Windows vs. Linux

[reaper44]

Allrighty then here we go i run both redhat fedora core 1 and winme (because xp s** with broadband) my linux box can run for weeks without a reboot win lasts about 2 days before something freezes it (Who Knows what) i have built both windows and linux web servers the windows server (2000) ended up getting reformated after numerous virus and hacker attacks. funnily enough the redhat server hasnt been cracked once. It is true linux is harder for the brain dead to set up but once Hardened it is very tough to crack. And i have to point out that was an older version of redhat 7.1 Fedora is way better! and isnt mac based on unix? just a more expensive version? surely there will be a linux clone for photoshop some were?

[reaper44]

Allrighty then here we go i run both redhat fedora core 1 and winme (because xp s** with broadband) my linux box can run for weeks without a reboot win lasts about 2 days before something freezes it (Who Knows what) i have built both windows and linux web servers the windows server (2000) ended up getting reformated after numerous virus and hacker attacks. funnily enough the redhat server hasnt been cracked once. It is true linux is harder for the brain dead to set up but once Hardened it is very tough to crack. And i have to point out that was an older version of redhat 7.1 Fedora is way better! and isnt mac based on unix? just a more expensive version? surely there will be a linux clone for photoshop some were?

[pooh sun tzu]

Don't confuse linux with being totally free. The highest costs do not come from installation or actual Linux purchasing fee's, it comes from management instruction, and employee instructution time.

1. You have to spend money to teach the admins how to handle the new systems, backup and make the older backups of the network 100% rolloverable for linux.

2. You have to spend money training the employees on the differences so they can use the OS effectivley and efficiently, compared to the OS they already know how to use.

3. You have to spend money on code conversion, to get it Linux ready and usable for any company software.


So, this isnt' a debate on which OS is better, but let's not kid ourselves and say that OS installation is the ONLY pricetag of an OS switchover.

windows server (2000) ended up getting reformated after numerous virus and hacker attacks. funnily enough the redhat server hasnt been cracked once.

This is, to be very blunt, simply because you do not know nor understand how to secure the Windows enviroment. Any OS can be made as secure as the next so long as the admin knows what he is doing. We have plenty of case studies on here for anyone to still be thinking that any OS is "Teh l33t" solution to security.

[pooh sun tzu]

Don't confuse linux with being totally free. The highest costs do not come from installation or actual Linux purchasing fee's, it comes from management instruction, and employee instructution time.

1. You have to spend money to teach the admins how to handle the new systems, backup and make the older backups of the network 100% rolloverable for linux.

2. You have to spend money training the employees on the differences so they can use the OS effectivley and efficiently, compared to the OS they already know how to use.

3. You have to spend money on code conversion, to get it Linux ready and usable for any company software.


So, this isnt' a debate on which OS is better, but let's not kid ourselves and say that OS installation is the ONLY pricetag of an OS switchover.

windows server (2000) ended up getting reformated after numerous virus and hacker attacks. funnily enough the redhat server hasnt been cracked once.

This is, to be very blunt, simply because you do not know nor understand how to secure the Windows enviroment. Any OS can be made as secure as the next so long as the admin knows what he is doing. We have plenty of case studies on here for anyone to still be thinking that any OS is "Teh l33t" solution to security.

[HTRegz]

Hey Hey,

I tend to stay clear of these discussions because they are so overplayed and they end up being popularity contents. I work with Windows and Linux both on a daily basis, for home use and for office use. Both of them have their ups and downs. I'll give you a few examples, however first I want to address some of the inconsistencies and mistruths in the posts in this thread.

For professional Graphic Arts and Video Editing Mac blows the both of them out of the water

This has already been addressed, but look at the software that's out there. While a good chunk is still done on Macs, Linux and Windows are both in high usage, and the software they provide is great. Check out Povray Modeler and Blender for *nix if you want to see some great 3D software, and when compared with using anything for Mac/MS the savings is great and the functionality is the same. I've seen amazing pictures come out of the gimp as well. I could quote you video software also, but like I said... it's been addressed.

Also, if a beginner wants to set up a server, it's a lot easier for them to set up a windows server and be told to go to windowsupdate.microsoft.com every 3 days than for them to update every service they are running anytime a new expoit comes out.

hrmm.... Windows server is better? 3 Days? With the number of Windows updates, as well as including AV updates.... A server had better be getting them automatically.... You can risk it. If you are going to do it manually, 3 days is pushing it. I dunno if I'd believe that you've ever run a Linux server before.... or linux in general. RedHat has Automatic Updates, SuSE has automatic Updates, There's Apt4RPM for most RPM distrobutions now, and apt-get dist-update. In Linux you no longer have to download and recompile to get the newer versions, upgrades are rather simple. YaST is not only as advanced as MS AU, it's more Advanced and provides more accurate details and descriptions.

Allrighty then here we go i run both redhat fedora core 1 and winme (because xp s** with broadband)

As soon as you say you run WindowsME over XP... I refuse to believe anything you say regarding MS... because you obviously have no clue what you are doing. XPs Broadband support is improved over ME. With DHCP you plug it in and go... if it's PPPoE, XP has it's own software... no need for the ISPs install disks....

my linux box can run for weeks without a reboot win lasts about 2 days before something freezes it (Who Knows what)

Again, you are running WindowsME, an operating system that is known to be buggy and flawed. However even so, I ran a WindowsME box (prior to XP being available) for months without a crash. Want to compare crashes... my XP box has an uptime of a couple months. My SuSE Machine crashes every time I plug in my wireless card. It was a problem with the hotplug module that was fixed with an update, however it still happened.

i have built both windows and linux web servers the windows server (2000) ended up getting reformated after numerous virus and hacker attacks. funnily enough the redhat server hasnt been cracked once.

For starters, Funnily isn't even a word... sheesh.. you sound like a 12 year old with your spelling, grammar and language skills. I've ran servers on Windows XP, Windows 2000, Several flavours of Linux, BSD, and other operating systems. They are only as secure as the admin. If you 2000 box was hacked, as PST said, you had no clue what you were doing. That's a problem with you... not with the software. I've written an article in one of the newsletters, which I have quoted before, in less than 48 hours a default MDK install was rooted. How's that for security? No different than a default windows install. If you know what you are doing, the box will be locked down.

It is true linux is harder for the brain dead to set up but once Hardened it is very tough to crack.

I dunno you couldn't setup Windows properly... are you braindead? Linux is no harder to setup.. it's just a new learning curve. Like many people have said... it's no harder to crack if you know what you are doing.

And i have to point out that was an older version of redhat 7.1 Fedora is way better!

And older version of RH 7.1. Last time I checked there was only one version of RH. Fedora is a fairly big piece of **** to be honest. The last time RH produced a decent distro was 7.3. With RHEL they've at least gone back to basing their systems on RH7. RH8/9 were big mistakes.

and isnt mac based on unix? just a more expensive version? surely there will be a linux clone for photoshop some were

Hrmm... Mac OS X runs on the Darwin BSD flavour.. check out http://www.opendarwin.org/. A more expensive version?? I'm not even sure what you mean. As for a Linux clone of photoshop? We've got The Gimp.. .why would we want any more? If you want to run Photoshop check out Crossover Office http://www.codeweavers.com/site/products/.

As far as experience with them from both home and work use. At home I find no difference... I prefer the app selection on Linux... nmap, nessus and such for when I'm playing around... however I do have Windows versions or similar Win32 apps that I can use. I run Linux, in all honesty, because I like the apps and the fact that it's free. I know my way around it, and I trust it. However in the last month my Linux box has needed 4x as many updates as my Windows box.

How does this factor in at work? I work in an MS office and I'm about the only person who uses Linux. I have to keep an MS vm for certain needs. My office uses an older Minolta printer which requires an access code to print. The drivers for that Minolta were never released for Linux and no one has written them. The other drivers don't allow for an Access code. For that reason I have to boot a Windows XP VM to print. My Windows XP VM has been streamlined and uses less than 50MB of RAM... compare that with Linux which sits at around 100-150 w/ KDE and everything loaded (although that's including the VM).
We also use a lot of databases at work, and they are all MS Access (My Supervisor is a former database prof who specialized in Access). There is currently no method for writing to access databases in Linux. I can view them (which is all find and dandy), but I can't write to them. So again, I require an MS VM.

I use Linux, even though those things are a hinderance and slow me down because I prefer it. With most of the apps being open source, I can modify them and tailor them to suite my needs. Both of my systems are locked down and fairly secure (I'd never say anything is completely secure) and they are both kept up-to-date. Is one harder to handle than the other? Nope.

Like PST mentioned, you have to include the cost of training people on Linux. They are looking at companies that already run MS, who have MS trained empoyees. Look at two start-ups.. one that runs Linux and one that runs MS. They are hiring new employees, they can choose what their employees know and what they don't know. They can specify the operating system and the knowledge level their employees must have. In those cases, the linux start-up will be cheaper than the MS start-up

Anyways, I've said more than enough... hell if anyone get's this far I'll be impressed.

Peace,
HT

[HTRegz]

Hey Hey,

I tend to stay clear of these discussions because they are so overplayed and they end up being popularity contents. I work with Windows and Linux both on a daily basis, for home use and for office use. Both of them have their ups and downs. I'll give you a few examples, however first I want to address some of the inconsistencies and mistruths in the posts in this thread.

For professional Graphic Arts and Video Editing Mac blows the both of them out of the water

This has already been addressed, but look at the software that's out there. While a good chunk is still done on Macs, Linux and Windows are both in high usage, and the software they provide is great. Check out Povray Modeler and Blender for *nix if you want to see some great 3D software, and when compared with using anything for Mac/MS the savings is great and the functionality is the same. I've seen amazing pictures come out of the gimp as well. I could quote you video software also, but like I said... it's been addressed.

Also, if a beginner wants to set up a server, it's a lot easier for them to set up a windows server and be told to go to windowsupdate.microsoft.com every 3 days than for them to update every service they are running anytime a new expoit comes out.

hrmm.... Windows server is better? 3 Days? With the number of Windows updates, as well as including AV updates.... A server had better be getting them automatically.... You can risk it. If you are going to do it manually, 3 days is pushing it. I dunno if I'd believe that you've ever run a Linux server before.... or linux in general. RedHat has Automatic Updates, SuSE has automatic Updates, There's Apt4RPM for most RPM distrobutions now, and apt-get dist-update. In Linux you no longer have to download and recompile to get the newer versions, upgrades are rather simple. YaST is not only as advanced as MS AU, it's more Advanced and provides more accurate details and descriptions.

Allrighty then here we go i run both redhat fedora core 1 and winme (because xp s** with broadband)

As soon as you say you run WindowsME over XP... I refuse to believe anything you say regarding MS... because you obviously have no clue what you are doing. XPs Broadband support is improved over ME. With DHCP you plug it in and go... if it's PPPoE, XP has it's own software... no need for the ISPs install disks....

my linux box can run for weeks without a reboot win lasts about 2 days before something freezes it (Who Knows what)

Again, you are running WindowsME, an operating system that is known to be buggy and flawed. However even so, I ran a WindowsME box (prior to XP being available) for months without a crash. Want to compare crashes... my XP box has an uptime of a couple months. My SuSE Machine crashes every time I plug in my wireless card. It was a problem with the hotplug module that was fixed with an update, however it still happened.

i have built both windows and linux web servers the windows server (2000) ended up getting reformated after numerous virus and hacker attacks. funnily enough the redhat server hasnt been cracked once.

For starters, Funnily isn't even a word... sheesh.. you sound like a 12 year old with your spelling, grammar and language skills. I've ran servers on Windows XP, Windows 2000, Several flavours of Linux, BSD, and other operating systems. They are only as secure as the admin. If you 2000 box was hacked, as PST said, you had no clue what you were doing. That's a problem with you... not with the software. I've written an article in one of the newsletters, which I have quoted before, in less than 48 hours a default MDK install was rooted. How's that for security? No different than a default windows install. If you know what you are doing, the box will be locked down.

It is true linux is harder for the brain dead to set up but once Hardened it is very tough to crack.

I dunno you couldn't setup Windows properly... are you braindead? Linux is no harder to setup.. it's just a new learning curve. Like many people have said... it's no harder to crack if you know what you are doing.

And i have to point out that was an older version of redhat 7.1 Fedora is way better!

And older version of RH 7.1. Last time I checked there was only one version of RH. Fedora is a fairly big piece of **** to be honest. The last time RH produced a decent distro was 7.3. With RHEL they've at least gone back to basing their systems on RH7. RH8/9 were big mistakes.

and isnt mac based on unix? just a more expensive version? surely there will be a linux clone for photoshop some were

Hrmm... Mac OS X runs on the Darwin BSD flavour.. check out http://www.opendarwin.org/. A more expensive version?? I'm not even sure what you mean. As for a Linux clone of photoshop? We've got The Gimp.. .why would we want any more? If you want to run Photoshop check out Crossover Office http://www.codeweavers.com/site/products/.

As far as experience with them from both home and work use. At home I find no difference... I prefer the app selection on Linux... nmap, nessus and such for when I'm playing around... however I do have Windows versions or similar Win32 apps that I can use. I run Linux, in all honesty, because I like the apps and the fact that it's free. I know my way around it, and I trust it. However in the last month my Linux box has needed 4x as many updates as my Windows box.

How does this factor in at work? I work in an MS office and I'm about the only person who uses Linux. I have to keep an MS vm for certain needs. My office uses an older Minolta printer which requires an access code to print. The drivers for that Minolta were never released for Linux and no one has written them. The other drivers don't allow for an Access code. For that reason I have to boot a Windows XP VM to print. My Windows XP VM has been streamlined and uses less than 50MB of RAM... compare that with Linux which sits at around 100-150 w/ KDE and everything loaded (although that's including the VM).
We also use a lot of databases at work, and they are all MS Access (My Supervisor is a former database prof who specialized in Access). There is currently no method for writing to access databases in Linux. I can view them (which is all find and dandy), but I can't write to them. So again, I require an MS VM.

I use Linux, even though those things are a hinderance and slow me down because I prefer it. With most of the apps being open source, I can modify them and tailor them to suite my needs. Both of my systems are locked down and fairly secure (I'd never say anything is completely secure) and they are both kept up-to-date. Is one harder to handle than the other? Nope.

Like PST mentioned, you have to include the cost of training people on Linux. They are looking at companies that already run MS, who have MS trained empoyees. Look at two start-ups.. one that runs Linux and one that runs MS. They are hiring new employees, they can choose what their employees know and what they don't know. They can specify the operating system and the knowledge level their employees must have. In those cases, the linux start-up will be cheaper than the MS start-up

Anyways, I've said more than enough... hell if anyone get's this far I'll be impressed.

Peace,
HT

[reaper44]

Obviously i dont just because my ME box doesnt get nailed with the sasser virii and Xp Cr** does obviously i have an inferior Product ha ha ha ha Qoute:As soon as you say you run WindowsME over XP... I refuse to believe anything you say regarding MS... because you obviously have no clue what you are doing.

[reaper44]

Obviously i dont just because my ME box doesnt get nailed with the sasser virii and Xp Cr** does obviously i have an inferior Product ha ha ha ha Qoute:As soon as you say you run WindowsME over XP... I refuse to believe anything you say regarding MS... because you obviously have no clue what you are doing.

[gore]

Originally posted here by The Grunt
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. For professional Graphic Arts and Video Editing Mac blows the both of them out of the water... Also, if a beginner wants to set up a server, it's a lot easier for them to set up a windows server and be told to go to windowsupdate.microsoft.com every 3 days than for them to update every service they are running anytime a new expoit comes out. For pretty much everything else however, I will have to agree with you though. Linux rules. But FreeBSD is better. heh...

Oh you sure tossed **** into a fan and hit "High" now.

For PROFESSIONAL graphics, art, and everything else people assume Mac owns at, SGI pulls the apples off the tree and pisses on them. SGI uses Linux and IRIX, which is UNIX. SGI is probably the best for PROFESSIONAL graphics.

And as others already said, The Matrix was made on Free BSD.

A beginner setting up a server...Well, I started out with Windows on my computer, but the first time I set up a server, it was Linux. You kids make this stuff seem harder than it needs to be. For SuSE Linux, you open up YAST2, which is the control program, and you select "Start Apache" from the run level editor's run level options button.

Then you click finish....Damn, that's sooooo hard... No wonder only 3j33T Haxx0rs ever use it.

In redhat, you use the little services editor, and edit index.html in /var/www/html to what you want, and save it.

Setting up remote access? You open the firewall up with whatever you're using. Microsoft is talking about Enterprise customers, and trying to make them use Windows server 2003, which, yes is a good OS, but if you're going to take shots at Linux, expect some back.

And since Enterprise and business is what we are discussing with Microsoft, I'll use SuSE, Red Hat, and Mandrake as examples, as those have Enterprise versions/Support.

Mandrake....If you think that's hard to use, then don't say ANYTHING is easier. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; If mandrake was any easier, Tux would give you a hand job.

SuSE has a firewall, so does RedHat, and Mandrake, and to open up a port to allow clients to connect, you select that service in the firewall configuration, which is fully GUI, and then start the service.

Now for your update statement/OPINION... What box of crack flavored cerial did you read you update every service by hand when a new exploit comes out? Remember, we are talking about SuSE, Mandrake, and Redhat, and those are actually EASIER to update than Windows, because you can download EVERY UPDATE you need, at the same time, and install it with one click. You check for updates, it tells you if there are any, you select download, and they download and install by themselves, including server applications.

Microsoft Windows update, you need to download most of them one at a time, which I have no idea why, and then, install them, reboot, run update again, install the next patch, reboot, install the next patch, reboot....How is this easier? Downtime costs money, throw that up the ass of your little TCO. Unless the Kernel has a hole, or you're updating HARDWARE, you don't need a reboot.

And Free BSD is better? In what way? I use Free BSD, I like it, but Linux and BSD are a matter of opinion, philosiphy, and taste. You can have the exact same programs, and Free BSD, which is one where you update by hand, is like Slackware Linux.

Which reminds me, who was it that said Slackware, or Linux in general take longer to install?

That's funny, this machine is a Pentium 3 733 MHz box, with 384 MBs RAM, and from the time I put in the Slackware install CD and reboot, to the time I'm logging in as root for the first time, with a CUSTOM install, is 26 minutes.

The box next to me is an Intel Celeron 2.40 GHz box, with 512 MBs RAM, and yesterday, installing Windows XP took a while longer than Slackware.

Hmm, I'll make it fair...Well for me anyway, it will just prove that longer to install statement with Linux wrong anyway, but here:

When you install Linux, for the most part, you are selecting what programs you want. All of them. And every version of Linux usually comes with more programs than Windows. So, you'd think it would take longer. Now, make the Windows install allow you to customize exactly what gets installed. That is going to add even more time to it.

Or, Install SuSE Linux 8.1 Professional, and select minimum. Now how is that fair? Well, if you ever install a paid for version of Windows, it comes with almost nothing. You get

Kernel

Wordpad

Notepad

IE

Windows Explorer

MS-DOS prompt

Paint

Solitair

You get my point.

Well, let's take Linux down to just that many programs:

Kernel

Bash shell

Vi

Emacs

Links

Midnight Commander

Xpaint

Fortune

See my point yet? That install would take about 5 minutes on a modern box. Windows still takes longer.

As for security... Not even including virii and worms that run rampant in Windows making it resemble a dirty hoe on 8mile Detroit, Windows comes with LESS software, than Linux does. It STILL has more updates. Linux is Open Source, and you can read the source code and find exploits....Shouldn't you find more in Linux since you can actually see the source to it?

Well, I guess not, because the closed shut source for Windows still gets more updates.

Strip Linux down to nothing but what Windows comes with, and you'd be lucky to update 5 times a year. Microsoft counts every program Linux comes with, as Linux itself, and says there are a lot of updates for security. Well hell, have Windows come with every server program usually needed to start a web site, FTP, and remote access, and see how many MORE Windows would need.

Linux comes with around 4,000 other programs not needed to run, Windows comes with....20? Maybe? That gives them a head start, because there is less software, and therefore, theoretically, less chance for a flaw in code leading to a security problem.

