Linux vs. Windows

cyberguypr

Not being versed in Linux I want to hear from those who are or have been on both sides.

Why I’ve finally had it with my Linux server and I’m moving back to Windows | ZDNet

Bl8ckr0uter

Typical ZDnet fud. Move on.

lsud00d

I’ve had it with the fact that this stuff doesn’t work reliably. Oh, sure, if you work with Linux every hour of every day, if this is all you do, and all you love, if you’ve never had a date since you grew that one facial hair, if you’ve never had any other responsibility in your entire life, then you know every bit of every undocumented piece of folklore. You know which forums and which forum posters have the very long and bizarre command line that only. That. One. Guy. Knows.

Man, sometimes I wish I could fit this bill, just to play into the stereotype and get this type of reaction...

demonfurbie

lets look at cost

windows 2008r2 server ... 799.00 Buy Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 | Pricing | Licensing | Partners

linux ... 0 http://www.centos.org/

_______

its all is how you setup the linux server and how you back it up, its all command line (even windows is going this way, powershell and windows core) so if your a point and click type person you really have no choice but windows but if you can get past the command line learning curve linux is a far cheaper way to go

they both can offer the same services so you cant base it off of that

i think people get too confused on the setup and mess something up

Bl8ckr0uter

Sure there are cost built into linux - the cost of learning the platform (if you don't know it) and etc but what bugs me is when people say things just "don't work". Ubuntu has been the most stable OS I have ever used and the upgrades and patches have always went smoothly. My printer was recognized by Ubuntu, without a disc and on my wife's xp box I had the reinstall the driver 3 times. I guess the bottom line is people really want something they know and use and can get support for and that's why companies like microsoft and cisco are huge. Can we set up a linux box and use openswan to set up a site to site vpn tunnel? Sure (I actually helped a customer do that this week) but we prefer cisco gear.

RobertKaucher

Bl8ckr0uter wrote: »

Typical ZDnet fud. Move on.

I thought it was really funny and had some valid points. But the fact is this: You can do anything with Linux, but you are then responsible for everything. It puts a lot of onus on you as an admin.

lsud00d

Not to mention the 2 main package managers have FULLY AUTOMATED INSTALL/UPDATES...dependencies and all!

RobertKaucher

Bl8ckr0uter wrote: »

Sure there are cost built into linux - the cost of learning the platform (if you don't know it) and etc but what bugs me is when people say things just "don't work". Ubuntu has been the most stable OS I have ever used and the upgrades and patches have always went smoothly. My printer was recognized by Ubuntu, without a disc and on my wife's xp box I had the reinstall the driver 3 times. I guess the bottom line is people really want something they know and use and can get support for and that's why companies like microsoft and cisco are huge. Can we set up a linux box and use openswan to set up a site to site vpn tunnel? Sure (I actually helped a customer do that this week) but we prefer cisco gear.

I don't really think it is just that. When you go to a client's office and set something like that up and then vanish to the beaches of Brazil because you won the lottery who do they call to fix problems? If you use Cisco to do the same and then vanish there are any number of people you could call to get it fixed including Cisco (at a premium of course).

Bl8ckr0uter

RobertKaucher wrote: »

I don't really think it is just that. When you go to a client's office and set something like that up and then vanish to the beaches of Brazil because you won the lottery who do they call to fix problems? If you use Cisco to do the same and then vanish there are any number of people you could call to get it fixed including Cisco (at a premium of course).

That's what I am saying. There are literally a ton of ccna/ccnp/mcse/mcitp people out there who you can pay 15 bucks a hour and they can "run" your network. I think that in today's economy/workplace where people don't stay at a job for 30 years due to moving on (willingly or unwillingly) a company knows that it has to think about that. They are worried about the cost associated with replacing you if you left (which is sad but I can understand that). At some point though, you have to weight in cost like licensing and see if nix is right for you. If you have talent on staff and you are stable , I say go for it. Linux is a great platform.

PS" My whole statement really only applies to distros other than Ubuntu, SUSE and RH. They have enterprise support and established companies behind them so them so that kills the who you gonna call mindset.

I think these articles bashing linux actually show linux's strength. I seriously think Ubuntu is ready for prime time (server AND desktop) and I would run my business on that platform (server and desktop).

