Linux vs Win03 Server
-
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.
"Ordinarily, I'd have acceded to his request, but I didn't like the way he spoke it." Godfrey de Ibelin, Kingdom of Heaven I can't put my finger on it, but something in your tone struck me as derogatory and offensive...and I wasn't even the target. Content is important, but the proper package insures the proper interpretation.
-
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.
I have to agree with cpkilekofp, it might not've been your intent; but you came off sounding like a trolling penguin.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
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.
Dave Buhl wrote:
there are a ton of tools out there that help you manage a Windows network, without ever actually logging in to a specific box.
For the next time I find myself taking flak from penguins, is there a windows equivalent of SSH on a phone for general remote server thumping?
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
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.
I'd agree that it is a somewhat odd comparison: as a fair few people have commented, the time to install and configure a system is not particularly relevant; and whatever the choice of OS, a production system would surely be set up by someone experienced in managing servers running that OS.
Bit-Smacker wrote:
n 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 this point, I'm afraid that I lose you. A budget off-the-shelf windows desktop will also come with a customised installation image, with any necessary drivers embedded, and at the same time, if you buy a server without a Windows license, it wouldn't come with such media - that doesn't make the server cheap or of poor quality.
-
Dave Buhl wrote:
there are a ton of tools out there that help you manage a Windows network, without ever actually logging in to a specific box.
For the next time I find myself taking flak from penguins, is there a windows equivalent of SSH on a phone for general remote server thumping?
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
There are RDP clients for Windows Mobile and iPhone - I don't know of anything for smartphones in general in the way that SSH clients (esp. PuTTy) are. Granted RDP is higher level than SSH, but a Linux system that has dropped to busybox won't be accessible via SSH either.
-
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 summary response to the various comments: The comments that this was a review of the installation process are valid. I didn’t intend for it to be anything else, but perhaps I should have been clearer. In fact it was not really intended to be a review – just a report on my experience. I take issue with the comment that the length of time an install takes is not relevant just because it is a server. Others may not value their time, but I do. I could be doing other things. Once running, the server is run headless and only touched if there is a problem. Which is a good reason for making things simple; the skills fade away between sessions. I am not sure I agree with the comment that Win03 is 5 yrs old and Linux is new. Linux has been around for more than 5 yrs, this is just the latest version. Win2003 SR3 was the latest available until a few months ago, plus it is newer than the boxes. Win 2003 SR3 was used instead of the original Dell disk to avoid having to do all the Windows updates. The install was on a pair of identical 4 yr old Dell server boxes. Linux was able to install compatible drivers, why couldn’t Windows? Win2008 was not available and not desired since I plan to skip the Vista code base OS’s. The Vista code base is simply not yet compelling enough to cause us to switch. Installing Linux is a trial to see if it is compelling enough to cause us to switch. Ubuntu was chosen because we are starting to use it on desktops and wanted/hoped to maintain some commonality. Ubuntu Server version was chosen because it is optimized for the server role. I knew it did not have a full GUI, and that was OK. What I had not anticipated was a complete lack of admin tools and having to spend hours on the internet to figure out what needed to be done. I started on computers back in the day of unix style commands input by paper tape, card deck or teletype keyboards (EAI6600 and PDP10). So editing ini files etc is not a problem, it was the total lack of information that I found unhelpful. It reminded me of the first time I turned on my Apple II and it just blinked its curser at me. In today’s computing environment, having to do that level of mucking around in an unfamiliar environment is old school. Including a few admin tools and/or batch file menus would make all the difference in the world for a first time install. As always, these are my views – not intended to be definitive or to apply to any other situation! :-D
Melting Away www.deals-house.com www.innovative--conc
-
I'd agree that it is a somewhat odd comparison: as a fair few people have commented, the time to install and configure a system is not particularly relevant; and whatever the choice of OS, a production system would surely be set up by someone experienced in managing servers running that OS.
Bit-Smacker wrote:
n 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 this point, I'm afraid that I lose you. A budget off-the-shelf windows desktop will also come with a customised installation image, with any necessary drivers embedded, and at the same time, if you buy a server without a Windows license, it wouldn't come with such media - that doesn't make the server cheap or of poor quality.
To my original point, why would you be running a $500-$800 per license OS on a "budget off-the-shelf windows desktop"? Curiosity and testing may be one reason and you will suffer the consequences of that decision when trying to find low-end device drivers for an OS that is desined to run on enterprise-level hardware. You would not do that in a production environment if you are serious about your work. As for the installation media, you can download the HP Smart Start CD ISO image for free from HP's web site. I'm sure that IBM and Dell have similar server build tools that are available for free download as well. Most companies that are serious about making money will choose from those three server brands due to their track record of reliability and support. Small companies may experiment with generic/off-brand "servers", but they will most definitely have a bad experience in the long run.
-
To my original point, why would you be running a $500-$800 per license OS on a "budget off-the-shelf windows desktop"? Curiosity and testing may be one reason and you will suffer the consequences of that decision when trying to find low-end device drivers for an OS that is desined to run on enterprise-level hardware. You would not do that in a production environment if you are serious about your work. As for the installation media, you can download the HP Smart Start CD ISO image for free from HP's web site. I'm sure that IBM and Dell have similar server build tools that are available for free download as well. Most companies that are serious about making money will choose from those three server brands due to their track record of reliability and support. Small companies may experiment with generic/off-brand "servers", but they will most definitely have a bad experience in the long run.
Bit-Smacker wrote:
o my original point, why would you be running a $500-$800 per license OS on a "budget off-the-shelf windows desktop"?
My apologies for being vague! My point was that the equivalent slipstreaming is done for XP/Vista/Windows 7 desktops as it is for the server images - that is that extended installation images are not a premium feature. Further, especially given that the tools to create them are available at no extra charge, one would expect deployments on any scale to have an in-house image to use.
Bit-Smacker wrote:
Most companies that are serious about making money will choose from those three server brands due to their track record of reliability and support.
True enough. Not all though - the Intel server platform is certainly a high end offering, with an excellent track record, and so is Sun - but they are sold with no OS/Solaris/Linux, not Windows.
-
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
Whats better, apples or oranges? I'm pretty sure it's apples, no wait, I think it's oranges. My personal take is that systems are getting so fast and efficient that it honestly comes down to what you like and want to work with. I've got an ubuntu virtual host that runs windows servers, and that works fine for me, but may not for the next guy.
ASP.Net meets JQuery... Imagine the possibilities.
-
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