Linus Torvalds gives Windows 7 a big thumbs up

[pparks1]

1). Cost is not necessarily moot. You absolutely have to purchase your copy of Windows. And with Windows, you pay for your support usually per incident or via a large Microsoft agreement. You can get enterprise class Linux OS's totally free of charge (CentOS is a rebuild of Red Hat Enterprise Linux) and that is what we use. However, if you did elect to get an Entitlement for RedHat, you have free support for all problems that you might experience. So depending upon your required need of support....the optional Linux entitlement could be cheaper. And like I said, having to pay for Linux is completely optional...but required with Windows.

2 and 3 are not moot depending upon the situation. My shop utilizes VMWare ESXi extensively. RAM is a precious commodity in a virtualized world and on server class hardware is not actually cheap. For example, putting 32GB of ram into an HP DL380 Gen6 bumps the price $2200 if you use 8 x4GB DIMMs or nearly $6,000 if you use 4x8GB DIMMS for future RAM expansion. I can run an idling Linux server on less than 128MB of RAM.

And while hard drive space can be inexpensive, buying high end drives in a NetApp or EMC storage device can get extremely costly. My biggest reason for wanting low disc space usage is so that I can more easily and quickly move these VMDK files from one ESXi host to another. With Linux, I can setup with smaller drives...thus making my setup faster when I have to copy that image file. A 10GB linux virtual hard drive copies faster than a 40GB Windows virtual hard drive.

And everything in Windows is a bit of a pain in the butt to setup. While lots don't like the command line in Linux, the fact that almost everything uses a simple /etc/file.conf as the configuration file makes it an absolute piece of cake to document and then later deploy on another box. For example, an FTP Server. On CentOS I can have it up and running with 1) yum install vsftpd 2) copy over /etc/vsftpd.conf 3). config firewall to allow ports 20 and 21. Done. Everything is in place.

 

[Zidane24]

1). Cost is not necessarily moot. You absolutely have to purchase your copy of Windows. And with Windows, you pay for your support usually per incident or via a large Microsoft agreement. You can get enterprise class Linux OS's totally free of charge (CentOS is a rebuild of Red Hat Enterprise Linux) and that is what we use. However, if you did elect to get an Entitlement for RedHat, you have free support for all problems that you might experience. So depending upon your required need of support....the optional Linux entitlement could be cheaper. And like I said, having to pay for Linux is completely optional...but required with Windows.

2 and 3 are not moot depending upon the situation. My shop utilizes VMWare ESXi extensively. RAM is a precious commodity in a virtualized world and on server class hardware is not actually cheap. For example, putting 32GB of ram into an HP DL380 Gen6 bumps the price $2200 if you use 8 x4GB DIMMs or nearly $6,000 if you use 4x8GB DIMMS for future RAM expansion. I can run an idling Linux server on less than 128MB of RAM.

And while hard drive space can be inexpensive, buying high end drives in a NetApp or EMC storage device can get extremely costly. My biggest reason for wanting low disc space usage is so that I can more easily and quickly move these VMDK files from one ESXi host to another. With Linux, I can setup with smaller drives...thus making my setup faster when I have to copy that image file. A 10GB linux virtual hard drive copies faster than a 40GB Windows virtual hard drive.

And everything in Windows is a bit of a pain in the butt to setup. While lots don't like the command line in Linux, the fact that almost everything uses a simple /etc/file.conf as the configuration file makes it an absolute piece of cake to document and then later deploy on another box. For example, an FTP Server. On CentOS I can have it up and running with 1) yum install vsftpd 2) copy over /etc/vsftpd.conf 3). config firewall to allow ports 20 and 21. Done. Everything is in place.

I agree with everything in that post...but I really agree with with config files part...that was most enjoyable about setting up a linux install...I merely copied over config files and I was done

 

[H2SO4]

After scanning through the responses, I'm rather surprised that nobody mentioned Linus's sense of footwear fashion. For some inexplicable reason, socks-with-sandals is the most accurate predictor of true computing genius, at least in terms of physical appearance. Those people know stuff - I mean really, really know stuff!!!

