Linux VS Windows - Page 4 - HTML Forums

Sawtooth500 · 12-07-2008, 11:16 AM

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 · 12-07-2008, 11:34 AM

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

batterj2 · 12-12-2008, 10:06 AM

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 · 12-12-2008, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by batterj2

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 · 12-12-2008, 01:53 PM

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 · 12-13-2008, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

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 · 04-08-2009, 10:18 AM

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 · 04-16-2009, 03:59 PM

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 · 04-16-2009, 06:01 PM

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 · 04-25-2009, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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)