UnixGuy

Not if you pay for support, you have an organization to support you.

RobertKaucher wrote: »

I thought it was really funny and had some valid points. But the fact is this: You can do anything with Linux, but you are then responsible for everything. It puts a lot of onus on you as an admin.

UnixGuy

I haven't read the article, but judging from this quotation, I won't waste my type. This is just sad

lsud00d wrote: »

I’ve had it with the fact that this stuff doesn’t work reliably. Oh, sure, if you work with Linux every hour of every day, if this is all you do, and all you love, if you’ve never had a date since you grew that one facial hair, if you’ve never had any other responsibility in your entire life, then you know every bit of every undocumented piece of folklore. You know which forums and which forum posters have the very long and bizarre command line that only. That. One. Guy. Knows.




Man, sometimes I wish I could fit this bill, just to play into the stereotype and get this type of reaction...

UnixGuy

I agree with you on this, and I think the answer to all this is: support. Red Hat, Novel, HP, IBM, Oracle (SUN), are available everywhere in the world, with countless number of business partners ready for support with fancy SLAs.

RobertKaucher wrote: »

I don't really think it is just that. When you go to a client's office and set something like that up and then vanish to the beaches of Brazil because you won the lottery who do they call to fix problems? If you use Cisco to do the same and then vanish there are any number of people you could call to get it fixed including Cisco (at a premium of course).

Everyone

UnixGuy wrote: »

I agree with you on this, and I think the answer to all this is: support. Red Hat, Novel, HP, IBM, Oracle (SUN), are available everywhere in the world, with countless number of business partners ready for support with fancy SLAs.

+1, the problem is, when a lot of people think of "Linux" they think the only support is a bunch of stereotypically long haired guys living in their mom's basement angrily telling "newbs" to "RTFM" on a distro's community site. I don't think people realize that there are actually people who get paid to develop and support *nix, and it's the work that those companies do that comes down into the Open Source community.

The other thing is, people think small. When they're considering Linux as an alternative, it's because they want FREE. This is your SMB space. I don't know that the *nix flavors that cost money and come with support are really marketed to SMB at all. It's the Enterprise class environments in the bigger companies that pay the $$$ for support and SLA on *nix.

Anytime I've ever been asked to find an Open Source solution to anything, I always stop the person and ask "Ok, but what if it fails?". If you're asking me because you want something free, you're asking for the wrong reason. You don't use "freeware" Windows apps because if they break and you can't fix it yourself, you're screwed. So why would you want to do the same thing with Linux? Linux is great to run, but if it is a mission/business critical system, you MUST have vendor support.

For something you can't afford to have an outage on, you run Red Hat and NOT Fedora or CentOS. You run SuSE and NOT OpenSuse. You run Solaris and not OpenSolaris or OpenIndiana, etc... but those aren't free, so why run Linux if I'm not saving any money? Ok, run the free version, but now you have to pay someone who knows what they're doing pretty well to support it. Better make that at least 2 people, in case one of them "gets hit by a bus".

UnixGuy

yes I've seen this kind of attitude you're talking about but only in small enterprises. When there's a strict demand for uptime, scalability , and performance then the choices are narrowed down to real solutions with uptime time guarantees, and those solutions cost a good deal of money.

Everyone wrote: »

+1, the problem is, when a lot of people think of "Linux" they think the only support is a bunch of stereotypically long haired guys living in their mom's basement angrily telling "newbs" to "RTFM" on a distro's community site. I don't think people realize that there are actually people who get paid to develop and support *nix, and it's the work that those companies do that comes down into the Open Source community.

The other thing is, people think small. When they're considering Linux as an alternative, it's because they want FREE. This is your SMB space. I don't know that the *nix flavors that cost money and come with support are really marketed to SMB at all. It's the Enterprise class environments in the bigger companies that pay the $$$ for support and SLA on *nix.

Anytime I've ever been asked to find an Open Source solution to anything, I always stop the person and ask "Ok, but what if it fails?". If you're asking me because you want something free, you're asking for the wrong reason. You don't use "freeware" Windows apps because if they break and you can't fix it yourself, you're screwed. So why would you want to do the same thing with Linux? Linux is great to run, but if it is a mission/business critical system, you MUST have vendor support.

For something you can't afford to have an outage on, you run Red Hat and NOT Fedora or CentOS. You run SuSE and NOT OpenSuse. You run Solaris and not OpenSolaris or OpenIndiana, etc... but those aren't free, so why run Linux if I'm not saving any money? Ok, run the free version, but now you have to pay someone who knows what they're doing pretty well to support it. Better make that at least 2 people, in case one of them "gets hit by a bus".

demonfurbie

Linux servers work just fine | ZDNet

RobertKaucher

UnixGuy wrote: »

I agree with you on this, and I think the answer to all this is: support. Red Hat, Novel, HP, IBM, Oracle (SUN), are available everywhere in the world, with countless number of business partners ready for support with fancy SLAs.

Certainly you are correct. But the kind of company that gets your 20 something tech to come in and set up a Linux system like this because it's "free" is not likely going to really understand that or care to pay for support from IBM or even directly from Cisco. They are going to want another 20 something kid to come in and fix it. I think it's easier for companies like that to trust something with a name they recognize. And I know this was exactly your point, Bl&ck, but it goes deeper than just the admin. The client wants something with a brand they think they can trust. Linux has no brand and is even difficult to define. "What is Linux?" And that is great because it means it's flexible... But that is also a drawback at times.

Trust me; I'm in no way bashing Linux nor am I saying there are not support options out there. But when was the last time you ever heard Linux server administration and friendly or intuitive uttered in the same sentence? Linux is much less forgiving of errors by time strapped admins.

it_consultant

This guy has it right. Windows Servers and Linux Servers run just fine. Both have their little quirks, both have things they do really well, both have things they do poorly. I really like Server 2008 R2, I think it is the best Server OS I have ever used. The reality is thought, the latest Red Hat release is just as good to the people that use them.

Linux servers work just fine | ZDNet

Version4

I call these people "Clickers". "Clickers" are people that are afraid of the command line and the keyboard in general. "Clickers" don't want to research an issue, they want everything on the computer to "Just Work". That's fine, there isn't anything wrong with that, but don't complain to everyone on the Internet that you can't get your Linux server to work and then blame Linux for it.

PEBKAC

SteveLord

What's wrong with being a clicker? Machines are suppose to make my life easier. I don't need to spend days coding so I can pat myself on the back afterward if I don't want to.

Hell, let's all go back to DOS then.

RobertKaucher

it_consultant wrote: »

This guy has it right. Windows Servers and Linux Servers run just fine. Both have their little quirks, both have things they do really well, both have things they do poorly. I really like Server 2008 R2, I think it is the best Server OS I have ever used. The reality is thought, the latest Red Hat release is just as good to the people that use them.

Linux servers work just fine | ZDNet

I really do agree with this. The guy from the original article knew what he was doing was a bad practice - and how many of you recall the .NET 3.5 update that made the VSphere client just stop working because MS changed a method signature... ::rolls eyes::

But despite that guy's frustration I still think he's got a point - but it looks to me as though most of the people who are Linux admins are in relatively homogeneous environments; whereas I am in a kind of heterogeneous hell where I never know what some fresh-out-of-college dev is going to set up on the network and I'm going to have to deal with when it goes down. And I know this is an issue of polliciy that a small but widely distributed company like mine has to deal with - but it's a real issue. Linux makes dynamic, flexible and highly heterogeneous networks very easy and those can be a nightmare for a small team to admin and control. It's not that I think Linux is more complex that Windows it's that CentOS, Ubuntu, Mint, SlackWare, Fedora, OpenSUSE, Hannah Montana Linux (oh yeah I did!) are more complex than Windows. When you work in a place like mine where you can just give up trying to keep devs from integrating the newest pet technology into the network, *nix is a beast. Linux is an illusion. There is no Linux. It's Red Hat, Suse, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc and that is why it's great - but it's also why it's much harder.

erpadmin

SteveLord wrote: »

What's wrong with being a clicker? Machines are suppose to make my life easier. I don't need to spend days coding so I can pat myself on the back afterward if I don't want to.

Hell, let's all go back to DOS then.

