TR Forums

With all the news now adays about all these companies taking on Linux. Does this mean Linux will replace Windows servers? I say yes and no. I've never messed around with Windows Servers so I can't really say if their bad or good. However I have used/created vile Linux servers during my years at HS. I say vile because I'm not a fan of Linux. My first impressions of it were nothing more than "Wow a new way to waste time!" I'll admit that Linux has a very good chance of getting a lot of the server market, and in fact I see it doing just that. So I guess the question is when will all this Linux hype wear down?

When linux becomes as unreliable as Windows.

In all seriousness, I as part of my daily job I interact with probably the largest non-DOD datacenter in Texas. The only time we put anything on Windows is when there is no other choice. That's not to say that linux is always the right choice either. But it is by far the cheapest choice, and in many cases that's the deciding factor. Right now, every CPU in our datacenter that comes up or lease return this year is scheduled to be replaced with a cpu running linux.

Now, I sit here writing this response on a Win 2k machine, although I dual boot linux as well. When it comes to desktop work, Windows is a much more mature product when it comes to support, etc. I'm not arguing the points of why or how, but it is. The desktop is where Windows reigns supreme at the moment and for the near future at least.

Funny thing is, Microsofts push to make Windows the ultimate desktop OS is one of the big reasons they have problems in the server market. Very few servers need graphics subsystems or web browsers. Even fewer need Outlook Express and MSN Messenger. The fact that they are installed is a minor point. Many of our unix servers have an X server installed. The fact that you cannot extract them from the OS however is a major point. The bloat , overhead, and instability the add versus the benefits they provide just doesn't add up.

That's a short version, the discussion (if treated as a rational discussion, not a flame war) is long and interesting, but I'm tired of typing for the moment.

--SecretSquirrel

I also don't want to start a flame war. I agree that Windows hasn't really created a good server by what I've been able to mess with. However their current one I guess it's called W2K3. Anyway, it disables a lot of worthless features like the browser and other things. I don't really know a lot about it I've only skimed it once on a posting. Still this is at least a right move for Microsoft though I doubt it will have a large impact on unix based servers. The way I see unix servers is that their cheap and reliable. Which is good mainly because I'm a poor CS student. Still I see Linux being used more as a replacement for older Unix servers. Anyway to make it sweet and short. Windows has a long way to go in order to get more people to migrate to its servers.

malebolgia wrote:

With all the news now adays about all these companies taking on Linux. Does this mean Linux will replace Windows servers? I say yes and no. I've never messed around with Windows Servers so I can't really say if their bad or good. However I have used/created vile Linux servers during my years at HS. I say vile because I'm not a fan of Linux. My first impressions of it were nothing more than "Wow a new way to waste time!" I'll admit that Linux has a very good chance of getting a lot of the server market, and in fact I see it doing just that. So I guess the question is when will all this Linux hype wear down?

Most of the companies switching to Linux are switching to intel hardware from expensive unixes with expensive 64 bit hardware.

Companies switching from windows to linux are probably switching for easy of use and because it generally requires less time. If your company can afford lots of redundancy and a few extra admins, you might run IIS or whatever windows simply because it may be more functional in one sense or another.

When will the talk die down? Not anytime soon. First of all, there will be people switching from windows to linux just as often as they realise that linux really isn't difficult to work with, can be more easily secured, etc (these are generalities and not always true, as with anything else). While windows is having big problems due to buffer overflows (Code Red, Nimda, Slammer, etc), the question will be higher on people's minds. While the economy is doing poorly, people will be switching from expensive hardware on expensive unix distributions to cheap ass intel hardware on free linux.

Also: it's not windows that needs to be making the improvements to move people over anytime soon. People who know linux/unix will most likely get unix/linux jobs because they pay better than windows sysadmin jobs. Windows admins will continue to be windows admins either for the overall functionality in some specific area (although it's close) or because even a monkey can point and click and follow instructions on how to enable a service or set up a PDC. Securing the thing, of course, doesn't come into the picture because you're happy it worked. Nevermind that every 13 year old script kiddie has a r00t kit to the box and knows little more about it than "it's 1337 and it sets up DCC boxes lol."

Disabling some services by default is a step in the right direction, but there are still some pretty considerable problems that will require creating more complexity within windows for microsoft to fix sufficiently.