insomx
Premium
join:2003-01-26
Canada
 ·Aliant Communicati..
2 edits | reply to Jeremy341
Re: Got it
Sure, you can think that. Linux servers are more realiable. Try FreeBSD, that is even better!
I mean, who wants a server that you have to restart every 42 or 45 days. That is when they crumble.
Linux servers can go on for years. Love to see when a Windows server that could do that.
Oh sure, Windows is easier to use, but can you sacrafice that for throughput ((speed)) and realiability?
I'll go my way and you go the highway. I bet lots of people can back me up.
C ya, got to leave fro school, before I claw my face off. |
|
Jeremy341
Bye
Premium
join:2000-01-06
localhost
| reply to pH1
said by pH1  :
I think he was trying to say windows will fall over under any minor load. 
Well even if that's what he was trying to say, it's still wrong. |
|
insomx
Premium
join:2003-01-26
Canada
·Aliant Communicati..
| reply to pH1
said by pH1 :
said by Jeremy341 :
said by insomx :
HAHA, its a windows server, waht do you expect?
Yeah, because bandwidth is OS dependent. 
The speed a server is able to send data is not just dependant on available bandwidth. I think he was trying to say windows will fall over under any minor load.
Exactly Rawr, that is what I meant  |
|
pH1
Rawr
join:2001-12-31
Canada
| reply to Jeremy341
said by Jeremy341 :
said by insomx :
HAHA, its a windows server, waht do you expect?
Yeah, because bandwidth is OS dependent.
The speed a server is able to send data is not just dependant on available bandwidth. I think he was trying to say windows will fall over under any minor load. |
|
