seen a Mac OS X update that had so few changes."

. . . or am I being obtuse? You Mactoids just kill me ;-)
by cesar-arizpe July 11, 2008 2:43 PM PDT
What is ubuntu ?
Reply to this comment
by yacahuma July 11, 2008 2:49 PM PDT
cnet, you should think about removing(deleting ) this article. It makes no sense, and somehow implies that updating windows is less problematic that updating ubuntu or mac. Just not true.
Reply to this comment
by Kwasiowusu July 11, 2008 3:01 PM PDT
Are you Stalin? and is this the Soviet Union? You don't like an article because your precious open source software can't keep their OS software update sites up, so therefore they should take the article down? Would you be demanding that the article be taken down, if it were the Windows OS update sites which were down over 1500 minutes, instead of Ubuntu? Didn't think so!
by The_Decider July 11, 2008 9:51 PM PDT
Kwas, stop being an idiot and go run an virus scanner.

This article is total idiocy, nothing new for CNET.
by cnetcensorssuck July 12, 2008 11:30 AM PDT
Kwasiowusu, do you enjoy being a total horses arse, or do actually work at it? Seriously, take a flying leap, you absolute mistake of nature...you're a complete embarrassment.
by blinkdt July 19, 2008 2:25 AM PDT
No, Kwas makes a solid, valid point . . . deal with it, you freakin' Maczis.
by Vegaman_Dan July 11, 2008 2:50 PM PDT
The survey was about how reliable the OS update servers are- not anything about the OS itself. This article is really nothing more than flame bait, and people like Penguinisto are just gullible enough to fall for it.


Sad.


And I fell for it too! We're all guilty in this one folks. By commenting, we are rewarding this sort of 'journalism'.

Reply to this comment
by Penguinisto July 11, 2008 3:17 PM PDT
Hey Dan - read the article title. I says nothing about "servers" up there. Read the blog it references, esp. where it says "We have measured the software update ?access point? availability for these three operating systems during Q2 2008". Notice how both are misleading at best (at least the blog was honest enough to admit they only pinged one server apiece for OSX and Ubuntu, whereas they only pinged the generic domain name for Windows Update).
by Vegaman_Dan July 11, 2008 8:14 PM PDT
Penguinisto:


Read the article instead of the title? It might help you understand what the article was about.


I'll agree that the article and title are misleading when you read the blog entry that led to it, but your knee-jerk Microsoft hatred comments didn't help things either. You only added to the problem instead of helping dispel the confusion surrounding it. This is why you have the reputation of a troll here, and one that you really need to work on.

by Penguinisto July 12, 2008 10:22 AM PDT
It seems you have no answer to what's there in the article and blog. Pity that... and if you think I was inaccurate, please point out specifics, instead of jumping up and down screaming generalities that are (to this point) nothing more than blind assertions on your part.


When you have something besides ad-hominem to respond with, please reply. Until then, get back to the kids' table - the adults are talking here. ;)
by tymiles July 11, 2008 2:51 PM PDT
? I am totally not understanding this! HOW can an update service be down if you can always access it through it's mirrors without having to change settings on your PC??

And then to put up a graph with a BIG old bar for Ubuntu as if the service never worked.

More FUD!
Reply to this comment
by The_Decider July 11, 2008 9:53 PM PDT
Maybe an idiot like Vegehead can explain it since it doesn't make sense to any but the idiotic.
by limefan913 July 11, 2008 3:16 PM PDT
When did the Ubuntu update mirrors go down this quarter? My primary desktop is using Ubuntu, and they're pushing out near daily updates, all of which I've been able to get instantly.

Regardless, this update is pointless. Ubuntu updates are mostly updates for non-crucial components, and few are security related.
Reply to this comment
by Sabroson July 11, 2008 3:19 PM PDT
Running out of good articles to write?

Who cares about the update servers?? If not available, try latter .. puff.
Reply to this comment
by Thomas, David July 11, 2008 3:48 PM PDT
Holy Cow Batman!

I KNOW I am not the only one who is scratching their heads, and going "Huh?"

