Windows vs. Linux

[RoadClosed]

Gore even if you start out at square one, meaning a new company and new people and use Linux from the get go, I don't agree that a lower TCO is valid. Users can't even use Windows without causing serious problems. I would argue the network would be unstable and shotty not because Linux bad, it's in many ways a better OS, but because users won't figure it out without a large and costly Linux team to hold their hand.

I was reading up on something where admins smuggle in Linux and BSD boxes, and just don't tell anyone that they did it because they are supposed to use Windows. I'll see if I can find it.

You are exactly right because Linux provides for Fun in a way that spurs curiosity. It's free and you can load anything you want. That doesn't equate to lower TCO across the board. For instance, you may have a need for some security scanning and the boss won't pay 2000 for Languard, so the curious and energetic admin loads Redhat and follows a howto on setting up a Retina scanner. He's happy, the boss is happy and in this case the coin is flipped. It's common and perhaps very good for both the admin and the network, assuming he isn't smuggling in his own warez box to knock out some critical component.

[pZargs]

Originally posted here by D0pp139an93r
I wouldn't touch this discussion with a 10 foot beaver.

A tenfoot beaver!!! OH the tree's......

Besides, it's been done before.

[gore]

Well, I guess we will just have to bring the discussion into networking. UNIX is easily one of the best NOSs ever created. The Linux TCP stack was the first to ever be fully RFC complient, and may still be the only one. Free BSD and Linux both excel in networking, now, what I would like to see, is someone do another test on Linux and BSD VS. Windows, in which one is better with networking. Speed and reliability tested too.

I've seen plenty showing Linux as a winner here, but that was a bit outdated. How about how well they would to now?

[pooh sun tzu]

Free BSD and Linuc both excel in networking, now, what I would like to see, is someone do another test on Linux and BSD VS. Windows, in which one is better with networking. Speed and reliability tested too.

With XP using the BSD sockets system it could prove almost like a double test. However, we would need to make sure the tester ALSO configured windows to use the least amount of needable network system as possible, just like they would the linux system. This includes the one thing (and only thing, I feel) that slows down Windows networking, broadcasting nonstop across the network. Since it can be shut off, make sure it is, to whomever is testing.

This also means will we allow the tester to use third party software to extend windows capabilities? XP can do raw packets if initialized properly, but winpcap comes in handy as well for raw network filtering.

[cacosapo]

As a newbie here, and the fact that ive deployed more than 100 of those systems (Win,*ix) I cant tell you that isnt that easy choose between MS and all others.

For example, the timeline to deploy windows is much shorter than linux. Dont tell me that linux (any flavor) has better tools to deploy hundreds or thousands of pcs. Try that on a company (most of them) of dozen(s) of hardware configuration and you will "feel" the problem.
Windows is much more easy to bring up that a linux box. That is a fact. The "next-next-finish" behavior works much better than Linux.

BUT, after finished, Windows on "next-next-finish" is much more weak than a Linux box.
Also, due to some poor quality on development (my opinion), there is much more security bugs on Windows than a Linux one.

However, try to install anything on linux box. Download software (rpm), apply, error, error, dl source, compile, error, error, ----- works! Try after apply a patch -- what a nightmare. Yeah, easy in ONE box, but what about one hundred desktops? try it!

Some medium companies (most succeseed installations) are using a mixed environment:
Using Windows Desktops (easy to deploy/mantain) and Linux servers (with SAMBA, funny, isnt?) - best of both worlds (currently)

P.S. try to get support from distros: its a nightmare, even paid. Conectiva? never heard about. Red Hat? Humm, they are selling now its software.
ring a bell?

[MrLinus]

Thread moved to Operating Systems. It seemed to start with some security discussion but has since wound down to a matter of which OS is better for whoever. I won't add it to it because it's all been said and re-inventing the wheel (over and over and over and over..) seems silly.

[UAnimosity]

I think it would really come down to the person running the network. People using either operating system for a long period fo time would know how to get the most performance out of that operating system in its respected applications.

Being a gamer, i know how to get the most performance out of my xp box, because ive used windows and dos all my life.

But i want to learn linux as well because that makes you flexable, you can use linux on the machines where they will be the most useful. Same with windows.

The point is making the best network possible right? that shouldn't mean picking the best os for the whole job, it should mean the best os for the task needed.

But im still new at this, so take that with a grain of salt.