If we are going to compare Windows updates needed to Linux, then don't count anything but the Kernel and the tools I mentioned. Then see how many security holes you find.

Now, Windows server 2003:

Great OS, but why exactly do they put Windows Media player IN A SERVER OPERATING SYSTEM? Windows Media Player has a bunch of security holes, and they put it in an OS that:

A. Has no reason to have it installed if it's going to be a server

And

B. Is supposedly aiming more towards security than other version.

Why the hell would you include a program intended for home users to listen to music, on a server, that is more thab likely sitting in a closet somewhere? To keep the Janitor amused?

Especially a program with a track record like a Detroit cop.

And don't get me started on not being able to close the GUI. Who really cares how pretty it looks while sitting in some telco closet or similar, with no monitor?

That RAM could be serving clients...You know...Like server OSs are supposed to do.

I don't hate Windows, I hate Microsoft, and refuse to use a server OS that MAKES you use a GUI.

And for the record, remote administration is FAR easier on BSD and Linux than Windows. I guess that would be because you can actually run Linux with no GUI, so there are enough command line tools to control it with that.

Want to talk Hardware? Which would need a more expensive server machine, Windows or Linux?

Linux can run on way older machines than Windows can.

Now for training:

If you use a mouse, you're not an admin. And you should be shoved in a room with the BOFH.

Now, assume a company uses UNIX;

Is Linux, or Windows, going to take longer to learn?



The problem with saying training is a cost, is that you're assuming they already use Windows.

Pooh, he actually does know what he is talking about, and is a good guy, but we have discussions about this sometimes, and he is smart.

[gore]

Originally posted here by The Grunt
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. For professional Graphic Arts and Video Editing Mac blows the both of them out of the water... Also, if a beginner wants to set up a server, it's a lot easier for them to set up a windows server and be told to go to windowsupdate.microsoft.com every 3 days than for them to update every service they are running anytime a new expoit comes out. For pretty much everything else however, I will have to agree with you though. Linux rules. But FreeBSD is better. heh...

Oh you sure tossed **** into a fan and hit "High" now.

For PROFESSIONAL graphics, art, and everything else people assume Mac owns at, SGI pulls the apples off the tree and pisses on them. SGI uses Linux and IRIX, which is UNIX. SGI is probably the best for PROFESSIONAL graphics.

And as others already said, The Matrix was made on Free BSD.

A beginner setting up a server...Well, I started out with Windows on my computer, but the first time I set up a server, it was Linux. You kids make this stuff seem harder than it needs to be. For SuSE Linux, you open up YAST2, which is the control program, and you select "Start Apache" from the run level editor's run level options button.

Then you click finish....Damn, that's sooooo hard... No wonder only 3j33T Haxx0rs ever use it.

In redhat, you use the little services editor, and edit index.html in /var/www/html to what you want, and save it.

Setting up remote access? You open the firewall up with whatever you're using. Microsoft is talking about Enterprise customers, and trying to make them use Windows server 2003, which, yes is a good OS, but if you're going to take shots at Linux, expect some back.

And since Enterprise and business is what we are discussing with Microsoft, I'll use SuSE, Red Hat, and Mandrake as examples, as those have Enterprise versions/Support.

Mandrake....If you think that's hard to use, then don't say ANYTHING is easier. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; If mandrake was any easier, Tux would give you a hand job.

SuSE has a firewall, so does RedHat, and Mandrake, and to open up a port to allow clients to connect, you select that service in the firewall configuration, which is fully GUI, and then start the service.

Now for your update statement/OPINION... What box of crack flavored cerial did you read you update every service by hand when a new exploit comes out? Remember, we are talking about SuSE, Mandrake, and Redhat, and those are actually EASIER to update than Windows, because you can download EVERY UPDATE you need, at the same time, and install it with one click. You check for updates, it tells you if there are any, you select download, and they download and install by themselves, including server applications.

Microsoft Windows update, you need to download most of them one at a time, which I have no idea why, and then, install them, reboot, run update again, install the next patch, reboot, install the next patch, reboot....How is this easier? Downtime costs money, throw that up the ass of your little TCO. Unless the Kernel has a hole, or you're updating HARDWARE, you don't need a reboot.

