Windows Vs. Linux, the MS papers

[bradyj]

http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/facts/default.asp

I'm a power user of neither -- Mac OS X for me, but I do tend to use a little Linux at work every now and then, and it seems quite nice to me. What do you guys think? Is this somewhat true, or a load of BS?

[bcarl314]

Oh no, someone opened a can of worms!

Similar discussion over on /. (http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/04/08/10/1246230.shtml?tid=109&tid=106&tid=218) . Personally, I don't buy into these results. It's fairly well know that MS paid the company to conduct the survey you reference which, to me, invalidates the objectivity.

I've worked with several companies where they have evaluated TCO of Linux vs. MS products and I have yet to see MS actually come out on top. The usual reason I hear from companies going with MS is that it will be a smaller learning curve because people are already used to it. I suspect that as Linux grows in acceptance, that issue will not weigh as heavily on PHBs.

[bradyj]

I agree that a 'paid' survey by one of the competing companies is completely biased -- this would be the same of any politics. I find Linux rather easy to work with -- I was an old Windows user from the get go, and I don't see much confusion with Linux -- you just have to know what you want to do with it, like any tool -- Windows is just as confusing... just like my Mac would be for a PC guy. So do you feel like Linux has some more promise than M$?

[Grant Palin]

I've been a Windows person from the start. However, I had recently been wanting to give Linux a try, so I bought Mandrake 10 and installed it on my Windows computer. I had to go through some work to handle the partitioning and dual-boot setup, but that's another story.

Anyway, after all that, the installer went quite smoothly, and I have had no problems fiddling around with Mandrake. It's quite nice...The GUI is quite like Windows, so there's some familiarity. And I've been learning to use the command line as well.

So far, it has been a good learning experience for me. It's actually been easier that I was afraid it would be, and that's a good thing!

I don't know about other Linux distributions, since I haven't tried any others, but Mandrake is an easy change from Windows (for me anyway).

Now to the point of the thread, just from my experience so far, and from what I've read on the subject, I believe Linux can start giving Microsoft some competition since it's open source and free. No time soon, of course, but we all know what Microsoft has been doing about the "Open Source threat", and that shows they're worried.

I believe Open Source will start becoming more and more popular, unless Microsoft start catering more to the consumers than themselves. I.e. fix problems in Windows and Internet explorer, to name two hot issues.

And we know for a fact that Linux web hosting is cheaper than Windows hosting, so what does that say against the survey?

[sad69]

I know a little bit about everything, but a lot about nothing; especially when it comes to operating systems. But here's my two bits anyway:

I think that if an employee is just going to be using the Internet and/or email, a Linux desktop is just fine. But once that user requires more functionality with regard to particular software (graphics, etc..), Windows is better supported. Sometimes proprietary software is developed in Visual Basic or Visual C++, so unless the company has their software re-written to a platform independent version, they're pretty much stuck using Windows (although you could use VMWare or something..).

However, if you're running a server of some sort, Linux would generally be the way to go, unless that proprietary software has a server module that is also written in a platform dependent language (like VB or something..). It's not unheard of to have a Linux server up and running with no issues for 2+ years. I dunno about Windows, but I doubt it would be anywhere near that..

So it does depend on the situation. If you're a company or user starting from scratch, you should probably be ok using ANY operating system. However, if you're already using Windows or Linux or Mac, then switching introduces a lot of different 'costs': including re-training, repurchasing/redeveloping -- if necessary -- of software and/or hardware (different systems/platforms can be resource hogs..), and maintenance (what if something crashes.. who's going to start it back up? how easy is it? how long will it take? how critical is down time? this can differ from Linux to Windows to Mac and from situation to situation), among other things.

The home situation versus the company situation is also a factor. If you don't know where to look for help, and cannot understand Linux terminology no matter how hard you try, then stick to Windows. If something does go wrong, and you wouldn't know how to fix it, you're pretty much hooped. And that might defeat the purpose of switching to Linux: are you switching because it's free/cheaper, or because it's more reliable and adheres to standards and whatever?

