Windows vs. Linux
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 57

Thread: Windows vs. Linux

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    620

    Windows vs. Linux

    Ok first check out www.microsoft.com/mscorp/facts/analyses.asp

    IMO, a lot of this sounds like BS. For instance, take the sentence at the top of the page:
    Leading companies and third-party analysts confirm it: Windows has a lower total cost of ownership and outperforms Linux.
    With that blatant statement out of the way, consider this quote as well:
    Windows Server 2003 Far Less Expensive to Operate than Linux Mainframe

    Microsoft-sponsored benchmarks prove that multiple Windows Web servers perform better than a Linux mainframe acting as a Web server consolidator. An independent review by Meta verified the integrity of the results. The superior performance of Microsoft Windows Serverô 2003 costs just:

    * $40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
    * $1.79 per peak request per second.
    Doesn't it seem to you like they're leaving out some important details? Such as the fact that Linux is FREE? And I think it's very biased to say that Windows can outperform Linux. The OS won't make it or break it; it's the machine's resources!

    Another example:
    Independent Audit Measures Swifter, Easier Deployment for Microsoft Windows

    In terms of time and complexity, deploying Windows is easier and faster than deploying Red Hat Linux, whether installing from scratch or configuring an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) installation. A full Windows installation:

    * Is nearly three hours faster.
    * Requires 77% fewer steps.
    OK, I'll have to admit that Linux takes far longer to install. Installing Red Hat for the first time was a pain in the ass for me, and from what I've heard it's relatively user friendly when compared to Slackware or BSD. (Of course, I couldn't do the GUI install because of the crappy machine, but that's beside the point). The thing about complexity, though, donít you think something more complex would be more flexible and customizable to your needs? I certainly do.

    Also, the default setup for Linux will be far more secure than the defaults for Windows. This will save more time in maintenance. As far as the security of these OS's:

    Windows machines need to be constantly updated. Linux machines still need updates, but not nearly as frequently.

    An antivirus program is a necessity for any Win machine. It's far less of a deal on Linux, though it's probably still a good idea. But according to this site, there are about 60,000 known viruses for Windows, perhaps 40 for Linux, and 5 for commercial Unix versions. Pretty impressive, huh?

    Ok I'm done with that little rant..

    By all means, I'm not saying that Windows is worse than Linux. From a security standpoint, they both have a potential to be equal. But I like this quote: (which came from the page I mentioned just a little above this)
    Security is, as we all know, a process, not a product. So when you use Linux, you're not using a perfectly safe OS. There is no such thing. But Linux and Mac OS X establish a more secure footing than Microsoft Windows, one that makes it far harder for viruses to take hold in the first place, but if one does take hold, harder to damage the system, but if one succeeds in damaging the system, harder to spread to other machines and repeat the process. When it comes to email-borne viruses and worms, Linux may not be completely immune - after all, nothing is immune to human gullibility and stupidity - but it is much more resistant. To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. I know which one I'll trust. How about you?
    I'd say that pretty much sums it all up

    Ok.. I'm done. Now I want to hear some of your opinions on this touchy matter.

    Later,

    mjk

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    620

    Windows vs. Linux

    Ok first check out www.microsoft.com/mscorp/facts/analyses.asp

    IMO, a lot of this sounds like BS. For instance, take the sentence at the top of the page:
    Leading companies and third-party analysts confirm it: Windows has a lower total cost of ownership and outperforms Linux.
    With that blatant statement out of the way, consider this quote as well:
    Windows Server 2003 Far Less Expensive to Operate than Linux Mainframe

    Microsoft-sponsored benchmarks prove that multiple Windows Web servers perform better than a Linux mainframe acting as a Web server consolidator. An independent review by Meta verified the integrity of the results. The superior performance of Microsoft Windows Serverô 2003 costs just:

    * $40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
    * $1.79 per peak request per second.
    Doesn't it seem to you like they're leaving out some important details? Such as the fact that Linux is FREE? And I think it's very biased to say that Windows can outperform Linux. The OS won't make it or break it; it's the machine's resources!

    Another example:
    Independent Audit Measures Swifter, Easier Deployment for Microsoft Windows

    In terms of time and complexity, deploying Windows is easier and faster than deploying Red Hat Linux, whether installing from scratch or configuring an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) installation. A full Windows installation:

    * Is nearly three hours faster.
    * Requires 77% fewer steps.
    OK, I'll have to admit that Linux takes far longer to install. Installing Red Hat for the first time was a pain in the ass for me, and from what I've heard it's relatively user friendly when compared to Slackware or BSD. (Of course, I couldn't do the GUI install because of the crappy machine, but that's beside the point). The thing about complexity, though, donít you think something more complex would be more flexible and customizable to your needs? I certainly do.

