Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25
Lets say hypothetically that you, (the one reading) is an Network Administrator and IT Consultant. Which would you choose to run all your servers. Would you run Microsoft software or ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6

    Linux or Microsoft server. Your opinions please!


    Lets say hypothetically that you, (the one reading) is an Network Administrator and IT Consultant. Which would you choose to run all your servers. Would you run Microsoft software or Linux software. I would also request that you tell me why also so that I may understand the reason that you chose that particular OS.

    I am only asking because people belittle and judge Linux too much saying that its unreliable and Windows 2003 server is better. I hate it personally because the GUI takes away valuable Clock cycles and RAM away from the user. I like Linux servers because you can put it to INIT 3 and have just a terminal and still be able to run it like its in INIT 5.. I also like Linux servers because I have 100 percent control over what I want and can do. Windows has a GUI that has preconfigured options by microsoft. Doesnt give you much freedom..

    Please give me your opinions on WIndows and Linux servers..

  2. #2
    oz
    oz is offline
    forum.guy
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    arch linux
    Posts
    18,733
    Hello

    Not sure, but I'm guessing that most users on a Linux forum would say they prefer Linux for server usage, and most on a Windows forum would prefer a Windows server. I'd be very surprised if it turned out otherwise.
    oz

  3. #3
    Linux Engineer hazel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Harrow, UK
    Posts
    1,198
    I was under the impression that all the big guys (Google, Amazon and so on) use Linux servers. Am I wrong?
    "I'm just a little old lady; don't try to dazzle me with jargon!"

  4. #4
    oz
    oz is offline
    forum.guy
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    arch linux
    Posts
    18,733
    Google, according to netcraft:

    Netcraft What's That Site Running Results

    It's currently showing "unknown" for some of Amazon's servers.

    I'm pretty sure that the majority of the super-clusters are still running Linux, too.
    oz

  5. #5
    Penguin of trust elija's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Either at home or at work or down the pub
    Posts
    3,488
    Well, if we ignore the fact that one generally outperforms the other on equivalent hardware and we ignore the fact that the better performing one can be compiled from source to remove any stuff you don't need to further increase performance. If we ignore the fact that there are few threats in the wild for one and hundreds of thousands for the other and we ignore the fact that one is considered a prize by hackers because it is so much harder to get in to. If we ignore the fact the vulnerabilities for one are generally fixed within weeks and sometimes within days and that for the other closed source one it can be months before admins even know about vulnerabilities let alone see a fix.

    If we ignore all of that and enter a strange parallel universe where they are equal and pretend that we are one of the biggest web companies with about 65,000 web / database servers (and growing)

    Windows Server standard edition with 25 client access licenses $3,999
    SQL Server standard edition (per processor) $7,171 - assuming 4 processors per server, that's $28,684

    Per server that's $32,683
    So for 65,000 servers the total cost $2,124,395,000*

    If you want more CALs / Processors then to cost will go up

    CentOS Linux with unlimited usage $0
    MySQL Server with unlimited usage $0

    Cost for 65,000 servers $0

    simples!


    * You may get 50% bulk discount if you negotiated hard / bought data center licenses which is a much more reasonable $1,062,197,500
    Last edited by elija; 02-26-2011 at 06:15 PM.
    What do we want?
    Time machines!

    When do we want 'em?
    Doesn't really matter does it!?


    Conkybots: Interactive plugins for your Conkys!

  6. #6
    Just Joined! jtarrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    0

    Arrow re: Linux or Microsoft server. Your opinions please!

    Hello armshount,

    I agree with my fellow respondents, it is a matter of "horses for courses" whether you choose Linux or Microsoft as your server platform.

    Personally, I am vendor agnostic. In my office I have 3 flavours of Windows running, 3 different Linux distributions running and occasionally a Mac OSX machine.

    This is strictly "in my not-so-humble opinion"

    For ease of set-up and ability to add functionality I have generally opted for Linux. Why? Because with a couple of clicks on the Control Centre (Mandriva Linux) or an "apt-get" (RedHat/CentOS) I can get a fully integrated and functioning Apache-MySQL-PHP setup without having to figure out MIME extensions etc. I have tried this with IIS in the past with varying degrees of success and pulling out of hair. As I'm heading towards 50 I can't afford too much more hair loss so I stick with Linux.

    The other advantage of Linux is that there are a ton of management scripts out there, many of which are used by hosting services (cPanel etc), that can make your life so much easier.

    My other "plus point" for going the Linux route is that most of the source code for the applications is freely available (hence the term "open source") so you can archive it in case the provider disappears or enhance it for your own unique situation.

    You can, of course, use Apache, MySQL and PHP under Windows but I have found that integration and performance have fallen short of their Linux siblings.

    All the best,

    Jeremy

  7. #7
    Linux Enthusiast Mudgen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    664
    Good remarks so far, but I question the original premise. It's not necessary to run ALL of your servers under either OS. Application servers, and Internet-facing Web servers (in general), Linux wins hands down. For integration with in-house Windows desktops, Windows Server with Active Directory has some strengths that can be quite difficult to replicate with Linux. Samba can do most of it, but they're still struggling to reverse-engineer the latest AD features.

    But you wouldn't want to be starting a new farm on Server 2003, which is approaching EOL. You'd want to go with 2008.

  8. #8
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by ozar View Post
    Hello

    Not sure, but I'm guessing that most users on a Linux forum would say they prefer Linux for server usage, and most on a Windows forum would prefer a Windows server. I'd be very surprised if it turned out otherwise.
    Absolutely agreed. I'd be very surplised too if that happened.

    At my work they are quite "platform agnostic". The have mostly UNIX for big boxes, but for mail servers, window shares and some other small servers, they use Windows. I think this is the best approach: "Don't put all the eggs in the same basket"

  9. #9
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    146
    Windows and servers -- you're talking about the worst OS in the world, with all those viruses, crashes etc... it's the most slowest OS in the world. Anyone who recommends this is either -

    1) Bribed by Bill Gates
    2) Worship Bill Gates
    3) Are too foolish. You need a minimal mount of intelligence to administer Linux server... next next next finish wont work here to help the retarded Bill gates fools.

    G-WAN Apache PHP IIS ASP.Net GlassFish Java Web server software Linux and Windows benchmarks

    So Bill Gates's "Get the facts" campaign is solely a way to earn money... that's the only thing MS does well. Marketing and causing trouble to everyone.

    Servlet Performance Report: Comparing Apache Tomcat Performance Across Platforms - Web Performance

    This ain't software, this's a money making machine. There's nothing worst than Windows... that's simple and too clear.

  10. #10
    Linux Enthusiast Mudgen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by shandrio View Post
    Absolutely agreed. I'd be very surplised too if that happened.

    At my work they are quite "platform agnostic". The have mostly UNIX for big boxes, but for mail servers, window shares and some other small servers, they use Windows. I think this is the best approach: "Don't put all the eggs in the same basket"
    At my place, they're pretty much Windows-centric on the service provider side, but the customers demand Linux machines for the appropriate niches.

    The other latest post isn't really well reasoned advice. DNFTT.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •