Reliability Survey: Windows Servers Beat Linux Boxes

Well, we haven't seen one of these reports in a while. From the article:
Windows 2003 Server, in fact, led the popular Red Hat Enterprise Linux with nearly 20 percent more annual uptime.
20 percent more annual uptime?!?!? What math was used to come to that conclusion? Well, they don't say…but it seems like a hefty number to me. Also from the article:
The Yankee Group made a point of stressing that the survey was not sponsored or supported by any server OS maker.
But, guess who did the survey? Laura DiDio. That's right – the same Laura DiDio that said SCO had a good case and the same Laura DiDio that – well, insert clearly biased claim here. The ascertation that this survey was unbias because it was “not sponsored or supported by any server OS maker” goes right out the Window when you see a name with that kind of track record behind it. I can't find the entire results of the survey and the linked article is quite lacking when it comes to details, but I'd guess it's like the last one they did, where each shop had to be running both operating systems to be part of the survey. When you get a bunch of Linux boxes setup by MCSE's it's no wonder why things came out like they did. The completely hilarious thing about this is that the Yankee Group has absolutely no business even talking about uptime when they can't keep their own web server up for more than 20 days. It incidentally runs Windows 2000.
–jeremy
Linux, Microsoft, MSFT, Yankee Group, FUD, Windows