Linux VS Windows

[alyssasdaddy]

Since the discussion in a previous thread was close due to a heated (Very heated) Debate that actually turned sour and took the post way of topic. As well as a little mod bashing which i will apologize for (Afterburn) But I think the discussion must go on.

As we where just getting to the low down the thread was closed. Hopefully everyone can come back to this one and clear there head and start over.

Lets just keep it to the facts. I do not think we should do any personal attacks in this go round. Leave that stuff to yourself. Bash Operating systems / Web Server software.

The discussion so far had


Afterburn
Billy
dimeric (or something like that)
and my self i believe


So here i stand i am calling you all out come back to the discussion.

Linux rocks Windows sucks

[Pegasus]

Speaking as a Mac-user and not seriously inclined to approve one over the other, I'll be moderating this thread. If things get out of hand again, I'll close it down. Considering that there are quite a few users of both Linux and Windows servers, there has *got* to be good points and bad about both.

Speaking as a person going back to school to learn server-side stuff in general, I'd like to hear arguments for both sides so I can make an informed choice when it comes time for me to learn about servers.

Thank you.

Peg

[alexalex]

For the record my windows servers are up, non-stop about 2 months, i am not worried as much about my up time as i am my security.

hello,

afterburn: in reference too: http://www.htmlforums.com/asp-and-aspnet/t-iis-on-xp-home-94842.html#post612533


Ive stumbled upon this thread and i wish to give some feedback as to the differences of Windows and Linux - and which one in my mind is better.

im a systems administrator been so for around 7 years now, in my career have been directly responsible of administrating in total over 80+ windows machines (server 2000, 2003) and over 140+ linux machines (freebsd, debain, fedora, redhat, centos, suse, mandrake), Ive used nearly every other linux distro under the sun at least once.

Based on the information I would call myself an expert linux user, and a very experienced windows user.

I currently adminstrate 37 windows machines and 46 Linux machines across 70 high profile multi million dollar Businesses, dotted across the UK and Europe.


Windows has its flaws, and so does linux, ill list them now:

Windows.

1) when something breaks or stops working, i want to know why, event viewer with its 24 digit hex code and error message #insert random number here, that i have to look up on goolge, sucks. i come across error message/number 1 more often than not, because windows does know what the crap its doing. Linux doesnt do this, itll tell whats gone wrong, and why in nice clean logs,

2) fixing issues in windows is like open heart suregery, i remember having to fix up some dll files, hack registry keys, wipe data from cfg files, just to get some program working agian, only to find out that i broke another program on the other side of the universe. Linux doesnt do this.

3) windows services will break down from time to time for absolutly no reason, which sometimes puts you down the road of (see #2) ..... Linux, once its up and working, will stay up and working, no registry to screw with your head, no random dll files, no stupid windows stuff that hangs off the sides. Linux will work as its told to work, how its told to work, and when told to work, Linux is smart, and doesnt try to think for itself like Windows does for the user and screws up; Linux is as smart as the user, which i can understand why _some_ people havent got very far in it.


4) lets touch on security, Windows is infact less secure than Linux... how or why you ask?

Permission rights: Windows stores alot of **** in the registry, did you know you can even get your dailup passwords, outlook passwords from registry in PLAIN format?. Linux however isnt completely stupid, and stores its local user passwords in very nice 'shadow' areas which in common man speak, is impossible to crack into, unless you have supercomputer and are willing to crack code..

More Permission rights: when you crack into a windows system through a process, chances are your whole system would be exposed to a hacker, one way or another, the same goes for linux, BUT - there is a big but here, as long as your a savvy Linux user you can do whats called - to 'jail' processes (securing the process aroudn the user thats running that process) into certian areas, so effectivly they may of found a way in, but they cant do anything about it because they are jailed in an area,

Windows cannot do this - linux has very simply handed one solution to help stop hackers getting in and finding holes with linux processes, but doesnt mean they could potentially get around this too, but the difference is Linux provides more secruity solutions (not just this one) than Windows


Viruses & malware: Windows hates viruses and succumbs so easily to them without protection, Explorer bugs (i could go on for hours about those), um malware and spyware..... Linux - only a handful of viruses, and spyware/malware isnt an issue because of permission based security


5) http://www.htmlforums.com/asp-and-aspnet/t-iis-on-xp-home-94842.html#post612533

in this thread its stated that windows was best for ASP and .net and stuff - and it does a great job of this, MSSQL is also a good piece of technology, it can flip numbers around and do its thing on a excel style spreadsheet.


