Linux vs Win03 Server
-
That is fast and the one I really like. CentOS is also another wicked cool example of speed.
If the post was helpful, please vote!
Current activities:
- Book: Foundation by Isaac Asimov
- Project: Hospital Automation, final stage
- Learning: Image analysis, LINQ
Now and forever, defiant to the end.
What is Multiple Sclerosis[^]?
-
I just had an opportunity to do back to back installs of Ubuntu 9 server and a Corporate version of Win 2003 server. I have been generally vocal against Linux, so I thought I would comment on this comparison. The quick summary is I was very pleased with how easy Linux installed compared to Windows. But it broke down at that point into a frustrating cross between "dos" and strange (to me) GUI. Once things were running, both machines seem to be comparable in performance. More detail: Win2003 took at least twice as long to do the basic install. But that was just the start. None of the device drivers installed by default. Had to go on line using a different computer, download the drivers, burn a CD and then install the drivers with a couple re-boots in the process. After finally getting on line, I still had to download and install Mysql, php, etc. The Linux install was quick, asked most of its questions upfront, and it installed everything, including PHP, Mysql and drivers. The only thing missing (in my opinion) was a GUI and admin tools. The bad part came while adding additional utilities such as the GUI and admin, etc. These tasks required typing long strings of seemingly random text. I was searching the web for instructions on a seperate computer and therefore could not copy and paste. It took me multiple tries to get the syntax correct. If the Linux guys manage to get the middle steps cleaned up, I think Linux could stand a good chance of going after Windows.
Melting Away www.deals-house.com www.innovative--concepts.com
How is this in anyway a fair comparison. Comparing a new os with an very very old 5 year os. If you want a fair comparison try windows server 2008, which improved on all the points you mentioned against win2k3. I'm just saying, you're suddenly praising linux because a newer os is easier to install then an aging one :omg:
-
How is this in anyway a fair comparison. Comparing a new os with an very very old 5 year os. If you want a fair comparison try windows server 2008, which improved on all the points you mentioned against win2k3. I'm just saying, you're suddenly praising linux because a newer os is easier to install then an aging one :omg:
And besides, this is a strange comparison. It is not a comparison between Linux and Windows 2003. It is a comparison between installation procedures, which is done once a month (for testing purposes) at most where I work. What does it matter if it takes hour or day from IT staff? What matters is a) does it handle the load b) is it stable.
-
And besides, this is a strange comparison. It is not a comparison between Linux and Windows 2003. It is a comparison between installation procedures, which is done once a month (for testing purposes) at most where I work. What does it matter if it takes hour or day from IT staff? What matters is a) does it handle the load b) is it stable.
weicco_ wrote:
is it stable.
You really need a stability test of any *nix versus any Windows?
To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities.
-
weicco_ wrote:
is it stable.
You really need a stability test of any *nix versus any Windows?
To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities.
No, I don't. Every Windows server I've seen has been stable. Well except for one, which unfortunately had a broken version of F-Secure AV software which BSODed every time I tried to copy files over RDP.
-
No, I don't. Every Windows server I've seen has been stable. Well except for one, which unfortunately had a broken version of F-Secure AV software which BSODed every time I tried to copy files over RDP.
weicco_ wrote:
Every Windows server I've seen has been stable.
And.. how many *nix servers have you seen? Please don't say none, that would void your comments completly. Oh, and please, don't count the ones you tried for a couple of minutes only, too.
weicco_ wrote:
which unfortunately had a broken version of F-Secure AV software which BSODed every time I tried to copy files over RDP.
So... the *stable* OS let a petty little AV to crash the whole system while trying to copy files. And, as we all know, copying files is very complex and an unusual operation. You're right, that's stability at its finest.
To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities.
-
weicco_ wrote:
Every Windows server I've seen has been stable.
And.. how many *nix servers have you seen? Please don't say none, that would void your comments completly. Oh, and please, don't count the ones you tried for a couple of minutes only, too.
weicco_ wrote:
which unfortunately had a broken version of F-Secure AV software which BSODed every time I tried to copy files over RDP.
So... the *stable* OS let a petty little AV to crash the whole system while trying to copy files. And, as we all know, copying files is very complex and an unusual operation. You're right, that's stability at its finest.
To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities.
"So... the *stable* OS let a petty little AV to crash the whole system " I've yet to see OS which survives from crashing kernel driver. Well, maybe some micro-kernel system could. I don't really understand your attack. Did I say somewhere that $YOUR_FAVORITE_OS is buggy or bad compared to Windows? No, I didn't. I said that the comparison (which is the topic here) is odd.
-
weicco_ wrote:
Every Windows server I've seen has been stable.
And.. how many *nix servers have you seen? Please don't say none, that would void your comments completly. Oh, and please, don't count the ones you tried for a couple of minutes only, too.
weicco_ wrote:
which unfortunately had a broken version of F-Secure AV software which BSODed every time I tried to copy files over RDP.
So... the *stable* OS let a petty little AV to crash the whole system while trying to copy files. And, as we all know, copying files is very complex and an unusual operation. You're right, that's stability at its finest.
To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities.
Uhm, you *do* know that under windows most AVs (without any reason other than being badly written) use kernel hooks or kernel mode drivers to install and run their crap. So yes, They Can bring down the os, must like any other os would go down having it's kernel voilated. So I seem to miss your point, other than being a fanboy.
-
"So... the *stable* OS let a petty little AV to crash the whole system " I've yet to see OS which survives from crashing kernel driver. Well, maybe some micro-kernel system could. I don't really understand your attack. Did I say somewhere that $YOUR_FAVORITE_OS is buggy or bad compared to Windows? No, I didn't. I said that the comparison (which is the topic here) is odd.
weicco_ wrote:
I don't really understand your attack.
Why do you see a disagreement as an attack? The topic here was a comparison between a Linux server and a Windows server.Actually... the installation process of those two. You made a comparison on stability basis. I think that's an odd comparison. I don't know why you got that so personally?
To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities.
-
weicco_ wrote:
I don't really understand your attack.
Why do you see a disagreement as an attack? The topic here was a comparison between a Linux server and a Windows server.Actually... the installation process of those two. You made a comparison on stability basis. I think that's an odd comparison. I don't know why you got that so personally?
To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities.
Oh. Well then I apoligize. English isn't my first language and its possible that I misjudged you :) But my point still stands. Installation is not the crucial part of server comparison, except if it totally fails, IMHO. Desktop installation would be totally different thing, there installation procedure is something that Just Must Work.
-
And besides, this is a strange comparison. It is not a comparison between Linux and Windows 2003. It is a comparison between installation procedures, which is done once a month (for testing purposes) at most where I work. What does it matter if it takes hour or day from IT staff? What matters is a) does it handle the load b) is it stable.
weicco_ wrote:
And besides, this is a strange comparison. It is not a comparison between Linux and Windows 2003. It is a comparison between installation procedures
I'd even get a step ahead and say it's a comparaison between GUIs... But GUI is not what interests me in regard to servers. Sure it makes the sysadmin's life easier, but it doesn't improve anything in regard to reliability/availability/security and TCO... I wouldn't choose Ubuntu 9.0 for a server just because of a beautiful graphical control panel, that wouldn't be the criteria. And as somebody pointed out, Linux is an alternative to Windows, but there are also alternatives to Linux for reliable servers (i.e. FreeBSD, NetBSD)... Eric PS: btw, "clik-clik" GUI for server systems, like introduced by WinNT is also what allowed total newbie in servers and networking to self proclaim Sysadmins and to do weird things without understanding what they were doing...
