Re: [Nolug] Windows Server 2008 vs Linux

I'm confused...did you read the article from Microsoft? I agree that RedHat
has some decent GUI management tools, and that's why RedHat is more
expensive. Microsoft attacked RedHat directly, because they wanted to be
able to say that Linux is just as expensive, if not more, than Windows.
But, they then made a point that Linux lacks the management tools that
Windows has. I'm an MCSE in 2000, 2003, and am one test away from being an
MCITP in 2008, so I am no stranger to Windows. I work with it all of the
time, and love what it can do, but I think Microsoft is spreading FUD about
Linux, and trying to take advantage of the people that haven't had any true
exposure to Linux. The fact is, that Linux can be anything you want it to
be. There are the big, expensive enterprise level Linux distros, such as
SuSE and RedHat, but there are also big community driven distros, such as
Debian, and some more crude ones out there. Microsoft seems to pick and
choose when they compare their OS to Linux, like they use RedHat to make the
price of Windows look good, yet when they start comparing features, it's as
if they are comparing Windows to a more generic distro. And, as you state,
RedHat does have some decent GUI-based management tools, but the Microsoft
article claims that RedHat is nothing more than YUM.

"Red Hat includes the Yum update tool to help you download packages and
software updates, but doesn't address IT professionals' broader
needs—managing applications and workloads, like mail and collaboration,
database and business applications."

Just look at Microsoft's article as it is: Something to scare people out of
even trying Linux. Don't get me wrong, so far I love Windows Server 2008.
They've made a lot of good changes to the OS, Active Directory seems mostly
unchanged, but it seems like they have mainly focused on improving the OS
itself, and the changes are definitely in the right direction. It just
pains me to see Microsoft spreading false information, thinking that people
will just believe what MS says. I've always been a fan of mixed
environments, let each OS do what it is good at. To run a company and
administer its users, I think Windows wins. For email, Exchange probably
wins. (I hate Exchange, but till something better comes along, we're stuck
with it) I have yet to try anything like Kolab, so I admit I am sort of
biased here. For databases, they're all pretty much equal in my eyes,
unless you want something huge then obviously Oracle wins. For internet
servers, Microsoft really is trying hard, but they have 20 years before they
will ever even approach what Apache can do, and by then who knows where
Apache will be. For media development, Apple wins. Contrary to popular
belief, this is not because their OS or hardware is better, but because both
the hardware and software are from the same company, so they are able to
streamline the driver layers, so you get far better latency. In Windows,
you're lucky if you can get latency under 50ms, while a Mac comes out of the
box with 5ms latency. This is crucial when you hit a key on a midi
keyboard, because you want to hear it come out the speakers with no
noticeable delay. The thing is, every OS is good at something, but MS wants
you to believe their OS is the best at everything. (it isn't) :)

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Dustin Puryear <dustin@puryear-it.com>
wrote:

> 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
>

-- 
Chris Jones
http://www.industrialarmy.com
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org