Windows however isnt good at: email servers, high availability load balancing clustering webservers, DNS servers, user authentication, mirroring services, and i could just go on and on and on listing stuff Linux has the advantages on.

Tell me, why do nearly _EVERY_ ISP around the world use linux for nearly all of their services, EXCEPT asp and .net?

its because Microsoft havent opened up their code, otherwise they would be all 100% linux based servers;

Windows could probably do what i listed above, but probably wouldnt be as good, and it would be very interesting to see a enginner sane enough to even bother, infact, that enginner could make a movie on it, and sell it on ebay, because, people would watch him rip his hair out.

Linux is also widly used in: the world stock exchange, research labs, banks, universities, governments, ISP's, hell even Microsoft uses linux(unix).


why dont they use Windows for their tasks?

Its because Linux, one way or another, whatever arguements you have agianst it - whatever 'security issues' it may have, even its 'dos' style command line or its way or doing things, is better than Windows, the proof is infront of your eyes, otherwise businesses would like the ones i listed above would be using Windows; the proof is in the pudding, windows sucks trying to do certian tasks.


Windows and Linux both have their advantages, if you can be bothered - reading and learning a new way of server administration, i strongly recommend Linux - it will open your mind as its done to me, otherwise, if you cant be bothered then by all means stick with the point and click system of windows, and be trapped in your coffin 6 foot under ground



oh, i just found another thing, one last difference, guess how much it costs these days for a small business Windows 2003 server standard edition? anywhere from 800-1900 POUNDS. (thats $1500 US to $4000 US) - the cost of Linux? $0





goodnight, have fun picking my post to pieces, and excuse the typos.

[alyssasdaddy]

Very well said, I am a believer now.

[dimeric]

Enterprise linux is a long way from free, look here: https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html

And as for Alyssasdaddy, your an idiot, its nothing to do with believing, its science.
I dont think Linux sucks, its very very good. I just think that for some things some MS products are better. I used to code PHP now i do c# and .net as i think they are better for the sort of web applications i write.

[BillyGalbreath]

So you are counting out the majority of Linux distros just because they are dubbed "Enterprise"?? That's pure ignorance right there.

By no means is Red Hat even worthy of being called "Enterprise". That is something Novel and Red Hat developers did. They named it that.

Why ignore the facts right in front of your face?

You pro MS people are all the same. You turn your head to things that prove your wrong or point out your flaws, but when something finally does come along your way you hold to dear life as if its the last one you'll ever see...

I've even seen pro MS people rig tests so they would come out the victor, and they complain that the test was unfair when the test was on fair grounds because it wasn't conducted by them. Like with the IE vs Fx statistics. A few pro IE people freaked out because the test was done over a weekend saying that the test was unfair because the corporate users were not going to get counted. Well, those corporate users were counted alright.. They were counted using Fx at home over a weekend when they actually had a choice of which browser they wanted, not what a few corporate head IT guys said was best...

Open Source Software is the way of the future. Linus himself said it best:

I think, fundamentally, open source does tend to be more stable software. It's the right way to do things. I compare it to science vs. witchcraft. In science, the whole system builds on people looking at other people's results and building on top of them. In witchcraft, somebody had a small secret and guarded it -- but never allowed others to really understand it and build on it.

Traditional software is like witchcraft. In history, witchcraft just died out. The same will happen in software. When problems get serious enough, you can't have one person or one company guarding their secrets. You have to have everybody share in knowledge.

You're starting to notice you're dieing and you can't cope, MS people. Get used to it. Your time is almost over ;)

[alyssasdaddy]

HEY can you please refrain from the bashing or person, That is rude and un called for i can see it if i called you an idiot but there is no need to call me one.

How can i be an idiot, Just because i don't like to restart during updates, have to worry about viri, spyware. Did you read the first post? Pay attention. Keep on the software.

[alyssasdaddy]

And BTW just because Windows sux does not mean i am totally against it. I still use it somehow feel forced to because of work.

Just because you choose to spend money on a sub par operating system does not give you the right to start name calling, I come here to feel that i am 4th grade again i don't think so. Act your age not your iq

(Sorry had to do it)

[Pegasus]

I have a problem believing that MS products are better than anyone else's. Maybe, in some cases, they're as good as, but not better. You get what you pay for, in the case of MS.

