Linux

pparks1 said:

Max Peck said:

Linux may have made an impact in the server room but, from what I'm hearing, it's not gaining ground there any more either.

Hmmm....not so sure about that statement. My company is about 60% Linux on our web servers and hosted applications. And we are currently retiring and removing as much of our Windows stuff as we can in order to reduce licensing costs for our Microsoft platforms. Even with volume license agreements and such, these servers are far from cost free to implement.

Max Peck said:

You'll just have to be content with what you can find out there on the web because you certainly aren't going to find anything for it at Office Depot or Best Buy.

I don't think that is an issue for most people. I get all of my software from the web on my Windows machines as well...with the exception of the random video game that I buy. And even many of them are available via the web these days.

Max Peck said:

You also aren't going to find a market with Linux if you're a freelance software developer. You can probably count your customers on two fingers if you draw a 200 mile radius circle around your present location!

However, a web developer will undoubtedly run into Apache and Tomcat all over the place...talking to mySQL or PostGres databases. And why spend the money to license Windows for the server and then turn around and run software which is primarily developed for and runs fantastic on Linux platforms on Windows instead?

Very true Agreed 100% with you pparks1 :)
Max Peck,
I'd go with a Linux server any day over Windows server.

As desktops, I have to admit, Linux sucks - it's progressing rapidly, but still the minority. The fact that people directly compared Linux's desktop stack to Windows is the main issue.

But in the server space, Linux is a whole different beast altogether. The options you get on how to administrate your servers, how to connect remotely, how to maintain is immensely beyond what Windows server can ever do. Here's my example: I run a SAN server using Linux opposed to running Windows storage server 2008, the Linux server's hardware, an i3, 1GB memory, 3x1TB disk in RAID 1 + 1 hotspare, and 160GB HDD for OS. CPU usage day to day = ~0.5% -> 1.5%, Memory usage -> ~130MB, give or take 10MB, connectivity to the server, a plenty: CLI over SSH, CLI over Web and several Web interfaces, I don't use X Window, it's not needed in a server environment.

CLI is waaaaayyy too powerful compared to GUI, as the matter of fact, Microsoft created PowerShell just to catch up with Linux's CLI. Windows 2008 has the option to run Windows bare (without GUI) for the same reason, play catch up with Linux in efficient hardware usage...

You see, Linux doesn't need to make "inroads" in the server world, it's the de facto standard... The one that's playing catch up is MS. I do have to admit, you don't get an easy and very elaborate directory service like AD, but on the other hand, you get the flexibility to what service you want to serve in your directory service (LDAP is a beast, AD is a beautiful beast). That's the only thing I know Windows server is a bit more superior than Linux. I use servers to serve a specific task, I don't run my servers to handle many tasks at once, I can't imagine to have my Web/DB/File/App/ActiveDirectory Domain Controller/Terminal Server service/DHCP/DNS machine went down because of some crippling anti virus update (no anti virus server needed in Linux servers)... It'll cripple my business to a state where I'd hang my self...

Just my 2 cents... :)

zzz2496

I'm just saying :)
I have MCP certifications on MS's Client and Server products, I love Windows to death... I know my ways around Windows... To me, Linux is much better all around AS A SERVER. For general purpose use, nothing can beat Windows (had to put a sad smiley, it's a Linux thread afterall...) Being the market leader does have it's privilege...

zzz2496

Max Peck said:

Not trying to start another old, arcane Linux vs. Windows argument - I'm way past that nonsense!

Yes and it is nonsense. Differing products fit differing needs.

Max Peck said:

If it works for you then go for it! Besides, we're on a Windows Forum!

