Stability

[Laxman_prodigy]

Hi.

I use Ubuntu Karmic 9.10 since one year and I like it. But, I don't dislike Windows either.

I see almost everywhere in linux communities about the instability of Windows and the extreme stability of linux.

But, I find Windows is more consistent as compared to Ubuntu. Consistent in the way things behave always. I have used Ubuntu through trial and error and only now, I know how to fix a problem.


I have also used Debian and swear by its stability. And I think if stability is an issue, why users of every distribution of linux bash Windows over stability?

So, my question is: Is Ubuntu the linux standard to judge Windows' instability?

PS: Malicious contents are no issue here.

[snowpine]

"Stability" is a word that means different things to different people.

Windows is very "stable" in the sense that many people are still happily using Windows XP, nine years after it was released.

I have never thought of Ubuntu as a particularly "stable" distro; it is actually quite fast-moving (new releases every 6 months). I think Ubuntu's main goals are to showcase the latest in desktop Linux technology and to share the ideology of "Linux for Human Beings."

[Doctor Mike]

Hi.

I use Ubuntu Karmic 9.10 since one year and I like it. But, I don't dislike Windows either.

I see almost everywhere in linux communities about the instability of Windows and the extreme stability of linux.

But, I find Windows is more consistent as compared to Ubuntu. Consistent in the way things behave always. I have used Ubuntu through trial and error and only now, I know how to fix a problem.


I have also used Debian and swear by its stability. And I think if stability is an issue, why users of every distribution of linux bash Windows over stability?

So, my question is: Is Ubuntu the linux standard to judge Windows' instability?

PS: Malicious contents are no issue here.I don't think it's fair to say that Windows OS's are particularly unstable. The problem IMHO is that MS OS's can become destabilized easier because of the basic design and security issues. If you spend enough time working with and setting up an OS it can be maintained in a stable fashion (Windows, Linux or other). I use XP with no issues.

[paydaydaddy]

In my experience, stability (or the lack thereof) is primarily a hardware issue. You can set up two or more computers of varying hardware configurations, compare stability, and reach useful conclusions concerning hardware. You can set up two or more computers with identical hardware and install varying software and reach useful conclusions concerning software. You cannot compare randomly configured systems with randomly installed software and reach any conclusions of much value concerning software except perhaps that windows is better supported by the hardware manufacturers.

[jkxx]

You cannot compare randomly configured systems with randomly installed software and reach any conclusions of much value concerning software except perhaps that windows is better supported by the hardware manufacturers.

And that is an excellent observation! My one and only cause of instability with *ubuntu has been the Nvidia closed-source driver which would turn the system from completely stable to completely unstable.

Other than that Linux has always been very stable in all the years I've used it. Of course, Windows has improved massively starting with the NT line so I view both Kubuntu and Vista/7 as stable excluding Nvidia's crappy drivers on Linux.

[swoll1980]

You can't compare the stability of Linux Distros to anything. They are all different. If you put a stable Linux distro like RHEL against just about anything in the world you will have a hard time finding a more stable OS. Ubuntu is not stable. It is somewhere in between stable, and cutting edge. It is great for Desktop Users because it offers alot of features, but maintains the feeling of stability. I wouldn't be running Ubuntu (or Windows for that matter) on a server that had to be up all the time w/o fail.

[Laxman_prodigy]

In my experience, stability (or the lack thereof) is primarily a hardware issue. You can set up two or more computers of varying hardware configurations, compare stability, and reach useful conclusions concerning hardware. You can set up two or more computers with identical hardware and install varying software and reach useful conclusions concerning software. You cannot compare randomly configured systems with randomly installed software and reach any conclusions of much value concerning software except perhaps that windows is better supported by the hardware manufacturers.


Yes, I agree.
I am asking these things because I have a whole bunch of friends who have used Ubuntu and everybody just says that things aren't consistent everytime.

So, I just wanted to know what features make Windows unstable?

[Paqman]

I see almost everywhere in linux communities about the instability of Windows and the extreme stability of linux.


Windows has a bad rep for instability because the older DOS-based versions were actually pretty flaky. That's not really the case with anything from XP on, but mud tends to stick. Despite the fact you're probably more likely to see a Sasquatch than the BSOD these days, some "enthusiastic" Linux users do tend to bang on tiresomely about it.

[Jekshadow]

Windows has a bad rep for instability because the older DOS-based versions were actually pretty flaky. That's not really the case with anything from XP on, but mud tends to stick. Despite the fact you're probably more likely to see a Sasquatch than the BSOD these days, some "enthusiastic" Linux users do tend to bang on tiresomely about it.

Not always true. Within two weeks of getting my current laptop, Windows Vista gave me a BSOD every time I tried to boot up, and this continued after 4 reinstalls. I finally just installed Ubuntu, and everything has worked great.

[madjr]

i have to disagree that windows XP is highly stable

it's more stable than win98 for sure, but average users tend to break it ,make it slow and unusable really fast. Then calls me to reformat and install it again every 3 to 6 months...

window's own regestry is it's own enemy, without mentioning all the malware and viruses

in linux the avg. user cant ruin their system in that manner (unless they start playing with the command line), even in ubuntu. Thats why linux IS more stable.

you guys can have a stable windows because you arent normal users and know all the tricks of the trade to keep it that way. In fact many dont use it as primary os and dont use it enough in varied ways to actually mess it up

[Linuxforall]

If you want stability go for LTS, XP is not stable for all, many have had dreaded BSODs after update to SP, the most stable XP and Win OS release till date is the 2003 x64 based XPx64.

Linux is stable because the kernel is used for day in day our on mission critical operations, desktop linux is different story as GUI adds a lot of other factors but even then, a properly configured Ubuntu or other linux desktop is among the most stable you can get. One of the reasons many use it.

[HermanAB]

Hmm, I have run a RHEL email and web server for 4 years non-stop with no updates and no maintenance and no reboots. Eventually the power supply failed.

I have also run a Windows 2003 file server continuously for just over a year with no maintenance and no updates and no reboots. Eventually the data centre power supply failed.

So, it just depends on how securely you configure it to begin with.

[Frogs Hair]

I agree that the two operating systems can not be compared . Most issues I encounter are
caused by programs not anything native to the Windows or Ubuntu operating systems.

If I view reliability history in Windows every run time error is due to a program and if they fail twice they are removed, so stability to me is no run time errors.

[asddf]

The problem with windows is, is just allows Viruses to destory it, so it will always just fail.

[dgw]

in linux the avg. user cant ruin their system in that manner (unless they start playing with the command line), even in ubuntu. Thats why linux IS more stable.
Doesn't the average linux user play with the command line? :P

[Doctor Mike]

Doesn't the average linux user play with the command line? :P
Yes, but that's for the fun of breaking things. Build a tower knock it down... it never gets old...:)

[markbuntu]

Doesn't the average linux user play with the command line? :P

A lot of linux users are very afraid of the command line even if they do use it so most don't really "play" with it.

Anyway, with linux you get a choice of how stable a system you want from bleeding edge bugged filled alphas to totally stable old releases. With Windows you get what you get not much choice in the matter and often it takes years of updates to become stable. XP is stable but that took years.

In MS a buggy application is more apt to take down the system than with linux. There are a lot of problematic areas in the basic MS OS architecture that linux avoids by design.

An application stack overflow cannot eat into the kernel space in linux but will in MS. The BSOD is a sure sign of an application stack overflow leaking into the kernel memory space and scrambling the kernel stack. MS is getting better at protecting the kernel but still has a lot of OS legacy code hanging around that does not. It is a basic OS design issue and is very similar to what drove Apple to switch to BSD.