Gentlemen, please keep the discussion to software and not personalities.

Peg

[alyssasdaddy]

Thank you for jumping in there appreciated.

This is more a discussion about Operating systems. Not who i am or what i say unless it has to do with the topic at hand. I never new that windows was embedded so deep into the hearts of so many young people.

With the young people i think that its more of a laziness that has developed the same time that windows has, Who wants CLI when you have GUI who wants to manually configure and control when you when you have point and click and the machine controls you. Yeah there newest version of Windows asks you several questions before you can even get to the root of the control panel and security is up by like 50% . But do you want to answer a bunch of questions before you machines are completely configured. I personally do not i love my ctrl+alt+f1 and editing files with nano or vim i know whats going into them and i know how i want them to work.

ctrl + Alt + Delete task manager find the program end process wait 5 min the process goes away (I know you win users know what i am talking about) and trhat works most of the time but when it does not then you go to process and find the you have to end process.

To me on linux i push ctrl+alt+esc then click on the dead or hung program (Which is very rare) and poof its gone several other tricks in linux to kill hung programs. After installing on windows you have to restart if everything went well you have a functional program if not you go through an entire add/remove programs process and another restart. I do not restart unless i mess with the kernel my machine is up 99% of the time.

Linix can be a bit hard to get installed but once it is it is so powerful, I have used windows for at least 13 years Linux for at least 3 I know three times more about the internal workings of linux then i do about windows.
I wonder why? Maybe my laziness during my windows phase was overwhelming and linux took that away. Even my testing has treated me better then windows has. I used older machine to run my test server windows was loaded. It was slow and crashed alot using IIS and Apache when i made the switch my server has been running for 8 months non stop without reboot the previous ran for about 1.5 years without reboot i did not even need to restart apache just reload configs

If you take me into a windows environment i know alot about it still only because i needed to just to keep it running, You take me into Linux i know alot more but not because i have to just to keep it running.

IDK how much of this is Gibberish because i am not paying attention right now i am thinking of what next to do to the web site in which i am developing and what i am going to be doing at work tomarrow.

[BillyGalbreath]

I have a problem believing that MS products are better than anyone else's. Maybe, in some cases, they're as good as, but not better. You get what you pay for, in the case of MS.
Well said! XD

[alexalex]

I can post alot more, but I need a afterburn style reply.

[Pegasus]

Well, in some ways, I can see the value in having a do-it-for-you installation. It's like the argument between using a WYSIWYG editor and hand-coding. The latter takes longer to do and the learning curve is steeper, but the former allows you to pay more attention to the content of your pages, rather than the technical details.

Do I think it's right? It depends on the situation. If my primary goal is getting a server up and running in as short a time as possible and as relatively reliably as possible, I'd probably consider using Windows. If I need to get a server up that's reliable under just about any condition and I have the time to learn how to install it, I'd use Linux, I think.

I dunno. I'm still on the fence about this one.

[afterburn]

Sorry alex but i will refrain from this, the subject has gone on way to long. I hope that you actually start comparing servers instead of desktops to servers.

[dimeric]

Firstly sorry if i offended anyone by the use of the word idiot, i didn't mean any personal offence, i was just letting peoples baiting get to me.

I think i will have to leave you guys to it, i don't want another warning.

I'm fine programming MS stuff and i really don't care what some of you may think of it, i can charge more and do more with MS so im fine thanks.

[alyssasdaddy]

Lets drop the Linux/Win stuff the original discussion was IIS and apache, Since no one is going to win because of the "Mine is better then yours complex", How about what the web servers do better and the amount of things web servers do better.

web servers = apache / iis

I will admit i do not know anything about IIS however i am on a windows machine writing this message. So since i am here i am going to install it and see what the difference is on desktop load. Which i am sure will reflect server load a little bit. I am not about to dual boot my server for this test. Its linux, Its smooth, and Its stable.

When you someone comes up with a good point either/or i am going to try it on both.

No offense taken just heated a little, Becuase of the conversation i can care less what you think of me. You are not my judge. dimeric have fun if thats the way you need to make a point then have at it. I would prefer a clean one. I named this post linux vs windows when it should have been apache vs IIS.

Maybe this go around we can keep it on SOFTWARE.

