[LUG] Linux vs Windows as a server.

Thu Mar 19 08:23:26 PDT 2009

I could not agree less. Windows is great. it's come a long ways over the years. It's also incredibly expensive, the licensing is complicated and restrictive. More reliable than Linux? I don't think so. I've been doing systems admin since 1997 on both Linux and Windows. I've built and managed hundreds of servers over the years and I can say both OS types have come a long way and both have strengths and weaknesses. 

RHEL and thus CentOS are very reliable. If you're not familiar with or comfortable with Linux, then yes your cost to maintain is going to be high until you get to know it. Once you get to know it, it's really a moot point. If you use a good stable enterprise quality version of Linux, and you buy or build quality PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby... whatever to do your work... then you'll probably experience good results. 

Is a BMW more reliable than a Chevy? 

Mickael Maddison 
SilverServers Inc. 
www.SilverServers.com 
888-569-4192 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Justin G." <justin at ocis.net> 
To: lug at lug.kamloops.net 
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:03:28 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
Subject: Re: [LUG] Linux vs Windows as a server. 

Hello Drew, 

I'm glad you asked this question. Since I started at OCIS back in 2007, I've been pushing for us to migrate from our open source (Linux & FreeBSD) platform to a closed-source Windows based environment. 

The truth about the matter is that Linux (and other open source) simply isn't ready for high-availability environments. It doesn't have the stability, security, or robustness that a Windows Server can provide. 

I'm subscribed to Bugtraq, and not a day goes by where I don't see a few new zero-day Linux exploits fly across the list. And this is a syndrome limited not in any small part to Linux or FreeBSD. The software coded for these operating systems, including most of the major applications (apache, samba, proftpd, openssh, bind, etc etc) are coded in no small part by amateur developers who just finished reading their first book on programming: Linux Programming by Example (by Kurt Wall). They are in no way qualified to be doing development on these applications and their contributions being committed to the release versions of this software ends up compromising the quality and security of the software, and, in the end, your server. 

Windows Server is coded by some of the best software engineers in the world. The newest version is built on the rock-solid Vista kernel and has an excellent trackrecord in high-availability, high-security environments. 

Many (most, in fact) of the biggest sites on the Internet rely on Windows Server technology to serve their webpages, build their internal intranets, and even on their backend. The application programming languages (and scripting languages) are much more tried and true. That is, ASP (and the .NET platform in general) is far superior to common open source scripting languages like PHP and Perl. 

I understand that many of the things I've said are not relevant to your particular applications, but they are indicative of a more mature, better designed platform, and I think that's what you need to hear. 

In the end, you might save yourself some licensing costs with Linux, but the cost of upkeep will wind up being much greater. With Windows Server, you can set it up and essentially forget it. Updates can all be automated and you don't have to worry about anything. With Linux, you need a trained, knowledgeable systems administrator and each and every thing you do ( for example, applying an update ) requires much work and simply never boils down to becoming an easy process. 

As for me, I'm continuing tirelessly in my campaign to convert my employer, On Call Internet Services, from an open-source platform to a Windows Server platform. Historically, management and the techies have been weary, but I think I'm finally starting to gain some ground as we see much of our Linux and open source equipment become harder and harder to maintain. 

I'm sure everyone else here will disagree with me (this is a Linux Users Group afterall) but you need to consider the real world when applying systems in the real world. Simply put, Linux (and other open source) simply isn't used in the real world. That is not to say that it won't be eventually, as the operating system and the software on it matures, but that time is not now. 

I hope I've been of some assistance to you. Best of luck in your endeavors. 

Justin G. 
On Call Internet Services 

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Drew < drew.kay at gmail.com > wrote: 

Hi Everyone, 

Disclaimer: I'm not sure what each lists policy is about accepting 
cross posted questions so if I'm stepping on some toes I apologize in 
advance. Also I'm not trying to start a OS war, merely get some 
objective opinions from IT people who have worked both sides of the 
fence. 

I'm in the process of determining the best way to migrate a small 
business away from workgroup/peer based file & print sharing to a 
centralized server based model. I have four offices to convert and I'm 
trying to decide whether to use Windows Server 200x or Linux (based 
around RHEL/CentOS or Debian) operating systems for the servers. 

What I ultimately envision is a setup whereby each office has it's own 
file/print server that operates in an isolated fashion except for 
login credentials which are shared across the entire system. The only 
time the machines would transfer any bulk of data between themselves 
would be during nightly backups. I see this being some sort of 
rsync-like behavior mirroring the data on each branch server to the 
main server at head office, from which backups to media are made. 

The only other major technical constraint is the client machines must 
remain windows machines so any *nix specific protocols that can't be 
transparently buried in windows are out of the question. 

So with that in mind, aside from cost, what are the pro & con's of 
each OS in the application? 

-- 
Drew 

"Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood." 
--Marie Curie 

_______________________________________________ 
LUG mailing list 
LUG at lug.kamloops.net 
http://lug.kamloops.net/mailman/listinfo/lug_lug.kamloops.net 

_______________________________________________ LUG mailing list LUG at lug.kamloops.net http://lug.kamloops.net/mailman/listinfo/lug_lug.kamloops.net 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lug.kamloops.net/pipermail/lug_lug.kamloops.net/attachments/20090319/ea2b1e20/attachment-0001.htm>