Yes, this is a Windows forum. But in my opinion, it's invaluable to also know and understand too what the competition can do and how they do it, to make Windows a more useful and valuable product. Or at least to ensure that your licensing costs and such are worth it for your particular need.

zzz2496;744162. said:

You see, Linux doesn't need to make "inroads" in the server world, it's the de facto standard... The one that's playing catch up is MS. I do have to admit, you don't get an easy and very elaborate directory service like AD, but on the other hand, you get the flexibility to what service you want to serve in your directory service (LDAP is a beast, AD is a beautiful beast). That's the only thing I know Windows server is a bit more superior than Linux. I use servers to serve a specific task, I don't run my servers to handle many tasks at once, I can't imagine to have my Web/DB/File/App/ActiveDirectory Domain Controller/Terminal Server service/DHCP/DNS machine went down because of some crippling anti virus update (no anti virus server needed in Linux servers)... It'll cripple my business to a state where I'd hang my self...

Just my 2 cents... :)

zzz2496

I don't think any good network administrator would put all that on one server in a Windows Shop. And if they did it would not be smart.

DC/AD/DHCP/DNS is the most on one machine and then you would have at the very lest 2 for redundancy. - Just my 2 cents as well. :)

WindowsStar said:

zzz2496;744162. said:

You see, Linux doesn't need to make "inroads" in the server world, it's the de facto standard... The one that's playing catch up is MS. I do have to admit, you don't get an easy and very elaborate directory service like AD, but on the other hand, you get the flexibility to what service you want to serve in your directory service (LDAP is a beast, AD is a beautiful beast). That's the only thing I know Windows server is a bit more superior than Linux. I use servers to serve a specific task, I don't run my servers to handle many tasks at once, I can't imagine to have my Web/DB/File/App/ActiveDirectory Domain Controller/Terminal Server service/DHCP/DNS machine went down because of some crippling anti virus update (no anti virus server needed in Linux servers)... It'll cripple my business to a state where I'd hang my self...

Just my 2 cents... :)

zzz2496

I don't think any good network administrator would put all that on one server in a Windows Shop. And if they did it would not be smart.

DC/AD/DHCP/DNS is the most on one machine and then you would have at the very lest 2 for redundancy. - Just my 2 cents as well. :)

I've met several admins that has more or less the setup I mentioned, an all in one box, running on an el cheapo self built low end computer running pirated Windows server with all business data depending on it (I'm talking $350-$400 worth of hardware running as an all in one "server"), not to mention that price includes keyboard and mouse and a monitor (LCD), thus I bring that up... :)

zzz2496

zzz2496 said:

I've met several admins that has more or less the setup I mentioned, an all in one box, running on an el cheapo self built low end computer running pirated Windows server with all business data depending on it (I'm talking $350-$400 worth of hardware running as an all in one "server"), not to mention that price includes keyboard and mouse and a monitor (LCD), thus I bring that up... :)

zzz2496

Yeah, that is what happens in smaller shops where IT budgets are super tight. Sure, it's better to run on real hardware, and multiple boxes...but that all costs money, requires cooling, power, licensing for the OS, etc.

Dinesh said:

OK now I m into Linuxmint 9. Changes-- I dont see any. LOL.

I scrapped my physical install of Mint 8 and replaced it with a proper install of Mint 9.

There are a few differences, but they are subtle. Very subtle.

It now automounts NTFS drives by default.

FF is the latest 3.6.3

GRUB2 is a newer build ( I still hate Grub2 )

Plus there are a few other things, but overall - yeah, it's not vastly different to Mint 8.


Still a great distro though.

smarteyeball said:

Dinesh said:

OK now I m into Linuxmint 9. Changes-- I dont see any. LOL.

I scrapped my physical install of Mint 8 and replaced it with a proper install of Mint 9.

There are a few differences, but they are subtle. Very subtle.

It now automounts NTFS drives by default.

FF is the latest 3.6.3

GRUB2 is a newer build ( I still hate Grub2 )

Plus there are a few other things, but overall - yeah, it's not vastly different to Mint 8.


Still a great distro though.

I agree. Linuxmint 9 is a very beautiful and stable distro.