[BillyGalbreath]

...If my primary goal is getting a server up and running in as short a time as possible and as relatively reliably as possible, I'd probably consider using Windows. If I need to get a server up that's reliable under just about any condition and I have the time to learn how to install it, I'd use Linux, I think...
Well, I'd still use Linux, either way. There are Linux distributions able to install with ease (even point and click graphical installers), Like Ubuntu, which makes a damn good server OS (and it's Debian based, so its built on top of one of the strongest, most stable, most secure OS's known to man). Ubuntu can install in less than 10 minutes and maybe another 5 minutes of configuring Apache. So, that's 15 minutes for a damn good server, versus 45-60 minutes to install a Windows OS, and then more time on top of that to install and configure IIS (not sure how long it takes for IIS as it's been years since I've messed with it).

As for my pure Debian, yes it's a bit harder. Their are no point and click graphical installers. You have to know your ins and outs of how a computer works (partitioning a hard drive, for example) as the installer is pretty technical (I've seen worse though). But I can get an entire Debian OS installed in about 15 minutes (5 minutes of answering technical questions, then 10 to actually install). Then another 5 minutes to configure the basic services. Yet again, this is still much faster than installing Windows and IIS. However, most people will never make it past the base installer because they are used to Windows.

For people that I really willing to learn Linux to its full and really get a hard grasp on what it is their server is all about (the ins and outs), then I suggest using Debian. The learning curve is quite high though. Took me about 3 months to finally start to "get it" before I was able to start doing the fancy things.

For those people that don't really care or have the time to learn Linux (but still don't really want to go Windows either, Pegasus ;) ) then I suggest trying a graphical distro, like Ubuntu (or Xubuntu is a GREAT alternative to Ubuntu as it's graphical interface uses way less overhead resources, leaving more for the services to play with). To be honest, I suggest Ubuntu to anyone wanting to convert from Windows/Mac to Linux but still want things to be easy for them to understand and use (point and click from the very beginning). (X)Ubuntu has extremely powerful hardware probing tools, so its rare for you to actually have to setup any hardware on your own (manually). They even have most of the proprietary drivers included in the repositories (like ATI/nVidia video drivers, etc) so you don't have to compile/configure yourself.

Ubuntu also comes as a LiveCD, which means, you download it (for free, of course), burn it to a CD, then boot your computer using the CD. It will actually boot you into Linux (without ever installing it, or ever touching your hard drives [so Windows is still safe]). It uses your RAM as a "fake" hard drive called a RAMDISK. Developers made these LiveCD distros for people willing to give Linux a try, without the commitment. You boot into the CD, test everything out see how you like it, etc etc. You can do everything you normally could as if it was installed to your computer (browse the internet, download stuff, listen to music, setup apache/mysql/php, even install off-the wall software. LiveCDs are not meant to be used as your everyday OS though, since it uses a RAMDISK everytime you turn off your computer, or reboot it, everything you did/saved/downloaded/configured/etc gets erased. Everytime you boot the CD, its a brand new OS again.

The Ubuntu install cd is the LiveCD. You boot into Ubuntu from the CD, and there is a "Setup" icon on the desktop waiting for you to open it. If you choose to, then it opens a graphical installer, which is extremely easy to follow, even for the most novice of users (hell, my 9 y/o son did it and he can't even figure out how to install Doom on XP....)

I strongly suggest anyone and everyone to boot up the Ubuntu LiveCD at least once in their lives, that way they can at least know from personal experience what it's like to run Linux. On a graphical system (like Ubuntu) it's not so different from Windows (usability-wise).

I'm fine programming MS stuff and i really don't care what some of you may think of it, i can charge more and do more with MS so im fine thanks.
That's cool. You do that. No one is stopping you. Just for the record, I want to know how much money you are talking about... http://www.reefindustries.com is a website I've built not too long ago that has a $35,000 price tag. And of course, it's using PHP and MySQL as the backend which only took me less than 200 man hours, including the custom built CMS backend pages (which the public can't see) which make every little detail of the site editable by the graphics artist (with no knowledge of HTML/CSS at all) with ease.

[afterburn]

Fine you will need a program like MS's ACT. (Microsoft Application Center Test). It will allow to record actions in IE and when you close it. IT will write a script to test the system, it will do everything from first to last by in mil-secs to requests and load under so many unique user requests.