modified on Friday, April 24, 2009 11:16 AM
-
I just had an opportunity to do back to back installs of Ubuntu 9 server and a Corporate version of Win 2003 server. I have been generally vocal against Linux, so I thought I would comment on this comparison. The quick summary is I was very pleased with how easy Linux installed compared to Windows. But it broke down at that point into a frustrating cross between "dos" and strange (to me) GUI. Once things were running, both machines seem to be comparable in performance. More detail: Win2003 took at least twice as long to do the basic install. But that was just the start. None of the device drivers installed by default. Had to go on line using a different computer, download the drivers, burn a CD and then install the drivers with a couple re-boots in the process. After finally getting on line, I still had to download and install Mysql, php, etc. The Linux install was quick, asked most of its questions upfront, and it installed everything, including PHP, Mysql and drivers. The only thing missing (in my opinion) was a GUI and admin tools. The bad part came while adding additional utilities such as the GUI and admin, etc. These tasks required typing long strings of seemingly random text. I was searching the web for instructions on a seperate computer and therefore could not copy and paste. It took me multiple tries to get the syntax correct. If the Linux guys manage to get the middle steps cleaned up, I think Linux could stand a good chance of going after Windows.
Melting Away www.deals-house.com www.innovative--concepts.com
If you're trying linux you should look at fedora. Ubuntu Confused the hell out of me at first. Whereas fedora was a breeze. Excellent installer and tidy filesystem afterwards. If you want a quick look see: http://www.howtoforge.com/perfect-server-fedora-10[^]
-
I just had an opportunity to do back to back installs of Ubuntu 9 server and a Corporate version of Win 2003 server. I have been generally vocal against Linux, so I thought I would comment on this comparison. The quick summary is I was very pleased with how easy Linux installed compared to Windows. But it broke down at that point into a frustrating cross between "dos" and strange (to me) GUI. Once things were running, both machines seem to be comparable in performance. More detail: Win2003 took at least twice as long to do the basic install. But that was just the start. None of the device drivers installed by default. Had to go on line using a different computer, download the drivers, burn a CD and then install the drivers with a couple re-boots in the process. After finally getting on line, I still had to download and install Mysql, php, etc. The Linux install was quick, asked most of its questions upfront, and it installed everything, including PHP, Mysql and drivers. The only thing missing (in my opinion) was a GUI and admin tools. The bad part came while adding additional utilities such as the GUI and admin, etc. These tasks required typing long strings of seemingly random text. I was searching the web for instructions on a seperate computer and therefore could not copy and paste. It took me multiple tries to get the syntax correct. If the Linux guys manage to get the middle steps cleaned up, I think Linux could stand a good chance of going after Windows.
Melting Away www.deals-house.com www.innovative--concepts.com
-
I just had an opportunity to do back to back installs of Ubuntu 9 server and a Corporate version of Win 2003 server. I have been generally vocal against Linux, so I thought I would comment on this comparison. The quick summary is I was very pleased with how easy Linux installed compared to Windows. But it broke down at that point into a frustrating cross between "dos" and strange (to me) GUI. Once things were running, both machines seem to be comparable in performance. More detail: Win2003 took at least twice as long to do the basic install. But that was just the start. None of the device drivers installed by default. Had to go on line using a different computer, download the drivers, burn a CD and then install the drivers with a couple re-boots in the process. After finally getting on line, I still had to download and install Mysql, php, etc. The Linux install was quick, asked most of its questions upfront, and it installed everything, including PHP, Mysql and drivers. The only thing missing (in my opinion) was a GUI and admin tools. The bad part came while adding additional utilities such as the GUI and admin, etc. These tasks required typing long strings of seemingly random text. I was searching the web for instructions on a seperate computer and therefore could not copy and paste. It took me multiple tries to get the syntax correct. If the Linux guys manage to get the middle steps cleaned up, I think Linux could stand a good chance of going after Windows.
Melting Away www.deals-house.com www.innovative--concepts.com
A couple things to those statements. Please don't take any of it as any sort of attack, just pointing out some things that you probably know, but others reading along might not.
Snowman58 wrote:
The only thing missing (in my opinion) was a GUI and admin tools.