Oh Steve....LOL. Sometimes I wish I could.

I look forward to dealing with Powershell when my AD gets upgraded to 2008 R2. We're gonna do some real automatation by the time that happens.

My first O/S was DOS 5.0...then I went to DOS 6.0, then DOS 6.2, then DOS 6.21...all the way to DOS 6.22 (deltree was a favorite command of mine, but now Del can do what deltree did with a couple of switches...still, it's not the same)

All of these non-arguments about how Windows sucks because you have to pay for it and Linux is so free is really that: a non-argument. I know you're pro-Windows, but even us "Clickers" (btw, I'm almost offended by that....lmao) have to go to start -> run -> CMD. Then again, I'm quite comfortable with that, because it forces me to retain the knowledge I gained 20 years ago.

While this thread remains civil, I've said it before and I'll say it again.

A lot of shops can't go Linux because a lot of applications don't run on it. I can get all the paid Red Hat, Novell, etc., support I want, but bottom line, it won't do a bit of good if an application that users want won't run on it.

Truth be told to, a lot of Windows Admins don't want to be that typical Linux admin....at some point in the tech game, no one gives a crap that you can get all l33t on a Linux box. Users just want a stable environment that has applications they pay for working for them. I'm not even knocking Linux...Unix is still a great O/S and that's what the chil'ens are learning in college when they study O/S theory for a CS degree. A lot of Oracle shops do use Linux. But Windows is what made a lot of us earn our bread.

Having said all of that...if my boss tells me that within a year, all of our servers have to go the Route of the Penguin...you can bet your bottom dollar I'll revamp my home server, get me a nice Ubuntu distro, and learn the crap out of it.

I'm terribly comfortable with the Linux CLI BECAUSE OF DOS! I just don't need to deal with Linux, because I've been fortunate enough to work in Microsoft shops. If we go Linux tomorrow, I'll be ok too. I do not even need a GUI to do my job, and have a lot of hotkeys memorized. (I can thank using WordPerfect 5.0 and 5.1 for that too... )

powerfool

I have done some pretty amazing things with Linux. I used to write guides on installing different systems... actually I wrote the most popular guide for install LAMP (Apache 1.3.x and PHP4 days) and it was cited by O'Reilly books. I have implemented a mult-site Samba domain backed with OpenLDAP and replication, and I we even implemented Bynari Insight Server so that we could use Outlook and essentially have Exchange-like functionality. All of it worked...

I would still rather do Windows for those tasks. Linux is great for various applications... but Active Directory is sweet... Exchange Server is sweet... heck, SQL Server is sweet (although I like MySQL, and I am fairly well versed in PostgreSQL... I helped test the Windows NT4 port back in the day). I definitely dig Apache over IIS, to this day... even though I know IIS very well and even have assisted in STIG clarification for IIS.

The move to the cloud, as predicted by others, may very well have a negative impact on Linux systems administrator demand. If I don't have know Linux, even if the systems are running on Linux, awareness will diminish. Plus, services like Office 365 make it possible to run Windows systems with low cost for entry and maintenance.

Linux is picking up in HPC, smartphones (Android), and other applications.

And let me say that I started off as an ant-M$ zealot hoping that OSX would become a viable desktop and that Linux could just be the server answer. I was sadly disappointed by OSX... and Windows Server has matured greatly... as have I.

UnixGuy

To get a linux/unix job to do that kind of setup, usually a minimum of 5+ years experience is needed. Actually, it's usually 10+ yrs of experience to be trusted in setting up a real unix production environment.

Also, the IT backbone of a respectful company shouldn't be a customized solution done by 20something because it's free. It is far from that. If you have a financial system or a billing system, you run it on Oracle, and you need an expensive software and Hardware and License and support and a REAL experienced administrators and engineers. Things are done as per best practices and they never depend on one person. Yes, someone might write a script to automate something, but that shouldn't be difficult to understand by an experienced professional.


Trying out "free" software on laptops, and installing Ubuntu for curiosity purposes is something, and running a serious business with real money is something else, I believe the author in ZDnet is confused.