You will need an application on both windows and linux to do the same thing, the best would be to run Mono under Apache and ASP.net under IIS. Use one of the "Starter Kits" that mono states will run under MS. Turn on Tracing in .net/mono pages and request page output. Remember .net does compile to assembly like C/C++ so the code is a lot faster than your PHP will be. The first request is slower due to compile on either system. However each request there after will be extermely fast. I have 100K+ of DAL and 500K of Display logic, 200K of business logic. Together take about 3 minutes to compile (Most of which is VS.net 2005 using HEAD to get pages to ensure no changes) Approx 600 code files . Note that C#/VB.net are type safe languages with polymorphing, casting and single inheritance to fix what C++ actually breaks.

Note many many many things just dont' work in mono when using compariable stuff, and you have to modify. Note to mention that many of the languages aren't available to mono, including J#, VB.net or C++.net. So the only language that you can use is C#.

Good luck tell me the results.

[alexalex]

Sorry alex but i will refrain from this, the subject has gone on way to long. I hope that you actually start comparing servers instead of desktops to servers.

i think you assumed something, im talking about servers vs servers, not servers vs desktops, thanks.

[afterburn]

If that is true then why the reference to Malware & Spyware. Last i seen it is good policy not to surf the web on one.

[Paul]

This is an interesting discussion, I'm not sure why topics like these end up in arguments, it really doesn't make any sense to me.

Comparing windows to linux is like comparing apples to oranges. Both have their advantage and disadvantages. One is good for certain things while the other one is good at other things. To even have this type of discussion you first have to indentify what role the server will be used for wether it be for a web server, sql server, domain controller, router, vpn, firewall, dhcp, dns, etc, etc, etc.

Speaking in general terms at this point in time the fact is that linux as a workstation is not suitible for a enterprise enviroment filled with a bunch of people that barely know how to turn their computers on. Any computer knowledge they have will be in windows, probably not mac and for sure not linux. So to have these windows computers interface securely with the rest of the network you will need to have a windows server enviroment. In addition you will need a large crew of support people that know how to manage this network. A study comissioned by microsoft proved it is a lot more expensive to manage linux or any other os over windows. Yes, it is a study comissioned by MS, but I haven't seen anything that disproved it.

And these corporate enviroments from the few that I have seen will not be exclusively windows, or exclusively linux, or exclusively macintosh, or whatever. Most companies will have a mix of different server operating system depending on what they will be doing with them. Linux is great for general web servers. I have never run a public web server on anything but linux. But IIS also has great features.

These black and white arguments for one side or the other are really silly. The best thing you can do is look at all this with an open mind. Believe it or not there is a reason that virtually every company out there, big or small, runs behind windows along side with other server operating systems and that reason isn't that these companies are full of idiots.

[BillyGalbreath]

...a enterprise enviroment filled with a bunch of people that barely know how to turn their computers on...

...Believe it or not there is a reason that virtually every company out there, big or small, runs behind windows along side with other server operating systems and that reason isn't that these companies are full of idiots.

You contradict yourself... The only reason Windows still exists, is precisely what you said.. Because people "barely know how to turn their computers on".

;)

[GarrettW]

i'd like to point out another good linux server distro: CentOS. basically, free version of red hat.

since we're talking about servers, my vote is for linux/apache. ("Linux Just Rocks" means what?)

i haven't REALLY tried linux in a desktop situation extensively... but I'd have to vote Windows XP for that environment, at least at this point. What I need to do is try out the latest Ubuntu release - i bet it's good stuff!

[Paul]

You contradict yourself... The only reason Windows still exists, is precisely what you said.. Because people "barely know how to turn their computers on".

;)

I didn't word that properly, I meant that the IT teams all around the world that make these decision aren't idiots, there is a good reason they choose windows over others.

You would probably agree with me that most people on this message board know more about computers than just turning them on. If you did a poll I think you would find that more than 90% of the active members here run on a windows machine.


i'd like to point out another good linux server distro: CentOS. basically, free version of red hat.

I've been using CentOS for my web servers and haven't had any issues with it, has been up for over 72 days on one server and 113 days on the other. I dont know much about linux but I don't really see a difference between this and other linux distributions I've played around with. I did install Ubuntu server the other day as a virtual machine on a lab computer so I am looking forward to playing around with that to see how it compares.

[BillyGalbreath]

I agree, Paul. At least 90% of this website's members run Windows. However, of that 90%, I'm sure most dont even know Linux exists. I've seen it all too many times where people actually think Windows is the computer.

