Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux VS Windows

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • alyssasdaddy
    started a topic Linux VS Windows

    Linux VS Windows

    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

  • afterburn
    replied
    This thread is a few years old.

    1) is invalid.... no data to back that up.
    2) is invalid as what aspect does MS require you to use a single provider?
    3) is invalid as Microsoft provides the same technology and encryption as every other provider
    4) is invalid as only if you want an unpatched server in the wild. Yes Windows reboots but usually only for patching nowadays.

    The point of it is you are comparing apples to Oranges. Those milliions of usrs in the world aren't using Microsoft as servers but instead as clients. XP, Vista and Windows7.

    Where the majority of Linux users are sysadmins.


    This arguement is beating a dead horse. The type of system really depends on the dynamics of the company that chooses the product. Linux for instance, they are looking to run Bind DNS, MySql or Apache for PHP. It usually isn't a file server for the most use cases. When you choose Windows Servers you are doing it for SQL, IIS for ASP.net or File Servers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maclin
    replied
    Hi,
    The hottest issue today is to use which operating system and why. Microsoft windows has its own market and million of users and why linux is used as a server in nearly 80% Internet Service Providers. what makes a difference? how comparison of both are possible? why instead of a great user free environment of windows, most network administrators like and prefer linux. here is the reason....

    1. Browsing becomes 4 times faster with the same hardware and Internet connection

    2. No dependence on a single supplier for any product.

    3. Ability to protect data so that no agency in the world can access it without the data owner's permission.

    4. A Linux server can be up for hundreds of days.

    5. Linux memory management is far superior to that of Windows.

    6. Higher Stability

    7. Better Performance

    8. Better and more useful functionality

    9. Better access protection among users

    10. Centralized management and backups

    Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • GarrettW
    replied
    Originally posted by Vege View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Digit View Post
    (oh cool, i just noticed all the smilies here are lightbulbs)
    Off Topic:
    And there are more!

    Nice post, even thou i know what linux folders are and why they are named as they are, maybe ill give it a try.

    Leave a comment:


  • Digit
    replied
    Originally posted by GarrettW View Post
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • GarrettW
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Digit
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgillingham
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • batterj2
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • GarrettW
    replied
    Originally posted by batterj2 View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • batterj2
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Sawtooth500
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X