    Also, the default setup for Linux will be far more secure than the defaults for Windows. This will save more time in maintenance. As far as the security of these OS's:

    Windows machines need to be constantly updated. Linux machines still need updates, but not nearly as frequently.

    An antivirus program is a necessity for any Win machine. It's far less of a deal on Linux, though it's probably still a good idea. But according to this site, there are about 60,000 known viruses for Windows, perhaps 40 for Linux, and 5 for commercial Unix versions. Pretty impressive, huh?

    Ok I'm done with that little rant..

    By all means, I'm not saying that Windows is worse than Linux. From a security standpoint, they both have a potential to be equal. But I like this quote: (which came from the page I mentioned just a little above this)
    Security is, as we all know, a process, not a product. So when you use Linux, you're not using a perfectly safe OS. There is no such thing. But Linux and Mac OS X establish a more secure footing than Microsoft Windows, one that makes it far harder for viruses to take hold in the first place, but if one does take hold, harder to damage the system, but if one succeeds in damaging the system, harder to spread to other machines and repeat the process. When it comes to email-borne viruses and worms, Linux may not be completely immune - after all, nothing is immune to human gullibility and stupidity - but it is much more resistant. To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. I know which one I'll trust. How about you?
    I'd say that pretty much sums it all up

    Ok.. I'm done. Now I want to hear some of your opinions on this touchy matter.

    Later,

    mjk

  3. #3
    @řΜĮЙǐЅŦГǻţΩЯ D0pp139an93r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    St. Petersburg, FL
    Posts
    1,696
    I wouldn't touch this discussion with a 10 foot beaver.

    Besides, it's been done before.
    Real security doesn't come with an installer.

  4. #4
    @řΜĮЙǐЅŦГǻţΩЯ D0pp139an93r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    St. Petersburg, FL
    Posts
    1,696
    I wouldn't touch this discussion with a 10 foot beaver.

    Besides, it's been done before.
    Real security doesn't come with an installer.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    620
    Sorry

    I ACTUALLY searched this time...

    Didn't find much... Thought it would make for an interesting thread...

    Owell, better luck to me next time, I guess

    Later,

    mjk

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    620
    Sorry

    I ACTUALLY searched this time...

    Didn't find much... Thought it would make for an interesting thread...

    Owell, better luck to me next time, I guess

    Later,

    mjk

  7. #7
    AO Ancient: Team Leader
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,197
    You never read a _sales_ pitch before.....

    I'm all windows..... Do I think it's the "bees knees".... No.... But I can see the advantages of certain things.... and the disadvantages......

    I have to admit though.... their sales "slime" are going a tad over the top.....

    I wouldn't touch this discussion with a 10 foot beaver.
    I am 4 miles from a 70', (or so), beaver..... It's a Big one.... Here where I live they actually have a main highway called "Big Beaver".... Clearly words had a few different meanings when it was named..... I also know a wonderful, utterly heterosexual, girl called Gay.... but that's a whole other story......
    Don\'t SYN us.... We\'ll SYN you.....
    \"A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools.\" - Thucydides

  8. #8
    AO Ancient: Team Leader
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,197
    You never read a _sales_ pitch before.....

    I'm all windows..... Do I think it's the "bees knees".... No.... But I can see the advantages of certain things.... and the disadvantages......

    I have to admit though.... their sales "slime" are going a tad over the top.....

    I wouldn't touch this discussion with a 10 foot beaver.
    I am 4 miles from a 70', (or so), beaver..... It's a Big one.... Here where I live they actually have a main highway called "Big Beaver".... Clearly words had a few different meanings when it was named..... I also know a wonderful, utterly heterosexual, girl called Gay.... but that's a whole other story......
    Don\'t SYN us.... We\'ll SYN you.....
    \"A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools.\" - Thucydides

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    620
    You never read a _sales_ pitch before.....
    Well of course MS is entitled to their sales pitch... But don't they realize that they're not gonna convert very many people from Linux to Windows? Anyone who uses Linux is probably pretty experienced in computers and they will immediately see the statements made by MS aren't quite valid.

    I don't mean to put down Windows... I think it's great for home use and gaming. But other than that... Linux r00lz

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    620
    You never read a _sales_ pitch before.....
    Well of course MS is entitled to their sales pitch... But don't they realize that they're not gonna convert very many people from Linux to Windows? Anyone who uses Linux is probably pretty experienced in computers and they will immediately see the statements made by MS aren't quite valid.

    I don't mean to put down Windows... I think it's great for home use and gaming. But other than that... Linux r00lz

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •