> I have been running the site on NT for a year and recently switched to > Win2000. I have NEVER had a server crash in 2 years, and routinely run them > months between reboots.2000 is more stable, but more importantly, requires > far less rebooting when installing stuff. Obviously if it works for you then you should stick to it. At the same time, many of us like hacking their system up quite a bit and Linux is better in that. But I am sure if you do not do special setups, Windows could be easier to handle. We are giving optional shell, CGI, Perl, ASP, PHP, MySQL, DNS, POP3SSL, virtual hosting, sFTP access to our users - all based on one SQL database. I can't really imagine how I could do that on a Windows server.
> I am a Microsoft Partner and the licensing cost of running a server is > $17/month/processor. I think that is pretty cheap for 5 million lines of > code and support. Well... for Linux, the cost of 5 million lines is still zero. Of course you get no support. (Usually you don't get it, you give it :-)) > I 'm not happy with the performance of the site, though - I suspect it is > not a function of the OS, as I have logged onto many OSRS sites and get the > same performance. I don't have time to profile the code, until a DotNet > version gets into the development pipeline??? Nah, it is the server-to-server connection that might be slow IMO. - csongor