As for CentOS, it's of my lesser favorite distributions. I never liked anything based on Red Hat to be honest with you, but CentOS is by all means a decent server. Its quick to install and configure and doesn't need much maintenance.

Ubuntu I don't look at as a server OS. I'm sorry, but Ubuntu was originally developed with graphical ease of use. I'm a firm believer that no GUI should be present on a server OS. However, I will state that the Ubuntu family is my second favorite distribution. I strongly recommend it to anyone wanting to learn/use Linux that doesn't have a strong grasp on the *nix environment. I especially like the fact that Ubuntu is Debian based.

Debian is my number 1 choice for Linux. I am a hardcore Debian fan and user. All my computers have Debian, and always will. Hell, I even got the Debian logo tattoo'd on me! If after you use Ubuntu and find it to be much more enjoyable than CentOS, I would strongly recommend you give Debian a good looking at. There's a reason so many other distributions are based on Debian. ;)

[GarrettW]

so what do you like so much about it?

[BillyGalbreath]

What's not to like about it? lol!

No really, it's mainly in how and where the configuration files are located on the drives. I mean, we all know all distro's are organized their own way. Debian's makes the most sense. It's common sense...

The main thing though has got to be the package manager. It's much much easier to deal with rather than RPM files or straight configure/compiles.. Yeah yeah, some of you will say, "well what about Emerge?", or some other package manager in some other distro. All other package managers fail in comparison to Debian's in usability and amount of packages. Name me any other distro that has over 22,000 packages in their repositories by default? None!

Debian makes sense when you compare it side by side other distros. It's not all 'user friendly' which just cripples controllability like Ubuntu or Suse but at the same time its not 'here you go, do it all yourself' like such distros as Slackware or Gentoo. Where does Red Hat/CentOS fit in? Simple. It doesn't. Red Hat based distros bother me so much with the way all their services and configuration files are spread all over the place. Nothing is where it should be. Where should they be? They need to be where it makes sense.. the places Debian put them in.

But like I always say... This is just my opinion. Others may feel differently.

;)

[GarrettW]

i'm just trying to get a feel for this kind of stuff - i don't have any special affinity for CentOS, i just know it's out there and that some people like it.

i have done a successful by-hand installation of Gentoo before, but i'm still pretty noob when it comes to linux.

[Vege]

Our office uses entirely linux, some use vmware to use windows on top of orginal linux box.
We mainly code PHP for unix machines and thats why it's easier as developent machines match somewhat the production machines.

Troughout the day i usually have around 20-30 ssh connections across the land and most of the time we test sites that are behind firewalls and we have to tunnel 21 and 80 just to check our installations.
Somehow i dont see doint those in putty all the time.

[afterburn]

This thread needs to die a horrible disfiguring death.

[Vege]

why, we cant have same topic every second month?
Comoooon, we like these <3
Arguing in the internet is like paraolympics, even if u loose, you still win ;)

[pjano]

Can someone compare Linux vs Windows IIS, feature by feature. Instalation, speed, using, configuring ... what is good and bad in your opinion

also I am interested in FTP services on Linux vs Windows

Thanx

[boyo1991]

i use xitami.. so i cant vote in this one :P

[matthewm27]

I have only ever used Windows and Mac (tho I don't have a mac, but I'm dying to get one) and personal favorite is Mac. I can't really answer this one.

[GarrettW]

*resists temptation to trash-talk macs* ;)

[Pegasus]

*g* That would be a good plan, Garrett.

I know Macs can be used as servers, but I don't know the details of the configurations. I'll have to look into that.

[matthewm27]

Hey, what did Macs ever do to you, Garrett

[athomas]

This is kind of a moot question, as Windows servers are good for some tasks and Linux servers better for others.

Also is up to personal preference.

[afterburn]

only a year to get into this thread... die thread die.

[AnthonyDamasco]

This is kind of a moot question, as Windows servers are good for some tasks and Linux servers better for others.

Also is up to personal preference.


Agreed, It comes down to preference

[athomas]

Maybe somebody cares to take the spotlight and tell the pros and cons to using Apache or IIS? Both can do things that the other can't do.

[Paul]

It's a lot more than just preference. Windows can do some things that linux can't, but linux is certainly catching up. As one example Samba still can't be used as a primary domain controller, so if you want to run active directory in your company you will be forced to use windows.

