PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft kicks Ubuntu update in the hardy herons



Sealbhach
July 12th, 2008, 02:05 AM
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&q=ubuntu&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn



Microsoft, it seems, is reaping the benefits of years spent patching Windows online, beating online update services from newer - and sexier - rivals.... etc....


.

cardinals_fan
July 12th, 2008, 02:06 AM
Of course, they didn't try Red Hat. Ubuntu is, IMHO, a poor choice for production systems.

lisati
July 12th, 2008, 02:09 AM
The responses to the article on the host web site speak volumes.

loell
July 12th, 2008, 02:09 AM
heh, give more importance to server uptime than the updates itself. :D

damis648
July 12th, 2008, 02:10 AM
heh, give more importance to server uptime than the updates itself. :D

:lolflag:

Sealbhach
July 12th, 2008, 02:13 AM
It's astonishing propaganda.


.

damis648
July 12th, 2008, 02:15 AM
It's astonishing propaganda.


.

Exactly

chrisby
July 12th, 2008, 02:20 AM
I guess when you write such vulnerable code, you have to maintain a 100% up time to the band-aid box. What a ridiculous story!:lolflag:

loell
July 12th, 2008, 02:25 AM
It's astonishing propaganda.


.

Shut up, its just for pure LOLZ and nothing more,

a good one I might add. :lolflag:

Sealbhach
July 12th, 2008, 02:31 AM
Shut up, its just for pure LOLZ and nothing more,

a good one I might add. :lolflag:

Because you know - you find it funny.

Millions of people will read that and think "gee, maybe Microsoft is safer after all".


.

damis648
July 12th, 2008, 02:37 AM
But who reads this stuff?

loell
July 12th, 2008, 02:38 AM
Because you know - you find it funny.

Millions of people will read that and think "gee, maybe Microsoft is safer after all".


.

nah.. more than half of those will read the comments section anyway. ;)

and believe me they will :lolflag: too.

simonapnic
July 12th, 2008, 04:26 PM
:lolflag:

This is just hilarious.
Microsoft have 1000000000000000000 computers keeping that update service running and are making tons of money by selling crappy products.
Ubuntu/open-source projects, on the contrary, provide 1000000000000000 times better products and you don't pay a penny.

shad0w_walker
July 12th, 2008, 04:39 PM
This just a few days after they break zonealarm with an update? I think I'll stick with Ubuntu's updates thanks.

Canis familiaris
July 12th, 2008, 05:35 PM
Also do not forget tens of thousands if not more of users download over 650MB ISO images from Ubuntu servers at the same time during the new releases, neither Apple or MS have such traffic at one time.

phaed
July 12th, 2008, 05:46 PM
Uptime was the only metric of the quality of the service? Ok, a worthless analysis. As already posted, Microsoft and Apple have much more resources to maintain an update service. Why not normalize it on a per-server basis at least?

VitaLiNux
July 12th, 2008, 05:52 PM
What I plainly see is that Microsoft is looking face to face with a strong challenger named Ubuntu. This kind of cheap propaganda means that they're scare to death!

Edit: From the article:

Windows Update enjoyed 100 per cent uptime during the second-quarter of this year, according to a survey by Pingdom. Windows Update piped Apple, which came second and trounced geektastic Ubuntu, which came a far-distant third.See the bias? Who's said Ubuntu is īgeektasticī?

Sand & Mercury
July 12th, 2008, 06:04 PM
It's astonishing propaganda.
Yup, nothing more. The comments completely quashed any credibility this article had. :lol:

YaroMan86
July 12th, 2008, 06:06 PM
What I find most funny is their metric for what maks an OS's updates better. XD

"ZOMG! Server reliability!"

Has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the updates. Makes me laugh. Practically saying "Microsoft has better updates because their server is always working."

...Uh.... how does that follow?

dizee
July 12th, 2008, 06:09 PM
update server uptime is a flawed metric, you have to consider the length of time updates take and the severity of the security holes. but yeah, it's just propaganda, this is probably the only thing they can shout about. just like when an ad tells you something is "scientifically proven", you shouldn't trust this.

YaroMan86
July 12th, 2008, 06:13 PM
Lets go over the list here.

1. Statistic that shows Microsoft has the "best" numbers, with Linux having the worst...

2. Misinterpretation of a statistic's facts...

3. Flawed metric...

Hmm.... I wonder if this was a Microsoft funded "study."

What's worse is reliance solely on a statistic, which anybody with half a brain could tell you that statistics are notoriously unreliable and EXTREMELY easy to lie with.

Pick up a copy of "How to Lie With Statistics." It explains in full detail how to turn numerical analysis in favor of just about anything.

red_Marvin
July 12th, 2008, 07:08 PM
Why bother, it's either article trolling or written about somebody who doesn't have the faintest clue anyway.
Ranting about it here will accomplish nothing... ...(which I'm too now to some extent guilty)

YaroMan86
July 12th, 2008, 07:37 PM
Why bother, it's either article trolling or written about somebody who doesn't have the faintest clue anyway.
Ranting about it here will accomplish nothing... ...(which I'm too now to some extent guilty)

Because ranting is fun?

