Re: [Nolug] Windows Server 2008 vs Linux

Interesting points Chris. I had started to reply here, but just blogged
the response instead:

http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2008/03/compare_windows_to_red_hat.html

I would have linked to the actual post in the archives, but the list
archive stops around 3/5/08.

--
Dustin Puryear
President and Sr. Consultant
Puryear Information Technology, LLC
225-706-8414 x112
http://www.puryear-it.com
Author, "Best Practices for Managing Linux and UNIX Servers"
   http://www.puryear-it.com/pubs/linux-unix-best-practices/
Chris Jones wrote:
> I just thought I'd share this with everybody.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/windows-server-vs-red-hat-linux.mspx
> 
> 
> Now, let's rip this FUD apart.  First, Microsoft acts as if RedHat is 
> the only option that enterprises would ever go with, and they say that 
> while RedHat itself is cheap, it's $2500 a year for support.  Okay, 
> that's support, Microsoft.  Why don't we compare apples to apples, and 
> point out that Microsoft's support is somewhere around $700 per 
> incident?  To me, $2500 a year is FAR cheaper.  I also find a lot of 
> issue with the fact that Microsoft claims that every distro of Linux is 
> so different that migrating from, say RedHat to SuSE is very difficult, 
> if not impossible.  One of the key strengths of any UNIX architecture is 
> the portability of files.  The file structure is based on an open 
> standard, and you could very easily take files from something like 
> Turbolinux, and easily bring it back up on any other distro of Linux, or 
> perhaps BSD, Solaris, OSX, HPUX, etc...  Linux admins tend to keep the 
> data files on seperate drives/partitions from the OS, so you could 
> simply install another OS on a new hard drive, and mount the old data 
> partitions under that OS, and continue right where you left off.  If you 
> need something like a database, it's not hard to dump SQL to a file and 
> reimport it on the new server.  And the configuration files are 
> generally flat text files, so how is your data somehow married to the 
> OS/distro that it originated on?  Also, they make the claim that Windows 
> 2003 has fewer published vulnerabilities than Linux.  We all know that 
> more bugs will be FOUND in Linux, and they will of course be squashed 
> rapidly.  But, due to Windows' closed nature, how many bugs actually 
> EXIST but have yet to be FOUND?  The only valid argument that Microsoft 
> brings up in this article is about the management interfaces.  They 
> hands down win in that department, but that's why you hear of UNIX guys 
> working at places like NASA, making $200,000 a year.  UNIX OS's are 
> definitely not easier, and you do have to know what you're doing to 
> accomplish the same thing that you can do in Windows with a mouse 
> click.  So what?  It is what it is.  I also love how Microsoft neglects 
> to mention the fact that Windows Server 2008 is playing catchup with the 
> UNIX world by adding a new feature called Windows Server 2008 Core.  The 
> core mode basically turns Windows Server into a GUI-less 
> command-line-based server OS.  That way, it can run faster, without the 
> bloat and massive overhead associated with a GUI.  Sound like any OS 
> you've ever used?  Oh, that's right...UNIX/Linux/etc...  And of course, 
> once you are using Windows Server 2008 in core mode, you suddenly lose 
> that one advantage that Windows has: its GUI based management 
> interfaces.  Those are some great arguments, Microsoft.
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org