You need to think about what purpose the computer will serve: is it going to be a desktop machine or a server? What types of programs will it need? Are they available for platform x? How much will it cost to go with the different platforms and different softwares? What features are important? Etc..

It's hard to compare especially with all the software available to Windows, although with SP2 out, that may change somethings..

Sadiq.

[bcarl314]

Not only do I feel linux has more promise than MS, I also believe that Linux has more to offer. Consider your standard out-of-the-box linux distro. Not only do you have a stable and secure OS, you also get:

A firewall (iptables, shoewall)
A web server (apache)
Several DB servers (mySQL, postgres)
Compilers (c++, C, and java)
Office Applications (openOffice)
Fun Stuff (100's of games)
Network uilities (including ipforwarding / masquerading, whois, plus more)
Mail server (sendmail + others)
Graphics program (GIMP)

All of these either don't come with windows or require additional licensing.

Oh, and grant, you should check out urpmi on your mdk 10 box. IT IS SOOO SWEET!

[Grant Palin]

Not only do I feel linux has more promise than MS, I also believe that Linux has more to offer. Consider your standard out-of-the-box linux distro. Not only do you have a stable and secure OS, you also get:

A firewall (iptables, shoewall)
A web server (apache)
Several DB servers (mySQL, postgres)
Compilers (c++, C, and java)
Office Applications (openOffice)
Fun Stuff (100's of games)
Network uilities (including ipforwarding / masquerading, whois, plus more)
Mail server (sendmail + others)
Graphics program (GIMP)

All of these either don't come with windows or require additional licensing.
Excellent point! When I first installed Mandrake, I was AMAZED at how much software came with it! Probably more than I'll ever need! :p But still!


Oh, and grant, you should check out urpmi on your mdk 10 box. IT IS SOOO SWEET!
urpmi? What's that?

[bradyj]

A firewall (iptables, shoewall)
A web server (apache)
Several DB servers (mySQL, postgres)
Compilers (c++, C, and java)
Office Applications (openOffice)
Fun Stuff (100's of games)
Network uilities (including ipforwarding / masquerading, whois, plus more)
Mail server (sendmail + others)
Graphics program (GIMP)

Nice:) Even a bit more than my Mac OS X!

[squirellplaying]

That is the biggest load of bs I have ever heard. Especially the part about windows costing 5-20% less then linux. Are they retarded? Linux is free to download and install. You don't need to pay registration fees and all this other crap to get it to work. "Windows has the fewest vulnerabilities and the fewest "high severity" vulnerabilities of any platform measured." What?! I have never heard a story of someone getting hacked on linux on any board I go to, that it wasn't thier stupid fault. I had my server running for a week with redhat with a gui before I switched to debian and my mom and brother were on it. No spyware, no viruses. They go to the same site and they get spyware and virus that I have to get off. Hmmm. "Using the .NET Framework speeds development of interoperable applications." My uncle developes programs. He finds it much easier to develope on linux then windows at about the same speed. But the .NET frame work isn't as secure.

Ok I'm done ranting for now. I am sorta bias towards linux, but it's still bs.

[bcarl314]

urpmi? What's that?

It's a simple command line tool for installing apps. Used to be that you'd download the source, and compile for your system. Then Red Hat came out with "rpm" or "Red Hat Package Manager" which allowed allowed easier installs.

Mandrake took that concept one step further with urpmi. The problems with compiling and rpms is that if you don't have the dependent files / modules, it can be a pain installing stuff. With urpmi, it not only tells you the dependencies, it also asks if you want to install them. Very slick tool.

type "man urpmi" to learn more.

[bradyj]

Ok I'm done ranting for now. I am sorta bias towards linux, but it's still bs.

hey, I'm biased too -- the statement:
"Windows has the fewest vulnerabilities and the fewest "high severity" vulnerabilities of any platform measured."

Is quite humerous on my platform as well:)

[gsnedders]

Nice:) Even a bit more than my Mac OS X!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we get: Firewall (Apple's own, as far as I know)
Web server (Apache)
PHP 4.0.6 (Problems with OS X compatibility till 4.3)
Chess
iChat
Address Book
iCal
iMovie
iPhoto
Safari

I still prefer Linux over Windows, but OS X over Linux, and OS 9 over Windows (I have to do that to make you think :D).