This "twist" of a report is so obviously sponsored by Microsoft, and yet it still begs the question as to "why on earth did they bother?". Quite frankly, just how DID they measure this? Weren't there a series of delays, and hold ups concerning the prior updates? Just what the heck does this all mean (the pipe is open, therefore it's more reliable ..., not that it matters that no one had any problems on the other pipes [Ubuntu, and Apple]).

I think this report is just going to backfire like a smelly fart.
Reply to this comment
by Thomas, David July 11, 2008 3:53 PM PDT
CNET ... two words!!

EDITORIAL REVIEW
Reply to this comment
by RompStar_420 July 11, 2008 6:05 PM PDT
If you get paid enough money to bend over, some people will do just that.

Retards... Microsoft software is total crap!!!!
by Laserdisc July 11, 2008 6:20 PM PDT
Microsoft software isn't total crap. I'm a Apple fanboy at heart since coming from the old Commodore Amiga days and I have to defend Microsoft. Granted their software leaves much to be desired but you have to hand it to the boys and girls at MS for creating Windows2000 and then Windows XP. An operating system designed to be used on COUNTLESS configurations of x86 hardware. What burns me is all those Vista users will be forced to pay to upgrade to what Vista should have been with Windows 7.
by Vegaman_Dan July 11, 2008 8:15 PM PDT
Got to agree with you- this mere reference to a blog and not an actual news source is better placed in the editorials instead of the news. There is no news content here, only a link farm. CNET, you can do better than this.
by Penguinisto July 12, 2008 10:27 AM PDT
Laserdisc: Currently, Windows runs only on x86 and x86_64 variants. Linux runs on anything from the most rudimentary embedded processors all the way up to zSeries Mainframes, and pretty much everything in-between (MIPS, PPC, PPC/Cell, Alpha, x86, x86_64, Itanium, and has been ported reliably to such things as iPod, Zune, and the like).

Now in regards to PC configurations, yeah, Windows has a larger variety than, say, OSX to deal with. OTOH, OSX isn't the only alternative game in town. ;)
by SeizeCTRL July 13, 2008 12:48 PM PDT
Penguinsto... let's be fair here. You have to have a linux kernel designed to run on those nonstandard processors. I can't take the standard x86 or x64 Ubuntu and expect to install it on an NEC pos system. It takes a special flavor of Linux to run on special processors.

At one time, Windows NT had a special build for DEC/Alpha. Since DEC sold off to Compaq and Alpha instructions got filtered down to Intel and AMD, there was no longer a need to keep supporting a dead processor. Sure there are still Alpha based systems out there, but do you really think those people running them are going to want to install XP/Vista/OSX on them? Leave Alpha for Open/VMS which is where it shines.
by Laserdisc July 11, 2008 6:23 PM PDT
Bleh they're comparing multi-BILLION dollar corporations to Canonical? Apple and Microsoft have better have impeccable up-time on their update servers considering the cost of Apple's hardware and Microsoft's software.
Reply to this comment
by David Arbogast July 11, 2008 6:45 PM PDT
What a bunch of asshats... if the numbers were reversed, we'd all have to read how superior Linux is. Face facts open-source fanbois... Microsoft built an online service that runs on Windows computers, that maintained greater uptime than the comparable service from Apple or Ubuntu. Mirror sites are irrelevent. Quality of updates served is irrelevent. The application in question is the update service. Microsoft's had 100% uptime. Ubuntu needed countless mirrors to keep up, and Apple did pretty good with three 9s. Hate MS all you want. There are facts in this article... I love how the bigots argue that the article should be removed... heh heh, heh... They just can't stand to see something they don't like do well... kinda reminds me of my 4-yo nephew...
Reply to this comment
by The_Decider July 11, 2008 9:55 PM PDT
Another moron who doesn't understand networks or what a mirror is. A mirros site is irrelevant, How in the hell can you say that? If the main site is down the clients get redirected to mirrors. Are you really this stupid?

Who cares if MS uptime is 100% or it is dog slow fixing anything and the fixes always break 3 things?