Regarding Linux Administration and friendly...depends on how you define friendly, but I agree with you here, people seem to think that Unix/Linux administration is difficult because it's easier to get started with Windows. However, this is changing, specially with RedHat, CompTIA, Novel, SUN, Oracle, LPI, all are providing standard training classes BUT I definitely agree with you on this, there's a problem. Unix/Linux admins are expected to start SUPER experienced in order to be trusted with production environments, and that's not always advantageous for people wanting to learn or break into the field.

RobertKaucher wrote: »

Certainly you are correct. But the kind of company that gets your 20 something tech to come in and set up a Linux system like this because it's "free" is not likely going to really understand that or care to pay for support from IBM or even directly from Cisco. They are going to want another 20 something kid to come in and fix it. I think it's easier for companies like that to trust something with a name they recognize. And I know this was exactly your point, Bl&ck, but it goes deeper than just the admin. The client wants something with a brand they think they can trust. Linux has no brand and is even difficult to define. "What is Linux?" And that is great because it means it's flexible... But that is also a drawback at times.

Trust me; I'm in no way bashing Linux nor am I saying there are not support options out there. But when was the last time you ever heard Linux server administration and friendly or intuitive uttered in the same sentence? Linux is much less forgiving of errors by time strapped admins.

UnixGuy

I also think that setting up MS Exchange and Active Directory is better idea in many organizations. I wouldn't go with a UNIX based mail server and directory server unless there's a requirement that, especially that users run Windows on desktops/laptops. I noticed that UNIX based mail servers and Directory servers are mandatory in Military and many ISPs, and some Oil companies, but I would avoid it whenever possible.

However, for web hosting, I prefer APACHE/Tomcat and Java Webservers over IIS. MS is doing great in the desktop front, Exchange, and Active Directory. Other than that, I'd recommend UNIX to host any application on the server front.

powerfool wrote: »

I have done some pretty amazing things with Linux. I used to write guides on installing different systems... actually I wrote the most popular guide for install LAMP (Apache 1.3.x and PHP4 days) and it was cited by O'Reilly books. I have implemented a mult-site Samba domain backed with OpenLDAP and replication, and I we even implemented Bynari Insight Server so that we could use Outlook and essentially have Exchange-like functionality. All of it worked...

I would still rather do Windows for those tasks. Linux is great for various applications... but Active Directory is sweet... Exchange Server is sweet... heck, SQL Server is sweet (although I like MySQL, and I am fairly well versed in PostgreSQL... I helped test the Windows NT4 port back in the day). I definitely dig Apache over IIS, to this day... even though I know IIS very well and even have assisted in STIG clarification for IIS.

The move to the cloud, as predicted by others, may very well have a negative impact on Linux systems administrator demand. If I don't have know Linux, even if the systems are running on Linux, awareness will diminish. Plus, services like Office 365 make it possible to run Windows systems with low cost for entry and maintenance.

Linux is picking up in HPC, smartphones (Android), and other applications.

And let me say that I started off as an ant-M$ zealot hoping that OSX would become a viable desktop and that Linux could just be the server answer. I was sadly disappointed by OSX... and Windows Server has matured greatly... as have I.

stuh84

SteveLord wrote: »

What's wrong with being a clicker? Machines are suppose to make my life easier. I don't need to spend days coding so I can pat myself on the back afterward if I don't want to.

Hell, let's all go back to DOS then.

That time when you have a low bandwidth connection and need to log in quickly because of an issue, RDP taking ages to load isn't going to cut it. SSH in, do the quick fix, scarcely any bandwidth needed to do it.

Some people like the easy way, I like the best way. I couldn't care less if its Linux, Windows, Solaris, or a helper monkey bashing against a wall, so long as it gives the best output.

UnixGuy

The other good side of the cloud is that most service providers started to create their clouds, and the market is hot right now for experienced individuals. The major market players (Red Hat and Solaris) are both cloud ready. The virtualization they provide is excellent, and is in big demand now. Probably if a company has only one UNIX server then they're better off taking the service from a cloud or service provider, but other than that, I think the cloud created jobs and increased the demand so far.

powerfool wrote: »

....
The move to the cloud, as predicted by others, may very well have a negative impact on Linux systems administrator demand. If I don't have know Linux, even if the systems are running on Linux, awareness will diminish. Plus, services like Office 365 make it possible to run Windows systems with low cost for entry and maintenance.

