Ubuntu or Windows Server 2008?

[general_user]

Hello All,

We are a new company looking to develop our site software, at the beginning stages of starting work but have to choose between going with Windows or Open Source.

So far, it appears that development cost for the .net platform will be cheaper than linux but the licensing cost to Windows for the Server 2008 and SQL Server 2008 will be prohibitive.

Upscaling the hardware and software from the initial start gets subsequently cheaper each time a new server is added, going with open source than with windows licensing fee for each server.


Assuming that traffic is handled equally by both platforms, here are the general specifications for the hardware we will be using:
3 web servers
1 app server
1 sql server

All IBM Intel Quad Core 3 Ghz with 16 GB RAM and 15K 73 GB HDDs on RAID with separate Backup HDD.

Is it worth considering the windows option if we are going to expand later on and add more servers or should we spend more money on the development cost now and then have no upgrade cost....

Your comments

[GNU-Fan]

I recommend to use Free Software.

(Did you really expect to get an unbiased recommendation in this forum )

[L4Linux]

As you said, Linux seems to have lower costs when scaling up. Since your goal probably is to expand eventually, you should consider this future cost. Also, as far as I know, Linux has better virtuallization (XEN & KVM. VMware runs on both) and clustering capabilities than Windows Server.

[gruven]

Personally I would go with the larger cost up front and use Free Software. You have to consider that if you want to expand later, then you can do it for free with Linux/FOSS and it can also run on older hardware.

You will have limits with Microsoft software on how many users, how many machines, etc... With Linux, your only limit is your own knowledge. Hire a good sysadmin, and you won't have problems (well, there are always problems, but you will have less).

There is a reason that the larger corporations use Linux/FOSS (google, yahoo, registrars, etc...) and it isn't solely because it is free. Open source software seems to patch security holes faster, and push out needed updates faster.

In the end it is really up to you and what your company is most comfortable with, but for me it would be a non-issue. I would never consider Microsoft over Linux/FOSS for a business, simply for the costs and scalability.

[dandart]

Ahem... larger development cost? That makes no sense.

[SkittleLinux18]

KVM. VMware runs on both)

Let's make sure we clarify KVM here. If we are talking about the Virtual Machine known as KVM, the statement made by L4Linux would be correct.

However, if we are talking about a KVM switch, let me clarify a few things. A KVM Switch is not virtualization at all. KVM switches will give you more problems in Linux, unless you get the right the right hardware. There are screen resolution problems as well as video placement issues. I've been using a KVM switch to go back and forth between my Linux computer and Windows computer for over a year now. (Kind of my solution to WINE haha). However, it took me 5 weeks to narrow down the best way to go about using a KVM switch between the two different types of OS in order to avoid those problems.

Just something to think about.

[SkittleLinux18]

There are good points being made here, however, stability has yet to be mentioned. When it comes to the servers that myself and SierraDump use to make money off of, we prefer Windows Server because of it's stability and reliability. However, we prefer open source and Linux for our personal servers.

When it comes to stability, it depends on who you talk to. Some people prefer Linux and the LAMP server it has. Others prefer Windows. Stability is tricky and vastly varies based on personal definition and experience.

[L4Linux]

If we are talking about the Virtual Machine known as KVM

Yes, I was referring to Kernel-based Virtual Machine. The switches tend to freeze both systems from time to time with no apparent reason, after they have worked fine for days...

[gruven]

There are good points being made here, however, stability has yet to be mentioned. When it comes to the servers that myself and SierraDump use to make money off of, we prefer Windows Server because of it's stability and reliability. However, we prefer open source and Linux for our personal servers.

When it comes to stability, it depends on who you talk to. Some people prefer Linux and the LAMP server it has. Others prefer Windows. Stability is tricky and vastly varies based on personal definition and experience.

I MUCH prefer Linux or BSD over Windows for servers. IMO, and from what I have experienced, Linux/FOSS/BSD is much more stable and reliable than a Windows server. Granted, I am much more versed in Linux and feel more comfortable in it, I just usually have less problems with Linux.

Plus, if it isn't a kernel update, you don't have to reboot, ever.

What it comes down to is familiarity and if you can fix it when/if it goes down. Personally, I would use Linux because I can fix it. Windows would frustrate me to no end because I couldn't customize it like I wanted, and I couldn't dig in and fix it if needed (recompile, etc...).

[SkittleLinux18]

Yes, I was referring to Kernel-based Virtual Machine. The switches tend to freeze both systems from time to time with no apparent reason, after they have worked fine for days...

I figured you were just because I know how knowledgeable you are to Linux, L4, and computers in general. I guess I just wanted to make sure that others reading knew what you meant.

As for your comment about the switches, you are totally right. I ran into those problems all the time. However, I found out that getting a switch with usb emulation drastically cuts down on the problem. So do booting each system while KVMed into it helps a lot. In other words, if you're booting Linux, don't KVM back to Windows and browse the internet while waiting for Linux to boot up. The signals being passed in the switch need to be on the system that is booting up. Once booted, though, you're ok.

I MUCH prefer Linux or BSD over Windows for servers. IMO, and from what I have experienced, Linux/FOSS/BSD is much more stable and reliable than a Windows server. Granted, I am much more versed in Linux and feel more comfortable in it, I just usually have less problems with Linux.

Plus, if it isn't a kernel update, you don't have to reboot, ever.

What it comes down to is familiarity and if you can fix it when/if it goes down. Personally, I would use Linux because I can fix it. Windows would frustrate me to no end because I couldn't customize it like I wanted, and I couldn't dig in and fix it if needed (recompile, etc...).

I like the point you're making to expand upon mine regarding stability. One of the reasons you find Linux more stable is because you're able to fix it easier than Windows. Whereas some people might find Windows more stable because either they can fix it, or have easier access to those who can fix it.

That's a good way of looking at it, gruven. Thanks!