Fanboys are frikken idiotic.
by feranick July 12, 2008 12:47 AM PDT
Uptime is pointless when servers aren't really pushing updates. There are tons of documented open bugs MS is simply ignoring. Turnaround of security bug fixes in Linux are counted in terms of days. in MS in terms of months. This is such a basic concept that you should ask your nephew about. I am sure he would outsmart you on this.
by Penguinisto July 12, 2008 10:30 AM PDT
Flawed methodology is flawed methodology. If I were to pick a single Windows box and counted uptime against it (instead of Akamai's load-balancer service), I suspect very strongly that MSFT would have some rather dismal numbers.
by FElite August 13, 2008 6:16 AM PDT
Newsflash...

Microsoft update servers run on UNIX/ Linux
by garry_k July 11, 2008 6:46 PM PDT
Boy, this brought out the Linus/Apple fanboys in droves. They just hate it when a credible source finds anything wrong with their pet OS. CNET just reported what happened, not an insult to the products but a failure to be as reliable at delivering updates as MS, sounds reasonable to me. But these guys with tape on their glasses think that this can't be reported because reporting anything faulty about their glorious OS and anything superior about MS is just not allowed, "burn the messenger" "to arms" . Man, get a life and get on with it. The sky didn't fall!!
Reply to this comment
by The_Decider July 11, 2008 9:56 PM PDT
Credible?

A study that neglected the entire update system is credible?


Only if you are a technically illiterate idiotic MS fanboy.

Yes I know that who sentence is redundant.
by Gayle Edwards July 12, 2008 2:17 PM PDT
Sorry, honey...

But, pointing-out obvious PROPAGANDA, and FUD (if, not, outright lies)... does NOT make you a "fanboy" for the other side.

This report/assertion is complete HOGWASH. And, not acknowledging that fact (or why it is, so-clearly, being done)... is simply foolish.
by skillingssucks July 12, 2008 8:25 PM PDT
Garry, you are too stupid to post here. Find a site on AOL or somewhere else noobs post. Now go away!
by FElite August 13, 2008 6:25 AM PDT
Really? CNET reported? So why is this SAME message al over the net?

I AM a MS user mate, not happy about it by company bound. And even I know this is rubbish. Maybe it is my university degree, or maybe it is because I am doing marketing nowadays every day and I recognise when I see it.

It think it is great to see that some people are so passionate about something. And I also regret that it seems to be culture nowadays that others tell us what we need. Ubuntu seems to work. I don't have it first hand, but they say so. Others say that MS works. That is fine for them too then. It doens't for me, but if it does for you, great. I guess that is why you bought it. So why not let each other be and not slaundering others? Could be the beginning of world peace... But I guess that doesn't look so good in the YTD. Because realise, if we really did it for efficacy and productivity, then I could still use my 086 PC and the WordPerfect version that fitted on on 5.25.

So who is pulling whoese cart, and how is rubbing hands?

O and for those who didn't realise... Did you really think CNet did not make any money? Or sell ads and editorials for money? That is how the world works. So be smarter and start acting like an adult with a brain...
by CodyT07 July 11, 2008 7:53 PM PDT
This really isn't a fair article, I joined just to reply to this as I have been using Ubuntu for a week now.
Unless you are some huge company like Microsoft, you cannot always have a 100% uptime for a whole year for a server. Microsoft can afford to have hundreds of servers running to update and what not. Ubuntu is not a huge company like microsoft so they are doing the best they can.
Reply to this comment
Showing 1 of 2 pages (80 Comments)
advertisement

The yogurt makers of tech: Gadgets to avoid

Don't buy these one-trick ponies--unless you like gizmos that gather dust.

Google wants to unclog Net's DNS plumbing

The Net giant, ever eager for a faster Internet, debuts its Google Public DNS service. With it, Google could become even more central to the Net.

advertisement

About Business Tech

Your destination for the latest news on enterprise-level information technology, from chip research and server design to software issues including programming, open source and patents.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Business Tech topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right