Obviously, that was by design. Why install a GUI if it won't be used? Depending on the use of the server, you may never work with the box directly (i.e. as a web server or something). In my opinion (as well as yours) it's a bit of a no-brainer that at some point someone is going to need to set things up and would find a GUI easier, but if you know the proper commands, etc., you can probably set it up quicker using a keyboard than a mouse in most situations.
Snowman58 wrote:
These tasks required typing long strings of seemingly random text.
Those strings seem random to someone who is not familiar with them. If you had never used Windows or Linux before you'd never know the difference between those or a DOS command, such as, say, "Dir /ad /s" (short and simple, I know, but I couldn't think of a good example). My point is, the strings were obviously not random strings, you just didn't have the background knowledge to understand why they were what they were. If you keep playing with it, one day I suspect you'll understand what your typing, which leads to less failed attempts to type them in.
Snowman58 wrote:
If the Linux guys manage to get the middle steps cleaned up, I think Linux could stand a good chance of going after Windows.
I think they are really already there in every way except with the drivers. One big one is the NVIDIA line of video cards. Right out of the box my laptop worked at its maximum resolution in Ubuntu (8.4 or 9.x, I don't remember which one it is now), but I had to reinstall it a couple of times (probably from my own ignorance) after trying to use the NVIDIA supplied drivers so I could use the 3D acceleration. There is already enough software for the business side of things, if you can just find it, but I don't know that it'll take off until it takes off in the home market, which I think will require more easily accessible titles. Being available online (from the built-in package manager even) is great, but until people start seeing software in Walmart and the like, they just don't know what's out there. Especially I think they need more games. If someone like EA
-
weicco_ wrote:
is it stable.
You really need a stability test of any *nix versus any Windows?
To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities.
We've been really happy with our 18 Win2003 servers. The last lockup I can remember was due to all of the hard drives pooping out at the same time; and that was not the fault of Windows. Occasionally, we have small issues with Windows updates. But, those amount to annoyances and not downtime.
-
I just had an opportunity to do back to back installs of Ubuntu 9 server and a Corporate version of Win 2003 server. I have been generally vocal against Linux, so I thought I would comment on this comparison. The quick summary is I was very pleased with how easy Linux installed compared to Windows. But it broke down at that point into a frustrating cross between "dos" and strange (to me) GUI. Once things were running, both machines seem to be comparable in performance. More detail: Win2003 took at least twice as long to do the basic install. But that was just the start. None of the device drivers installed by default. Had to go on line using a different computer, download the drivers, burn a CD and then install the drivers with a couple re-boots in the process. After finally getting on line, I still had to download and install Mysql, php, etc. The Linux install was quick, asked most of its questions upfront, and it installed everything, including PHP, Mysql and drivers. The only thing missing (in my opinion) was a GUI and admin tools. The bad part came while adding additional utilities such as the GUI and admin, etc. These tasks required typing long strings of seemingly random text. I was searching the web for instructions on a seperate computer and therefore could not copy and paste. It took me multiple tries to get the syntax correct. If the Linux guys manage to get the middle steps cleaned up, I think Linux could stand a good chance of going after Windows.
Melting Away www.deals-house.com www.innovative--concepts.com
I walked this road five years ago. I had the same experience and I know how frustrating it is. At that time it was Debian vs Win2003. Installation and setup of Debian was not as nice at it is now. My results showed that Linux was more benefitial, optimised and better that Win2003 for my server, for what I wanted. Main keys: Faster startup & shutdown (No GUI loading). Easy to conrol and monitor (WEBMIN). More secure: No need for antivirus. Faster: again no antivirus or other strange services running in background Faster transfers.(Still don't know why, but 20% faster). More stable. Crash of one program does not afect whole system. Cheaper: £0 compare to (what it was at that time). Minus: Only PostScipt (PS) type printers, like HP. To be fair: It all depends on what you want. All I needed is small black box in the corner that does its thing... NO monitor mouse or keyboard... for the same things as you: PHP, MySQL.. Well maybe some e-mail fetching and proxy. If you want GUI - say so in the beginning. For what you want GUI will only be in the way. Besides there are great tools to monitor and control your Linux box via Browser, like WEBMIN: http://www.webmin.com/[^] Give it a try... and good luck. Personal opinion: I don't care if it's Win or *nix. I feel comfortable using both.