Polygon
July 12th, 2008, 07:46 PM
but of course it doesn't test the reliability of these updates once they get on your computer. Pretty recently, a update for windows xp downloaded and i guess my internet dropped out during it and the files it downloaded got corrupted, it was here i realized that there is NO way to redownload the files that microsoft update had, and i never installed the update cause every time i tried it would spew out some random error code and refuse to let me redownload it.

anyway enough microsoft ranting, this only shows that microsoft has the money/manpower to keep a server on 24/7, good for them, anyone with enough money can do that.

and i like how the graph makes it look like its horrible, but in fact ubuntu still has a 98.64% uptime, apple has like 99%

Urik
July 12th, 2008, 07:51 PM
They're just playing with words. Microsoft are very proud of their "products" like Vistah etc, :) but if you're reading this thread - you know tha true :)
Objectivity is not a strong side of that site, which counts the updates and not the OS quality.
And remember: YOU know tha TRUE. The future is in linuxes, it's more clever to adjust a stable OS for lame users (like me, e.g.), than completely remake an adjusted OS but ****** code. Even if MS will open theis source for people, it would take a YEARS before OS comes stable and safe, like *nix. ))

Lster
July 12th, 2008, 07:56 PM
The article is poor for a number of reasons.


Update reliability includes but is not solely dependant on update server uptime.
The graph shows Ubuntu as having a hugely higher bar than Apple and Microsoft's OSs. That's because it's measuring downtime and not uptime. To see things in the scale of everything, uptime should have been shown - then the bars would have been almost identical in height.


In essence, the article contains misleading statistics. The correct conclusion would be that Ubuntu's update servers are slightly less reliable. However, with such limited data, the consistency of this finding is quite questionable.

Ioky
July 12th, 2008, 08:14 PM
I would say this is like a cold joke. First of all, people doesn't know much about computer wouldn't read this, I mean why bother, windows and Mac are like the only think they know. Second, for those to read it are most likely are have somewhat degree of knowledge on computer. And 100% they would think that is dumb or funny. I mean, to me personally, anything update just about maintaining not improvement are just a prove of the "SUCK" of a product. I mean, If the product is good enough at the first place, why they even need to be update (for maintaining) Like M$ they have like update almost everyday, and if not every week, and they are all about how to protect the pc from Virus. Do we even know to worry about this kind of problem? I wouldn't say 100% NO but at all 99% and we can use the hardware to do whatever we want, not just to keep the system alive.

Naralas
July 12th, 2008, 08:32 PM
I guess when you write such vulnerable code, you have to maintain a 100% up time to the band-aid box. What a ridiculous story!:lolflag:

:)
I love you Ubuntu community.
You write your own propaganda for yourself!
lol jks
but seriously, what downtime? I've never failed to update when I want too? I haven't READ the article in question (which makes me a worthless poster) but still, are they talking like 99.9% uptime vs 99.8% uptime?

bash
July 12th, 2008, 08:44 PM
The "article" is good for a good laugh. And that is it. Anything more just pays it attention that it doesn't deserve.

pound_forthesound
July 12th, 2008, 09:15 PM
Lets go over the list here.

1. Statistic that shows Microsoft has the "best" numbers, with Linux having the worst...

2. Misinterpretation of a statistic's facts...

3. Flawed metric...

Hmm.... I wonder if this was a Microsoft funded "study."

What's worse is reliance solely on a statistic, which anybody with half a brain could tell you that statistics are notoriously unreliable and EXTREMELY easy to lie with.

Pick up a copy of "How to Lie With Statistics." It explains in full detail how to turn numerical analysis in favor of just about anything.

Reminds me of a quote: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics", though I can't remember who said it.

phrostbyte
July 12th, 2008, 09:56 PM
Microsoft will milk this. :(

Microsoft Sales:
Look, we are betters then the Linsux!
*Shows pointy haired manager graph labeled "suckiness" with Ubuntu being much higher then Windows Vista*

Pointy Haired Manager:
Wow, this chart looks really professional! It might have been designed by a smart person!!1 So I look smart too I will buy 50000000 copies of Windows Vista!

YaroMan86
July 12th, 2008, 10:56 PM
Microsoft will milk this. :(

Microsoft Sales:
Look, we are betters then the Linsux!
*Shows pointy haired manager graph labeled "suckiness" with Ubuntu being much higher then Windows Vista*

Pointy Haired Manager:
Wow, this chart looks really professional! It might have been designed by a smart person!!1 So I look smart too I will buy 50000000 copies of Windows Vista!

You know what's scary... there ARE probably managers who think that way. Scott Adams was onto something, here.

the yawner
July 13th, 2008, 03:19 AM
At least I know I can reliably get updates such as this. (http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/07/09/why-do-five-dictionary-words-require-a-60mb-windows-update)

YaroMan86
July 13th, 2008, 03:22 AM
At least I know I can reliably get updates such as this. (http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/07/09/why-do-five-dictionary-words-require-a-60mb-windows-update)

Wow. Reliably get five dictionary words at 50 MiB! I'm starting to really see why Windows Update beats out Update Manager. /sarcasm

Urik
July 13th, 2008, 10:29 PM
Reminds me of a quote: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics", though I can't remember who said it.

Originally was posted by Benjamin Disraeli, lord Beaconsfield many years ago.
After it was given to the masses by Samuel Langhorne Clemens aka Mark Twain - the one of the earliest OpenSource supporters )


At least I know I can reliably get updates such as this. (http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/07/09/why-do-five-dictionary-words-require-a-60mb-windows-update)

Lol, M$ just never stop to surprise us! )
Actually, did anyone tried the windowz vista already? :))

mr.propre
July 13th, 2008, 10:45 PM
And let us not forget what kind of OS the update servers of Microsoft is running.

Urik
July 15th, 2008, 10:36 PM
Unix? ))