And Free BSD is better? In what way? I use Free BSD, I like it, but Linux and BSD are a matter of opinion, philosiphy, and taste. You can have the exact same programs, and Free BSD, which is one where you update by hand, is like Slackware Linux.

Which reminds me, who was it that said Slackware, or Linux in general take longer to install?

That's funny, this machine is a Pentium 3 733 MHz box, with 384 MBs RAM, and from the time I put in the Slackware install CD and reboot, to the time I'm logging in as root for the first time, with a CUSTOM install, is 26 minutes.

The box next to me is an Intel Celeron 2.40 GHz box, with 512 MBs RAM, and yesterday, installing Windows XP took a while longer than Slackware.

Hmm, I'll make it fair...Well for me anyway, it will just prove that longer to install statement with Linux wrong anyway, but here:

When you install Linux, for the most part, you are selecting what programs you want. All of them. And every version of Linux usually comes with more programs than Windows. So, you'd think it would take longer. Now, make the Windows install allow you to customize exactly what gets installed. That is going to add even more time to it.

Or, Install SuSE Linux 8.1 Professional, and select minimum. Now how is that fair? Well, if you ever install a paid for version of Windows, it comes with almost nothing. You get

Kernel

Wordpad

Notepad

IE

Windows Explorer

MS-DOS prompt

Paint

Solitair

You get my point.

Well, let's take Linux down to just that many programs:

Kernel

Bash shell

Vi

Emacs

Links

Midnight Commander

Xpaint

Fortune

See my point yet? That install would take about 5 minutes on a modern box. Windows still takes longer.

As for security... Not even including virii and worms that run rampant in Windows making it resemble a dirty hoe on 8mile Detroit, Windows comes with LESS software, than Linux does. It STILL has more updates. Linux is Open Source, and you can read the source code and find exploits....Shouldn't you find more in Linux since you can actually see the source to it?

Well, I guess not, because the closed shut source for Windows still gets more updates.

Strip Linux down to nothing but what Windows comes with, and you'd be lucky to update 5 times a year. Microsoft counts every program Linux comes with, as Linux itself, and says there are a lot of updates for security. Well hell, have Windows come with every server program usually needed to start a web site, FTP, and remote access, and see how many MORE Windows would need.

Linux comes with around 4,000 other programs not needed to run, Windows comes with....20? Maybe? That gives them a head start, because there is less software, and therefore, theoretically, less chance for a flaw in code leading to a security problem.

If we are going to compare Windows updates needed to Linux, then don't count anything but the Kernel and the tools I mentioned. Then see how many security holes you find.

Now, Windows server 2003:

Great OS, but why exactly do they put Windows Media player IN A SERVER OPERATING SYSTEM? Windows Media Player has a bunch of security holes, and they put it in an OS that:

A. Has no reason to have it installed if it's going to be a server

And

B. Is supposedly aiming more towards security than other version.

Why the hell would you include a program intended for home users to listen to music, on a server, that is more thab likely sitting in a closet somewhere? To keep the Janitor amused?

Especially a program with a track record like a Detroit cop.

And don't get me started on not being able to close the GUI. Who really cares how pretty it looks while sitting in some telco closet or similar, with no monitor?

That RAM could be serving clients...You know...Like server OSs are supposed to do.

I don't hate Windows, I hate Microsoft, and refuse to use a server OS that MAKES you use a GUI.

And for the record, remote administration is FAR easier on BSD and Linux than Windows. I guess that would be because you can actually run Linux with no GUI, so there are enough command line tools to control it with that.

Want to talk Hardware? Which would need a more expensive server machine, Windows or Linux?

Linux can run on way older machines than Windows can.

Now for training:

If you use a mouse, you're not an admin. And you should be shoved in a room with the BOFH.

Now, assume a company uses UNIX;

Is Linux, or Windows, going to take longer to learn?



The problem with saying training is a cost, is that you're assuming they already use Windows.

Pooh, he actually does know what he is talking about, and is a good guy, but we have discussions about this sometimes, and he is smart.