Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Driver Model 2 Proposal - Linux Kernel Performance v Usability | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | Date | Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:15:55 -0400 |
| |
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 19:31:09 BST, James Clark said:
> > So if 500 million people are productive 60% of the time and hosed 40% of > > the time, and 5 million people are productive 95% of the time, the 60/40 > > model is better because 60% of 500M is more than 95% of 5M? > > This is a good example of the kind of rubbish that is sometimes talked around
> here. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard the 'Windows is SO > unstable argument' it almost seems like a religion. I would agree with what > you have said if Windows was actually unusable 40% of the time.
What you said:
> FUD. It mostly works, sometimes it doesn't, but in total the number of > > working hours of PRODUCTIVE use from it is many orders of magnitude > > greater. Multiple the number of Windows users in the world by their > > working time and then do the same for Linux!
Oh.. so now you're complaining that I pointed out that even a system that's down 40% of the time meets *YOUR* criteria if enough more people run it?
In fact, if the number of Windows users is 100 times the number of Linux users, and Linux is 98% reliable, then Windows only needs to make about 2% reliable to win by your criteria. OK, you want to complain about the 100? Make it 500M windows and 50M linux, and Linux 98% reliable, then Windows only needs to make 10% uptime to win by your criteria.
My point is that your criteria of "total aggregate uptime" doesn't prove anything between diddly and squat about the actual reliability of the system.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |