Windows vs Linux

[scott_417]

In general the Linux gets more embrace than the windows (2003). I would like to dig a little further in regarding to this issue.

As an operating system for server, if I choose the Windows 2003 standard edition, just for its user familiar and friendly, and lots plug and play features, and less technical skill/training needed, please share your view, opinion and comments on the following:

1) The performance, reliability, and security of using the Windows 2003 for a server (web or database)?

2) Is the Linux really "that" good?

Many thanks to help.

Scott

[Ivan Ferreira]

Hi Scott, I am RHCE and MCSA, so i will be pretty fair.

I like windows for some services, and linux for others.

Windows is good for domain controller, because of the group policies, active directory, etc. Windows is a lot more friendly.

But, when talking about a database or file server, i prefer Linux. Why?

Viruses does not affect linux. You don't have to worry about that. I really hate the time that you must spend trying to clean a virus from a server.

Linux have better performance, that is a fact.

Saving and Restoring a Linux server is very easy, because all configuration files are plain text. You just restore the data from the backup, even the OS, and you can warranty that it will boot. No registry, no ASR, no system state data.

The shell scripting available in Linux really simplifies the tasks for maintenance. A simple task will be "delete files older than N days", or when the process finish, send a mail with the logfile. That is something that you cannot do too easy on windows.

The filesystem permissions are closed by default, so, nobody can write to system files, or outside their "home directory". (That's why you cannot infect with viruses).

The journal filesystem allows the quick restart of the server in case of a failure, avoiding long delays checking the integrity of the disk. This is very important for Very Large Databases.

These are some of the major things that I care. I could spend more time in this, by I will let other people give their opinion.

[Scott_59]

Check this out...

http://redmondmag.com/news/article.asp?editorialsid=6999

Scott (also)

[Ivan Ferreira]

Another suggestion. Put this question also in the Microsoft (Windows 2003 forum) and Linux (system administration or general forum). There you will get more answers from people that are fans of every O.S.

[Joseph Loo]

hi scott,

google and listen to other views:

http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&q=linux%2Cwindows%2Ccomparison&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

i like this though:

http://www.michaelhorowitz.com/Linux.vs.Windows.html

regards.

[Guy Humphreys · Accepted solution]

scott, Ivan has made some very good points that are all true. I would just like to expand on some thoughts of my own.

We are a mixed OS shop at my workplace so I have experience with both Windows, Linux and also HP-UX.

All of the IT people I know who run enterprise level ERP systems do so on a version of UNIX, this says a lot to me. It shows me that if you want to run a 24/7 DB server you NEED to run it on UNIX, the only way to run it on windows is via a cluster environment, what you are doing in effect is backing up your live server with other failover servers because you know it is not a question of IF the live server will fail but WHEN! This is just not the case with UNIX, it is head and shoulders above windows in the 3 factors you mention - performance, reliability and security.

The only downside of UNIX is it is complex to admin, more so than windows. But that is also one of it's strengths to, it has more options available to it, especially with respect to automation/scripting. I would say an experienced UNIX admin could look after more UNIX servers on his/her own than a similarly experienced windows admin. Plus linux distros nowadays are getting a lot more friendly. They have all the GUI goodies that windows has (I am thinking of SUSE in particular here with YAST2) PLUS they have all the CLI power in them as well, should you wish to use it.

I would also say that one of the main reason people go with Microsoft is that of vendor recognition and responsibilty. If they buy MS and something goes wrong they can call on MS to fix it (at a huge cost obviously!) but with Linux it has always been seen to be a 'hobbyist' or specialised niche market. This image is being changed every day with vendors like HP, IBM and Sun backing linux. This means you can buy a linux distro and STILL have the backing of a large IT heavy weight as mentioned above.

All of this is IMO of course, but if nothing else sways your choice to linux think of this. In a homogeneous environment (esp a windows one) a lone virus could wipe out your entire IT infrastructure. In a heterogeneous environment it is going to almost impossible to wipe out your entire infrastructure from one attack. That is why it is always good to have different OS's running different systems. Don't keep all your eggs in one basket.

HTH
Guy

[scott_417]

Thanks for all the response. It is so encouraging. After some research and comparison, I'll also go with SuSe Linux.

RedHat Linux is OK, too. But in consideration of the GUI interface, easy to install, etc, SuSe Linux stands out better.

For SuSe Linux, you pay $59 but get 90 day 24/7 free installation support. While for RedHat, even if you pay $179, this is you'll get:

Phone support
30 days Installation and Basic configuration
North Am: 9-9 ET M-F
Global: 9-5 GMT/CET M-F

Web response time/SLA
2 BUSINESS DYAS
1 year Installation & Basic configuration

Phone response time/SLA
1 BUSINESS DYA

(Check the site: http://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/rhel/compare/client/)

Here is some more advantage for the SuSe Linux, in addition to the support, it defaults to the KDE interface which is widely hailed for its more-windows like GUI, and the admin tools YAST, and last but not the least, the world known giants Novell bought the SuSe and gives it another push is that the IBM also sticks its head in by pouring in 50 Millions dollars.

Also I heard of the RedHat may pull out from the desk top business while concentrating on the Enterprise Server side. The Novell's SuSe Linux will try to dominate the both end (desk top and the server). I feel the SuSe Linux is the way to go, for its future looks brighter.

[Richard Darling]

Hi Scott,
I use Windows 2003 STD for our gross-to-net app (CORT), running SQL2000; and an L1000 HP UX for out main business apps; Magnal and Blue Fox Porini.
The W2K3 server is much less stable and you always have to worry about patching it, which happens every month. SQL2000 is SLOOOOOOW compared to how this app used to run on UNIX and on an MP3000.

It has been six months since I rebooted the L1000, and my apps just keep chugging along.

Ivan brought up 2 points that I thought were every significant.
First, Saving and Restoring is much easier for UNIX then Windows.
Second, shell scripting really, REALLY simplifies the tasks for maintenance.

IF I had a choice UNIX would always be my first choice.
BTW, my certifications include MCSE and MCSA for Windows 2000 and 2003, as well as HPUX CSA.
Hope this helps...
Richard