-
I just had an opportunity to do back to back installs of Ubuntu 9 server and a Corporate version of Win 2003 server. I have been generally vocal against Linux, so I thought I would comment on this comparison. The quick summary is I was very pleased with how easy Linux installed compared to Windows. But it broke down at that point into a frustrating cross between "dos" and strange (to me) GUI. Once things were running, both machines seem to be comparable in performance. More detail: Win2003 took at least twice as long to do the basic install. But that was just the start. None of the device drivers installed by default. Had to go on line using a different computer, download the drivers, burn a CD and then install the drivers with a couple re-boots in the process. After finally getting on line, I still had to download and install Mysql, php, etc. The Linux install was quick, asked most of its questions upfront, and it installed everything, including PHP, Mysql and drivers. The only thing missing (in my opinion) was a GUI and admin tools. The bad part came while adding additional utilities such as the GUI and admin, etc. These tasks required typing long strings of seemingly random text. I was searching the web for instructions on a seperate computer and therefore could not copy and paste. It took me multiple tries to get the syntax correct. If the Linux guys manage to get the middle steps cleaned up, I think Linux could stand a good chance of going after Windows.
Melting Away www.deals-house.com www.innovative--concepts.com
Hi Snowman58, In the last year or so I've been working more and more with Ubuntu servers at work, doing various tasks. I've found that there are a lot of people out there who have very usefull tutorials and walk throughs, especially for Ubuntu, which is great! But you are right, typing in those long strings can be painful when you mis-type them. One thing that I have done which helped me is to install OpenSSh on the Ubuntu server (sudo apt-get install openssh-server openssh-client). I then connect from my desktop via PUTTy, and cut and paste the commands from the walk throughs simply by right clicking into the PUTTy window. I hope this helps and makes things a little easier for you. Regards, Tim.
TimmyFox
-
I just had an opportunity to do back to back installs of Ubuntu 9 server and a Corporate version of Win 2003 server. I have been generally vocal against Linux, so I thought I would comment on this comparison. The quick summary is I was very pleased with how easy Linux installed compared to Windows. But it broke down at that point into a frustrating cross between "dos" and strange (to me) GUI. Once things were running, both machines seem to be comparable in performance. More detail: Win2003 took at least twice as long to do the basic install. But that was just the start. None of the device drivers installed by default. Had to go on line using a different computer, download the drivers, burn a CD and then install the drivers with a couple re-boots in the process. After finally getting on line, I still had to download and install Mysql, php, etc. The Linux install was quick, asked most of its questions upfront, and it installed everything, including PHP, Mysql and drivers. The only thing missing (in my opinion) was a GUI and admin tools. The bad part came while adding additional utilities such as the GUI and admin, etc. These tasks required typing long strings of seemingly random text. I was searching the web for instructions on a seperate computer and therefore could not copy and paste. It took me multiple tries to get the syntax correct. If the Linux guys manage to get the middle steps cleaned up, I think Linux could stand a good chance of going after Windows.
Melting Away www.deals-house.com www.innovative--concepts.com
Since I didn't see someone make the suggestion, you may want to try downloading the Desktop edition of Ubuntu (since it has the GUI by default) and adding the server portions. Either way, you're not going to find it is as simple to set up as Windows Server (although the driver issue was odd, as I've only run into one or two drivers on either system that wouldn't install). Also, as someone else suggested, definitely try out Windows Server 2008. It's a huge improvement compared to 2003 (heck, I've even been running it as my OS on my development computer).