The world is a better place because of Linus Torvalds and others like him, irrespective of whether one lives in Camp Penguin or not. The healthy competition makes things better for all of us.

/me goes off to install Slack on the new partition...

 

[pparks1]

I agree with everything in that post...but I really agree with with config files part...that was most enjoyable about setting up a linux install...I merely copied over config files and I was done

It's always fantastic to find others who share the same sense of enjoyment out of these simple things as I do. With my Linux boxes, as long as I have a copy of 1). data and 2) config file. I can rebuild even complex boxes, in a fraction of the time. I usually do installs across NFS and am presently able to install a CentOS box in 2 minutes and 32 seconds. So, in less than 4 minutes, I'm SSH'd into the console and setting it up.

I also really enjoy doing as much as humanely possible from the command line. Makes it SOOOO easy to write up documentation and instructions for others at work to follow. You simply install the box, and then cut and paste the commands straight from my document into the console and it's right 100% of the time. Sure cuts down on the documentation by not having to include screenshots of GUI windows and then mark where to click and how to navigate into the setup window.

 

[Tonza]

"he obviously had no idea who he was dealing with"

Nor did he care. Nor does anyone care who linus torvalds is.

Ha ha! I care!What's your server running? Likely NOT Microsoft

Nice point Many will go with linux on servers, even when using Windows for desktop and laptop.

 

[Jordus]

You guys must not use the newer MS server products.

Everything is built on PowerShell now and even if you dont know PoSh, the GUI's will generate the scripts for you so that you can use it on the next boxes. Not to mention that basically everything is easily scriptable with text or XML answer files.

With Hyper-V + SCVMM I have set up templates and scripts to where I can make about 2 clicks and have a new vm created, server 2008 run through minisetup, and install an assortment of roles all automatically.

And yeah, the support for enterprise linux stuff is pretty well up there. The cost of having experts on staff that never ever need support is probably higher.

Yes you HAVE to buy Windows, but for companies that use Volume Licensing there are tons of incentives such as the MDOP and App-V that add a lot of value to the cost.

Not only that, the only clients that people can easily use at work are Windows and OSX, and OSX isnt enterprise ready. So that leaves you very little option. With any number amount of windows clients, you then need to manage them. If you choose to use linux to manage them, you are creating difficult barriers between the sys admins and the desktop support as well as taking the hard route to accomplishing the tasks.

Footprint can be greatly reduced by using Server Core. Only about 4 or or so GB.

Of course an IT Pros responsibility is to use whatever the best system for the task is. I just find that Windows does more things better than Linux does. However, there are some things that Linux does so well that Windows isnt even in the same ballpark.

 

[Zidane24]

You guys must not use the newer MS server products.

Everything is built on PowerShell now and even if you dont know PoSh, the GUI's will generate the scripts for you so that you can use it on the next boxes. Not to mention that basically everything is easily scriptable with text or XML answer files.

With Hyper-V + SCVMM I have set up templates and scripts to where I can make about 2 clicks and have a new vm created, server 2008 run through minisetup, and install an assortment of roles all automatically.

And yeah, the support for enterprise linux stuff is pretty well up there. The cost of having experts on staff that never ever need support is probably higher.

Yes you HAVE to buy Windows, but for companies that use Volume Licensing there are tons of incentives such as the MDOP and App-V that add a lot of value to the cost.

Not only that, the only clients that people can easily use at work are Windows and OSX, and OSX isnt enterprise ready. So that leaves you very little option. With any number amount of windows clients, you then need to manage them. If you choose to use linux to manage them, you are creating difficult barriers between the sys admins and the desktop support as well as taking the hard route to accomplishing the tasks.

