Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:34:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Hoskins <mike@adept.org> To: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Slashdot rejects "BSD is NOT dying" article Message-ID: <20030928192758.J74590@fubar.adept.org> In-Reply-To: <20030929002744.GB8240@pasternak.w.lub.pl> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030928122038.20493C-100000@fledge.watson.org> <200309282117.01642.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> <20030928135649.T92057@fubar.adept.org> <20030929002744.GB8240@pasternak.w.lub.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Michal Pasternak wrote: > Well, just make sure to click each domain and see, what do the guys behind > it really do ;) I am perfectly sure, that their boxes work quite much > everyday. that's what the load balancer bit refered to... my point was there are lots of technologies out there that can make a given URI look highly available without having anything much at all to do with the underlying operating system of the hosts themselves. i'm a BSD fan, and we do quite well in the stats... that's good, and i'm glad to see it. i'm just pointing out that "uptime" alone can give results that don't really say much about the site's OS of choice. big sites like Dell and M$ run mostly IIS installs these days... they don't achieve uptime (from a user's or netcraft's perspective) due to the merits of their OS/product. -mrh -- From: "Spam Catcher" <spam-catcher@adept.org> To: spam-catcher@adept.org Do NOT send email to the address listed above or you will be added to a blacklist!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030928192758.J74590>