You can argue about the technical merits of Windows vs. UNIX all you want, but you must admit that perception is a powerful force. Whether something happens to be reliable or unreliable or whatever, and for whatever reason, if people in the industry think that something is unreliable and hear from others that it is unreliable, then for all practical purposes, it is effectively unreliable. Perception can often trump reality, particularly on the sell-side of things.
So the point is, when Cisco says that it has based its soft-PBX on Windows, that just provides yet another reason for a customer not to buy it (along with the well-known other reasons not to buy VoIP like poor-quality calls, expensive phones, etc.) ""Mark W. Odette II"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > May I ad this little edict that "Buggy/Unreliable OS's" is just a bad > wrap that the community has labeled to MS "WINDOWS"... without much > explanation of WHAT was the "unreliability". > > Indeed, Security is a different story, and there is plenty of "reliable" > argument to that topic... but to constantly perpetuate this argument > that "Windows" is unreliable and buggy makes me ill. > > What makes the story of it being buggy/unreliable has always been > related to device drivers that sloppy-a$$ programmers whip out for > sub-standard chipsets on the Intel platform running "Windows". Not to > mention, the OS's that have been the most unreliable/buggy have been the > desktop OS's- NOT the Server platform Windows NT. If you think that you > should use that Windows 98 box as your company's Server- it's your own > stupid fault for all the headaches that are derived from therein. > > I've worked predominantly in the NT environment for over 8 years, going > through the NT 3.51, 4.0, and now Windows 2000 version of the server > platform, and I ONLY have had servers crash when a vendor-specific > device driver was updated (ahem, Intel ironically was the culprit, and > they were supposed to be the other half of the "Win-tel" agreement). > I've also maintained a fair share of different-flavored *nix boxes that > performed similar functions, for which they suffered the same ailments- > bad drivers for add-on hardware, whether it be NIC's, RAID Controllers, > Telephony boards, or power failure. One thing for sure, the NT box > didn't spend 30 minutes spewing INODE errors all over the place once > power was restored... unlike the AT&T Unix brothers did... And yes, I > know, NT uses a journaling file system as opposed to the file system > Unix uses. But for heaven's sake! The DB application on the *nix box > should have the corruption issues to worry about, NOT the OS! > > Most of these Windows NT Servers under my command were Computer > Telephony systems, a.k.a., IVR's. They ran like a champ for several > years without a reboot... the ones that ran for shorter periods were > maintenance reboots for Service Packs or because of Power Failure to the > location the box was residing. These servers were both DEC Alpha's and > Intel-based OEM and Clone machines. > > As I said before, just as much as it is a problem for the *nix platform, > the "things" that make the OS unreliable is the cheap hardware and > sloppy device drivers that are applied to the system. Proper > installation, and hardening of the OS for the specific purpose it is > supporting (read don't use the same machine you've set up as your server > as your desktop too, installing all kinds of non-server related programs > on it like "free-ware" and demos of programs found in the center or back > of some periodical you got in the mail), and the Windows NT / 2000 > Server will be just as stable as the next implementation of Solaris on a > Sparc station. > > And again, as Chuck pointed out, if the Applications developed to run on > the Windows NT / 2000 platform were developed properly, than the servers > would be reliable in that respect too. I'm not a programmer by any > means, but from what I've observed, you can have just as many crashes > for building crappy DLL's as you can from improper handling/use of C > library modules on a *nix box. Not to mention, both types of > programmers need to know how to program for Memory Address handling. > > > But who am I to argue... the whole slamming of "Windblows" is probably > just because some bull-headed *nix lackey is just pi$$ed off he can't go > rebuild the kernel half a dozen times to "tweak" the system on > "Windows". > > And as a final note, I do maintain the argument that ALL of the OS's out > there have their own place in the industry; there isn't just ONE O.S. > that addresses all the use/needs of any particular business (keeping > Support in mind). > > Now- Back to our regularly scheduled commentary on Cisco Studies. > > -Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: nrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 12:07 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: CCIE Security Lab [7:17848] > > Buggy/unreliable software is indeed the same anywhere. But when > combined > with buggy/unreliable OS's, now we're talking about a solution that is > REALLY buggy and unreliable. For example, if your software is only > guaranteed to run at 3 9's, and your OS is also only guaranteed to run > at 3 > 9's, then overall we're talking about a less-than-3-9's of a solution. > > You can actually run packetized voice very reliably, and not just for > toll > bypass (although it is definitely true that toll-bypass is the easiest > and > most mature kind of packetized voice to do). The key is that you have > to > design things in a certain way to maximize your reliability. Many > carriers > like SBC use packetized voice with soft-switch signalling in certain > parts > of their network, and then you have packetized voice wholesalers like > Ibasis > that have massive available voice capacity and a good reputation for > reliability. There was a huge amount of serious talk after 9-11 for > Verizon > and other carriers to contract for backup voice capacity through > somebody > like Ibasis in case their voice switches got destroyed again - as during > 9-11, people saw that while traditional voice service was severely > affected, > packet networks like the Internet were still functioning, so in these > kinds > of circumstances, you could say that packetized voice might actually be > more > reliable than regular voice. But again, it takes very careful design > to > achieve this kind of reliability. > > > ""Chuck"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > sure. ok. agreed. > > > > OTOH, buggy / unreliable software is the same, no matter whose > platform it > > runs on. A long time ago in a galaxy far away I was able to > successfully > > crash Sun Unix boxes several times through sheer ignorance. one was in > the > > Sun Sys Admin training class I was taking, the rest were Sun boxes > that > Big > > Brokerage Firm had installed in the office where I worked. Proof that > there > > ain't no such thing as "foolproof" because this here fool can break > just > > about anything ;-> > > > > BTW, you have just ht on the major reason for NOT doing packetized > voice. > Or > > maybe just limiting it to toll bypass, while keeping your PBX. > Sometimes I > > think the only real selling point for AVVID is that is "kewl" The > biggest > > selling points for Windows way back when were the screen savers and > the > > games. MCSE = Microsoft Certified Solitaire Expert > > > > > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Well, this kind of thing cuts both ways. A reseller I know is > trying to > > > sell AVVID and is on dangerous ground precisely because CM is on > Windows > > and > > > the potential customer has had some very bad experiences with > Windows > > > servers due to reliability issues and so forth. The customer is > deciding > > > whether to go with AVVID or a traditional PBX, and the fact that > AVVID > is > > so > > > Windows-centric is a significant minus, and in fact could be the > whole > > basis > > > for losing the deal, because the customer has to know that his phone > > system > > > is going to always be up without any dithering around. Yes, yes, > you > can > > do > > > things like clustering to improve the reliability of CM, but the > simple > > fact > > > of the matter is that Windows has a well-founded reputation for > > > unreliability when compared to UNIX, and when you're talking about > phone > > > systems, unreliability is definitely something that a potential > customer > > > does not want to hear. Not at all. This is why you rarely see any > > vendors > > > of enterprise software (like DB's, ERP, CRM, SCM, etc. etc.) that > don't > > > offer a UNIX version - because just like a phone system, these are > crucial > > > applications that just have to reliable. > > > > > > ""Chuck"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > for whatever reason, Cisco and Microsoft are partnered for a lot > of > > > things. > > > > > > > > Call Manager for *nix??? hahahahahahahahahaha > > > > > > > > IIRC the last Cisco management software presentation, just about > > > everything > > > > is on NT or Win2K boxes these days. > > > > > > > > I believe it's called Market Share - there are far more Microsoft > > > certified > > > > folk than *nix certified folk. Try selling AVVID when you also > have to > > > tell > > > > a customer that he has to hire a *nix capable individual or > retrain > his > > > > existing Microsoft capable people. Same for the management > platform. > > same > > > > for any of the security related software products. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""sergei"" wrote in message > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > Makes sense, - M$ products need it more... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DAve Diaz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Remember cisco have no money just $21 Billion dollars in the > bank, > > so > > > > no > > > > > > new hardware for a while, no unix in a security lab that is > absurb, > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "markh" > > > > > > >Reply-To: "markh" > > > > > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > >Subject: Re: CCIE Security Lab [7:17848] > > > > > > >Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:33:52 -0500 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >really? > > > > > > >-- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I have an official statement from Cisco that says that > there > will > > > be > > > > no > > > > > > > >UNIX, only NT. > > > > > > > >I was there and it's true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >MS > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at > > > > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49638&t=17848 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
