En particulier :
- "I really don't understand why people still care what the Yankee Group has to say; the last three years should have been more than enough to show that they really just aren't trustworthy. "
- "Laura Didio??? Credibility zero. "
- "This article was posted for one of two reasons:
1) Ignorance of the Yankee Group being paid shills
2) Intentional flamebait
Neither reason is excusable for a computing news discussion site."
Même du coté de la réalisation de l'étude, il y a de gros doutes à avoir. En particulier :
"Have they been patching Windows servers?
Seeing as most decent patches that fix security require a reboot, and although it's pretty good, it still needs reboots from time to time to fix out little quirks, and most quirks never happen twice.
Unless the Windows server is in it's own little bubble and closed network where they don't have to worry about anything."
Mais le pire est la façon dont les chiffres sont annoncés : le 20% de downtime en plus devient :
"Windows 2003 Server, in fact, led the popular Red Hat Enterprise Linux with nearly 20 percent more annual uptime."
Ce qui renforce l'absence totale de crédibilité du résultat.
# Il n'y a rien à dire ...
Posté par Colin Pitrat (site web personnel) . En réponse au journal Windows Server 2003 plus fiable que Linux, selon le Yankee Group. Évalué à 10.
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=14830
En particulier :
- "I really don't understand why people still care what the Yankee Group has to say; the last three years should have been more than enough to show that they really just aren't trustworthy. "
- "Laura Didio??? Credibility zero. "
- "This article was posted for one of two reasons:
1) Ignorance of the Yankee Group being paid shills
2) Intentional flamebait
Neither reason is excusable for a computing news discussion site."
Même du coté de la réalisation de l'étude, il y a de gros doutes à avoir. En particulier :
"Have they been patching Windows servers?
Seeing as most decent patches that fix security require a reboot, and although it's pretty good, it still needs reboots from time to time to fix out little quirks, and most quirks never happen twice.
Unless the Windows server is in it's own little bubble and closed network where they don't have to worry about anything."
Mais le pire est la façon dont les chiffres sont annoncés : le 20% de downtime en plus devient :
"Windows 2003 Server, in fact, led the popular Red Hat Enterprise Linux with nearly 20 percent more annual uptime."
Ce qui renforce l'absence totale de crédibilité du résultat.