[Grant Palin]

It's a simple command line tool for installing apps. Used to be that you'd download the source, and compile for your system. Then Red Hat came out with "rpm" or "Red Hat Package Manager" which allowed allowed easier installs.

Mandrake took that concept one step further with urpmi. The problems with compiling and rpms is that if you don't have the dependent files / modules, it can be a pain installing stuff. With urpmi, it not only tells you the dependencies, it also asks if you want to install them. Very slick tool.

type "man urpmi" to learn more.
Right, I'll have a look at that tonight! Thanks for the tip!

(I've had a read on the process of installing software from source...seems rather complicated!)

[squirellplaying]

Yes, install from source is a pain, and takes forever. Plus I've never not had a problem doing it that way.


It's a simple command line tool for installing apps. Used to be that you'd download the source, and compile for your system. Then Red Hat came out with "rpm" or "Red Hat Package Manager" which allowed allowed easier installs.

Mandrake took that concept one step further with urpmi. The problems with compiling and rpms is that if you don't have the dependent files / modules, it can be a pain installing stuff. With urpmi, it not only tells you the dependencies, it also asks if you want to install them. Very slick tool.

type "man urpmi" to learn more.

And debian has apt-get. It is only the greatest thing ever invented. One command to download,install, install dependencies, and configure with just one command. The same basic command can also uninstall the program. Theres also alien I believe which you can use to install rpms, similar to redhats rpm install thing but made for all linux platforms.

AWWW**Angel music like.**

[gsnedders]

Installing from source... Hey, I'm doing that now! (Apache 2, PHP 5 and a couple of other things)...

[bcarl314]

Yeah, I think Mandrake got the idea from apt-get. Same concept as far as I can tell. Of course in my RHCT training, the guy insisted that you could do the same thing with Redhat and a simple RPM command, but I never got that configured and seemed to run into dependency problems more than I'd like. Which wasn't too bad until you get dependencies for the dependencies. YUCK! :eek:


Installing from source... Hey, I'm doing that now! (Apache 2, PHP 5 and a couple of other things)...


You go stud! ;) I never did like installing from source. I always had this mental picture of my hard drive and I just felt like I was working on a cluttered box when I did that. For some reason, when I use packages, I feel "cleaner". Just me though.


That is the biggest load of bs I have ever heard. Especially the part about windows costing 5-20% less then linux. Are they retarded?


Yes! :D. Seriously, the big difference between linux and MS in that study is the admin cost. They make the conditions such that a single MCSE can admin a network (like a 20 machine network or somthing), which is about the limit of a single MCSE. On the other hand, because of the "Once it's running, it just runs" nature of Linux (and Unix) a single LPI certified (or RHCE) can admin 50 + machines. That's not considered in the TCO of the study, so it's misleading. So the fact that an RHCE usually pays more than a MCSE skews the stats. But when you look at it from a admin cost / machine, linux comes out on top.

Not to mention that very few virii are engineered for linux, which is a significant portion of a sysadmins job. Just keeping a system clean. (Hence the 20 / MCSE vs 50+ / RHCE deal above.)

[gsnedders]

It worked... But I hate installing from source... Too slow... So, I've got Apache 2.0.50 and PHP 5.0.0 running, but my firewall blocks access from the internet for some reason (just about to create a topic 'bout that)...

[Grant Palin]

Is installing from source really worth it?

I've read some on the subject, and am aware of the pros and cons.

Pros: compiled for your system, choose what feature you want.

Cons: complicated, time-consuming.

So I'm aware of why you might or might not want to do it...but can anyone indicate whether the trouble is worth it or not?

[gsnedders]

I did it because of the lack of OS X binarys, and the fact you can chose where to install it.

[Grant Palin]

...you can chose where to install it.
Does that even matter? Don't you get a choice where to install a package or binary?

[gsnedders]

The main flaw in Apple's otherwise brilliant Install app.