No announcement yet.

Linux VS Windows

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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.


    • #17
      Originally posted by Pegasus View Post
      ...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).

      Originally posted by dimeric
      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... 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.


      • #18
        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 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 2005 using HEAD to get pages to ensure no changes) Approx 600 code files . Note that C#/ 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#, or So the only language that you can use is C#.

        Good luck tell me the results.
        Red GateSQL tools for DBA


        • #19
          Originally posted by afterburn View Post
          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.


          • #20
            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.
            Red GateSQL tools for DBA


            • #21
              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.


              • #22
                Originally posted by Paul
                ...a enterprise enviroment filled with a bunch of people that barely know how to turn their computers on...
                Originally posted by Paul
                ...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".


                • #23
                  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!


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by BillyGalbreath View Post
                    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.


                    • #25
                      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.


                      • #26
                        so what do you like so much about it?


                        • #27
                          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.


                          • #28
                            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.


                            • #29
                              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.


                              • #30
                                This thread needs to die a horrible disfiguring death.
                                Red GateSQL tools for DBA