Footprint can be greatly reduced by using Server Core. Only about 4 or or so GB.

Of course an IT Pros responsibility is to use whatever the best system for the task is. I just find that Windows does more things better than Linux does. However, there are some things that Linux does so well that Windows isnt even in the same ballpark.

Of couse we haven't touched cost yet...

With much of the world being in a recession right now...companies are going to be cutting costs. You know as well as I that a company will lower budgets first in its IT fields (because most companies don't understand the great need for a great IT department *sigh*). With that in mind, ITs are having to find ways to cut costs and when it comes down to the free fully functional linux server vs the just s functional licensed Windows server...many will choose the former

It may seem like me and pparks are completely for linux servers...but I will admit (he may or may not) that server 2008 R2 is a great step up for Windows servers and is probably a treat to use. With that said, it is a hard choice to choose a paid product over a free product that has most (if not all) of the functionality of the latter

 

[pparks1]

You guys must not use the newer MS server products.

I've used Server 2003 extensively and have used Server 2008 and 2008R2 (not extensively though).

Everything is built on PowerShell now and even if you dont know PoSh, the GUI's will generate the scripts for you so that you can use it on the next boxes. Not to mention that basically everything is easily scriptable with text or XML answer files.

Yeah, I've learned quite a bit about PowerShell doing Exchange 2007 administration. And it certainly is a step in a direction that I am really excited to see.

With Hyper-V + SCVMM I have set up templates and scripts to where I can make about 2 clicks and have a new vm created, server 2008 run through minisetup, and install an assortment of roles all automatically.

I'm trying to come to terms with Hyper-V....but compared to VMWare ESXi, it just seems outrageously convoluted and complex to setup..especially for remote administration. I've found the John Howard blog and I do use his hvremote.wsf script to ease the remote admin setup woes...but it's still a royal PITA compared to the simply VMWare Vsphere product.

With any number amount of windows clients, you then need to manage them. If you choose to use linux to manage them, you are creating difficult barriers between the sys admins and the desktop support as well as taking the hard route to accomplishing the tasks.

Don't get me wrong, I completely see the value in Windows based servers and I use them and recommend them in the right circumstance. But I don't agree with people who just blindly say, "I only use Windows and I'll never use Linux servers". They are simply shortchanging themselves and limiting their options

Footprint can be greatly reduced by using Server Core. Only about 4 or or so GB.

Yeah, but some apps and so forth won't run under Server Core. And most Windows admins aren't going to like being stuck without a GUI. Most Linux guys on the other hand aren't limited in any way by only have a CLI.

Of course an IT Pros responsibility is to use whatever the best system for the task is. I just find that Windows does more things better than Linux does. However, there are some things that Linux does so well that Windows isnt even in the same ballpark.

I agree and that is why as an IT guy, I try to stay proficient with both Windows and Linux. It doesn't limit my options and it makes me more marketable in today's economy. Unfortunately, i do think one of the reasons MS servers sometimes do more, is because the world is generally using MS Desktops...and sometimes they don't exactly adhere to standards for things.

 

[Jordus]

I wont argue that Hyper-V is difficult to remotely manage in workgroup environment. But its easy peasy in a Domain environment, which almost any business is going to have. There are some features that ESX has that Hyper-V doesnt yet, though.

A windows admin that wont use core because of no GUI probably isnt the best guy for the job. Especially when you consider that once the box initially set up, you are mostly done with the CLI because you can use the RSAT to connect to those servers for management, if you so wish.

 

[AvatarOfTheShip]

Somebody needs to up Ballmer's medication - preferably to lethal levels. And I'm not talking 'lethal-for-humans' either...

 

[pparks1]

I wont argue that Hyper-V is difficult to remotely manage in workgroup environment. But its easy peasy in a Domain environment, which almost any business is going to have

While my business does have a domain environment, our domain typically isn't extended into the data centers and such where we run our customer facing webservers and such.