-
I just had an opportunity to do back to back installs of Ubuntu 9 server and a Corporate version of Win 2003 server. I have been generally vocal against Linux, so I thought I would comment on this comparison. The quick summary is I was very pleased with how easy Linux installed compared to Windows. But it broke down at that point into a frustrating cross between "dos" and strange (to me) GUI. Once things were running, both machines seem to be comparable in performance. More detail: Win2003 took at least twice as long to do the basic install. But that was just the start. None of the device drivers installed by default. Had to go on line using a different computer, download the drivers, burn a CD and then install the drivers with a couple re-boots in the process. After finally getting on line, I still had to download and install Mysql, php, etc. The Linux install was quick, asked most of its questions upfront, and it installed everything, including PHP, Mysql and drivers. The only thing missing (in my opinion) was a GUI and admin tools. The bad part came while adding additional utilities such as the GUI and admin, etc. These tasks required typing long strings of seemingly random text. I was searching the web for instructions on a seperate computer and therefore could not copy and paste. It took me multiple tries to get the syntax correct. If the Linux guys manage to get the middle steps cleaned up, I think Linux could stand a good chance of going after Windows.
Melting Away www.deals-house.com www.innovative--concepts.com
No attacks on anyone or anyone's favorite OS intended, inferred, or implied in the following. :) I have managed large, medium, and small data centers. Utilized Mainframe computers, Solaris, IBM AIX, Sun OS (deprecated), Various Linux versions, and Windows Servers from NT to 2008. Never used BSD although I have heard good things about it. Each OS was very good in its own right, and was chosen by folks who looked at what it was to be used for before choosing the OS for the application. I would say that each version of Windows Server has become increasingly stable and easier to install. I would also say that I have never had a Server crash on me based on something the OS did, it has always been third party software that hooked the kernel and crashed the system or a piece of hardware that failed. And I don't care how big a fanboy of any OS you are, that will take an OS to its knees and there is nothing you can do but fix the problem and get going again. As for not bundling applications, I don't think you can blame Microsoft for not bundling third party apps with their OS when they get sued continuously for having included their own applications (IE just to mention one) with the install. I'm not sure how many folks take advantage of the ability, but all versions of windows os allow you to slipstream in third party drivers to the image making the install go a bit faster and smoother. The first thing we always did was to check the hardware of the box and slipstream in the latest service packs and drivers prior to beginning the installation. Someone mentioned not needing anti virus on linux, I think that is a bad idea. Malware is out there for *NIX, just not as prevalant since it is easier to attack the client than the server in many cases. If someone is determined enough, they will get in no matter what you try to do to stop them. The only truly secure computer is one that has its power cord unplugged and no battery installed, and then maybe... Ease of use, I am really ambivilant. I can get a lot done from the command line very quickly. The GUI gets in the way in a lot of cases. It does make it easier to get a newbie up and productive for sure but it also means some "Expert Sysadmins" really aren't because they don't understand what is really going on when the click on a few buttons and the save changes. If you ever have to go through the process from the command line step by step you have a whole new appreciation of what is happening. This also helps you troubleshoot when things go wrong.
-
How is this in anyway a fair comparison. Comparing a new os with an very very old 5 year os. If you want a fair comparison try windows server 2008, which improved on all the points you mentioned against win2k3. I'm just saying, you're suddenly praising linux because a newer os is easier to install then an aging one :omg:
PhyxZ3R0 wrote:
How is this in anyway a fair comparison. Comparing a new os with an very very old 5 year os. If you want a fair comparison try windows server 2008, which improved on all the points you mentioned against win2k3.
That exactly what I was thinking while reading that reply. However, I'm assuming that he installed it on a generic PC instead of a real server. In the case of HP servers, you use a Smart Start CD which embeds all required drivers for the specific hardware and selected OS into the installation source before the installation even starts. NOBODY does a raw Windows installation in a corporate environment unless they're using cheap hardware. At that point, I would recommend Linux, since they're obviously too cheap to afford the Windows Server license to go with that junk PC wannabe server.