As far as differences between IIS or Apache? The only reason I would use IIS over apache is if I needed to run ASP or other M$ technology. IIS lacks many basic apache features that so many people have grown a custom to, such as .htaccess files. Not to mention that much better control panel support apache has. The only control panel I'm aware of under windows is plesk. WHM says they are planning a release of a windows cPanel but when that will come nobody seems to know.

[athomas]

Refer to here:

http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1563

Linux has an active directory equivelant.

[Paul]

Refer to here:

http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1563

Linux has an active directory equivelant.

That's to be a active directory client on a linux machine, we are talking about servers (which is why I specifically mentioned the role of a domain controller).

Like I already said above, you have the option of Samba if you want to run an active directory server. But the last time I looked at it you could only use it as a backup domain controller. Windows still had to control the primary FSMO roles.

[athomas]

That's to be a active directory client on a linux machine, we are talking about servers (which is why I specifically mentioned the role of a domain controller).

Like I already said above, you have the option of Samba if you want to run an active directory server. But the last time I looked at it you could only use it as a backup domain controller. Windows still had to control the primary FSMO roles.

Ah ok, thanx for clairifying. Well said.

[Sawtooth500]

In regards to having macs as servers, really macs are just *nix machines now. Mac OS 10.5 is fully posix compliant and comes with apache right out of the box. Granted, unless you're running the server version it doesn't even mention apache anywhere in the GUI, but trust me, it's there and can be fully configured just like on any other *nix system, so Macs are really in the same boat as linux systems because under the hood they have the same command line and are incredibly similar.

[Pegasus]

Ah, okay. I knew that they were Unix based, but I didn't know the rest for sure. Thanks for clearing that up.

[batterj2]

I've worked in a variety of places and come across different setups but there does seem to be a commen trend even in my limited experience.

Microsoft servers tend to start well but soon start to falter as user numbers or resource handling increases - even a dedicated mail server had difficulty with 150 members of staff. IIS caused me several headaches as well as it became very difficult to configure - debugging was haphazrd at best.

Linux servers and Apache are incredibly robust and reliable designed on the experiences on hundreds of different developers and system admins. IT Managers (or at leasts the ones I have worked for) love them as they can get it to do exactly what you want it to do.

In terms of cost, Microsoft is expensive but you are paying for that recognisable logo and that is significant in two ways: it by default provides confidence in the product (deserved or not) and an abundant source of appropriately skilled workers. Linux, on the whole, is free but finding the right skilled people can be difficult unless you are prepared to pay a little higher for their knowledge (which would still work out cheaper than MS licences ironically).

In terms of usability MS is easier to use as it often comes with a friendly GUI of some description and thus more intuitive. Linux however is a plethora of command lines, scripts and config files so the learning curve is considerably steeper. However once you've learnt the latter's methods you are then in total control of your system.

In the end it boils down to money, resources and confidence. For people starting out I would expect people to go the Linux route and maybe they'll stay that way in the future. For those with money to spend, I don't blame them (entirely) for wanting to pay for confidence in their chosen product.

The best saying I've heard comparing the two products is as follows:

Operating systems are like power drills. Linux is extremely powerful and will do the job but once you've made the hole, theres no going back. Windows however will nag you consistently to make sure you're doing the right thing, pretend its made a hole, check with you again and then do it - hopefully in a straight line.

To clarify: I am a developer and not a sysadmin - this is based upon my experiences in different workplaces.

[GarrettW]

For people starting out I would expect people to go the Linux route and maybe they'll stay that way in the future.i agree.
i hope to someday be a sysadmin, and i vote linux for servers all the way - but i prefer windows for desktops for right now.

[Paul]

Hi James, for what it's worth I have not seen problems with my windows servers degrading over time in performance. However, I have not worked in large enviroments, never anything over 30 workstations.

I think that again the question is not which is better, the question is what are you trying to do. Linux is a unique tool just as windows is. You need to decide which tool is applicable for your application.

I'd love to get some feedback in the near future from people that have experiance in linux and in windows what they think of the new server core for windows server 2008. I wonder how much control you have there compared to linux.

[batterj2]

I think that again the question is not which is better, the question is what are you trying to do. Linux is a unique tool just as windows is. You need to decide which tool is applicable for your application.