...

ally_uk

I think the whole Windows vs Linux Argument is pointless, I choose to embrace and use both, I don't consider one to be better than the other, I have encountered in my career some hardcore Linux admins who look down on you if you merely mention the word windows, there response is Windows euuughhhhh yuck why would you want to use that? or something along those lines.

I find this mentality to be counter productive and stupid, especially when they back up there argument with rubbish answers like Windows has always been rubbish, yet they constantly bring up old windows flaws. From versions such as NT, 2000, etc,

What makes me smile is the amount of Linux people I have come across who dismiss Windows as being basic I have witnessed a few refuse to support Windows All together because it is rubbish? in reality the real reason is because they do not know how to they are a one trick pony and cannot adopt to the way of Microsoft thinking take away there BASH prompt and they crumble and spew some pointless rubbish argument about Windows sucks.

The guy in the article obviously ran into a few problems but this doesn't make Linux rubbish, it just means the guy hasn't done any sound research and maybe has bitten off more then he could chew?

Same applies to windows sure it's easy to tell a Server to be a Domain controller but you then have to do the research and understand other concepts such as Active Directory, Groups, Users , Permissions, OU's. And in a production environment without understanding more advanced concepts and understanding what to do when it goes **** up I wouldn't deploy.

The operating system isn't the flaw here it's carrying out tasks without firstly researching the results, i.e is it safe to roll these updates out? fundamentally something is going wrong for a reason that and the question is why is it? and in this case it's the end user, once a server is setup and configured properly especially with Linux you shouldn't have to touch it

RobertKaucher

stuh84 wrote: »

That time when you have a low bandwidth connection and need to log in quickly because of an issue, RDP taking ages to load isn't going to cut it. SSH in, do the quick fix, scarcely any bandwidth needed to do it.

Some people like the easy way, I like the best way. I couldn't care less if its Linux, Windows, Solaris, or a helper monkey bashing against a wall, so long as it gives the best output.

I wish PowerShell remoting were easier on Windows systems. This is certainly somewhere that Win servers are really lacking.

RobertKaucher

ally_uk wrote: »

The guy in the article obviously ran into a few problems but this doesn't make Linux rubbish, it just means the guy hasn't done any sound research and maybe has bitten off more then he could chew?

Before I even bother to respond to your post I am going to have to insist, yet again, that you update the Certifications section of your profile!!!

I think what you have said is really the heart of the problem and its really what we are discussing here. My personal opinion is that the problem with Linux is the same problem I see with SharePoint over and over again: it is introduced in an ad hoc manner and companies don't do the hard work of governance or even understand that they have to. I don't think anyone here believes Linux sucks or is hating on MS, and I don't think that's what the author was doing. He was venting about the issues he has in dealing with a growing heterogeneous environment that was escaping his control and ability to effectively manage it (likely due to a lack of strong IT policy regarding what could be deployed and how it could be deployed). He ended up with too many versions of too many different OpenSource distributions and that's just a recipe for disaster.

I think the fact is, if he was only dealing with CentOS or even just Ubuntu (or even OpenSUSE, it doesn't matter too much as long as it's well established) on his network he would have had a much easier time. And as others have pointed out it might have been even easier on hid had he stanardized on an Enterprise Linux such as Red Hat to gain the additional support. But Linux makes it so easy for that to happen...

jibbajabba

First think which came to mind when reading the thread title



Second, he got some valid points tbh. As for support - my experience with RedHat ? Pfff .. google gives better results tbh. Certainly not worth the money ...

UnixGuy

I worked for SUN global services supporting Solaris, and non of our customers had a problem that we couldn't solve. (they call us after Google fails to give the answer).

I think your support experience depends on your local support staff. Personally I have experience with Red Hat support, However I can tell you that more service providers are getting partnership with Red Hat, so support teams will keep getting better. The support is different between partners, that's my experience.

jibbajabba wrote: »

First think which came to mind when reading the thread title



Second, he got some valid points tbh. As for support - my experience with RedHat ? Pfff .. google gives better results tbh. Certainly not worth the money ...