After reading this article be sure to see my follow-up comment about it.
Could it be that Microsoft, Microsoft shills and/or Microsoft fanboys are “gaming” the uptime table at Netcraft? Unless I am misunderstanding something, frankly, I think they are. I was going to show a friend of mine the uptime table at Netcraft to display the ability of Unix and Unix-like operating systems to be stable and reliable. Yet I get there and I see this:
For several years I have watched and used the uptime statistics at Netcraft and for the majority of that time the top ranked systems have been Unix, usually BSD and company, and Linux. I have not been to Netcraft to see the statistics in several months. So I was slightly irritated to go there today and see that either Microsoft, Microsoft shills, Microsoft fanboys or a combination of all the above have obviously skewed the chart. How do I know this? This bit of information off that same page near the bottom tells it all:
Just get enough dedicated people to request sites over and over that run your favored system and you too can have your own favorable Netcraft uptime chart. I think Netcraft needs to rethink how they generate the longest uptimes chart. It is obviously being abused by people who favor Microsoft to falsely show Microsoft operating systems dominate the uptime statistics. Anyone in the IT industry with half a clue, ethics and a sense of honesty knows and admits Microsoft could not dominate on uptimes. There are too many patches that require a reboot of a Microsoft server for that to be true.
Apparently some Microsoft administrators do not patch their systems. I sure would not want my web site hosted on their unpatched Microsoft servers. Of course, these could be server farms where systems do get patched behind a load balancer, but then we are still talking about false statistics. No small business I know that has a Microsoft server in it can keep that server running for over 1,000 days without a reboot. Not if they want to keep it secure with up to date patches. But I do know of small businesses with Unix servers that easily go for more than a year without a reboot if there is no power outage that outlasts their backup power system(s).
What do we in the Unix and Linux community do about this? Maybe write Netcraft and suggest they change how they handle generating that chart. Otherwise I suggest we do … nothing. We should not start our own gaming war to change the statistics. Why? Wallowing in the crap filled mud with pigs only gets one dirty, and the pigs like it. So, just do as I am doing and state the facts to your friends, acquaintances and business associates. But do not use Netcraft to back the facts up at this point.
This article has had this many unique views:
| hit counter |
Notice: All comments here are approved by a moderator before they will show up. Depending on the time of day this can take several hours. Please be patient and only post comments once. Thank you.



Hmm, it seems I am late to the party on this one:
Did Microsoft Buy Netcraft?
August 24th, 2007 by Nicholas Petreley
http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000271
04.12.09
Lies, Damn Lies, and? Netcraft/Microsoft
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/04/12/lies-damn-lies-netcraft-microsoft/
I know I have not been to the Netcraft uptime pages in several months. Probably late in 2008 was my last visit. But the last time I visited I know the chart still had a majority of Unix systems on it. I do recall there were more Microsoft systems than I expected at the time. I still suspect manipulation by outsiders over deliberate favoritism by Netcraft at this point.
I found out about this some time ago and can’t remember the exact details but the reason has something to do with the short time span. All the *nix computers are in months and years leaving few to “compete” in the 7 day time spans and the times that get set on “reset”. I’m sorry I just don’t remember.
Well, now that I looked at the “Boycott Novell” link posted here, I probably had old information. Never, ever trust Microsoft.
Seems to be a preponderance of .nl sites, too.
Just like the garbage PCLinuxOS pumped into DistroWatch’s “open to abuse” rankings. Any site can display stats. It’s up to the viewer to try to guess if the stats have any value.
Some explanations in the FAQ :
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html
Look at “Why do you not report uptimes for Linux 2.6 or FreeBSD 6 ?”
Unix servers must have lost their place in this uptime top50 for this reason… maybe they will come back one day
This chart doesn’t make much sense and probably doesn’t mean what you think it means. Note the huge block of servers with the exact same number, 1281 days. Also, Windows Server 2008 came out ~530 days ago so it’s unlikely to run for 1281 straight days anywhere. These numbers surely have a meaning, but it is not straight days of running without reboot.
I just wonder – how a Windows 2008 server can have 3.5 years of uptime in mid-2009?
[...] blog.eracc.com/2009/07/24/linux-and-unix-uptime-vs-microsoft-on-netcraft/ Kategorija : OS | Test [...]
I bet those Windows numbers are in hours and the other OSs are in days.