Very true and the same applies for most software. However I think, given the openess of Linux (as part of the open source initiative), Linux offers more flexibility in what can and cannot be done. Unfortunately anything from a specific vendor is always geared MORE towards their own technology which raises the question of how much of a performance hit are you willing to take if you digress from what they want you to use. Ofcourse the problem with open systems is that they are not geared towards anything so there is going to be a performance hit with any software - BUT because it is open to everything and is therefore written to expect anything the performance hit would be minimal as it is expected.

[bgillingham]

I am a former Windows user and I now use Linux for everything except for when I need to run Photoshop.

I think that one big module that helped Linux in the last two years is the eye-candy "Compiz" settings manager (a system preferences control panel applet that lets you control tons of visual and user interface effects).

In my opinion, open source is much better than everything Microsoft has released.

[Digit]

i always found this to be a pretty stupid question, "linux or windows" and the like.

linux is a kernel for a unix-like opperating system known from it's roots as the GNU operating system.
windows is a rather more monolithic proprietary "complete" opperating system.
comparing windows to mac is a little easier, so long as you're sticking to just the mac software (since u know they do their hardware too).

ok ok... pedantic nitpicking i know. we all just lazily call whichever free software / open source using the linux kernel as linux as a catch all name, presumably because it's nicer to say (and read) than gnu.

but even without my pedantic nitpicking, its still an impossable affair.

WHICH linux???

there are like about a dozen windows, and......................... who knows how many linuxes.

which are we comparing here?

still think i'm playing the role of pedantic nitpicker?

oh alright then....

Hurd.

only kidding, here's my answer:
Linux.
;)
(Sabayon, Ubuntu and Slitaz are the distributions i use at various locations at the moment, having surfed hundreds. all better than windows)

ps, i know this is my first post here, but i've got serious posts coming soon, honest. :)

[GarrettW]

i would really like to love [gnu/]linux as a desktop OS -- but here are the first objections i think of:
Program & driver incompatibilities
confusing file structure (where windows has \Users, \Program files, and \Windows, linux has \bin, \sbin, \home, \var, \etc, \usr, \dev, .............. and the only analogs are \Users and \home)
Learning curve for what I'll call "power user" features

anyone have any helpful tips for me on any of those subjects?

about drivers... will a LiveCD give me a good idea of what drivers are included and what aren't? or do i have to install it to really find that out?

[Digit]

i would really like to love [gnu/]linux as a desktop OS -- but here are the first objections i think of:
Program & driver incompatibilities
confusing file structure (where windows has \Users, \Program files, and \Windows, linux has \bin, \sbin, \home, \var, \etc, \usr, \dev, .............. and the only analogs are \Users and \home)
Learning curve for what I'll call "power user" features

anyone have any helpful tips for me on any of those subjects?

about drivers... will a LiveCD give me a good idea of what drivers are included and what aren't? or do i have to install it to really find that out?

i gotta admit, as much as i'm loving being away from proprietary software and all the woes and troubles it brings, the 'nix file system hierarchy structure shows it's roots are still back in the 60s (or whenever), when it was only for the nerds, and spaces or long names were a big no-no.

FORTUNATELY!!!!...... there's Gobo Linux. if the counter-intuitive madness of folders called "bin" which we're supposed to magically know actually means "binary" and not "bin" as may seem obvious is really getting to you, then maybe gobolinux is the 'nix distribution for you.
go take a peek to see what i mean.


program and driver incompatibilities... i've had no real issues worth mentioning in sabayon linux. they're great for having everything run outta the box.

as for the other issues you mentioned...
i guess you just have to trudge up the learning hill ("curve" lacks the dimensional width that support seems to have in the open source freedom software community). since 'nix was born on the net, not on the desktop, so to speak, one of the most important things to learn how to use to be effective with your gnu+linux distribution is the search engine. effective use of a search engine means there is practically no problem that you will encounter that cannot be quickly & easily resolved.

i've recently been discovering that about.com have some EXCELLENT pages to help learning linux that werent there when i started. really really useful. (like so useful its where i seem to get ALL my learning about gnu+linux from these days... besides the odd forum search and irc)

:) (oh cool, i just noticed all the smilies here are lightbulbs) :D

[Vege]

:) (oh cool, i just noticed all the smilies here are lightbulbs) :D
And there are more! :chainsaw:
Nice post, even thou i know what linux folders are and why they are named as they are, maybe ill give it a try.

[GarrettW]

Nice post, even thou i know what linux folders are and why they are named as they are, maybe ill give it a try.
care to give a detailed explanation on that subject? ;)