Linux vs Windows a real life comparison

[dmcfarland]

I had my 1st linux experience 6 years ago. I worked for a company that was using linux for its file serving, email, database, e-commerce servers, some workstations and for various other tasks.

I was working for a internet toy company, and I started two weeks before Christmas, and of course I was swamped, but our web servers and database didnt crumble from the pressure. The entire system was stable and handle a lot of hits. Linux withstood the test.

Things began to change as the company began to expand, and began hiring more people. They hired a CIO who wanted to switch everything over to NT. He reffered to IT analyst like me as "fucking gear heads."

The company ended up swithching over to NT and then the problems began. The PDC crashed every other day of the week, the exchange server was on the same computer as the PDC, so exchange went to hell when the PDC crashed as it did often.

I noticed increased loging wait, problems getting email and a general reduction in speed when accessing the internet. IMHO things on the IT end went to hell when we downgraded from Linux to NT.

My buddie there had a contest to see what was faster NT or Linux. The NT technician (Wannabe,) used copy from his workstation and my buddie used SSH on his. Needless to say SSH was by far faster.
The company went belly up in 2001, becaused it expanded too fast and made some really shitty business descions. I cashed my options and got the hell out. I know that has nothing to do with the switch from Linux to NT.

I got my first taste of linux there, but I didnt really use it as my default because it wasnt ready to be a Desktop OS, but it is ready now.

Feel free to use this post as a testomonial to what not to do with an IT structure. I learned a lot from that and would never downgrade from a OS like LInux, FreeBsd or other unix like flavors and install XP or any microsoft os to run an enterprise.

Thanks for all the input and advice. I d'ed xbasic and Im going to find some books to get started.

Oh yeah :fu:Microsoft

[Kintaro]

Yes well, this is 6 years old so it proves nothing. Show something like FC4 vs Windows 2003 and people might actually care. Windows 2003 is, REALLY STABLE.

[dmcfarland]

Windows 2003? Theres Office 2003, but no windows 2003. BTW XP sucks ass compared to fc 4, and we using Redhat for our servers. Linux continues to get better, and Windows stay the same no matter how many bells and whistles it has.

I wonder if you ever posted without someone f'ing a sheep or some other moronic post youve posted in the past. I feel sorry for you if your still using Windows XP. Please get a life kintaro.

God bless you.

[Refalm]

Windows 2003? Theres Office 2003, but no windows 2003.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/

[piratePenguin]

Windows 2003? Theres Office 2003, but no windows 2003. BTW XP sucks ass compared to fc 4, and we using Redhat for our servers. Linux continues to get better, and Windows stay the same no matter how many bells and whistles it has.

I wonder if you ever posted without someone f'ing a sheep or some other moronic post youve posted in the past. I feel sorry for you if your still using Windows XP. Please get a life kintaro.

God bless you.

Windows Server 2003 (A.K.A. Windows 2003)

[dmcfarland]

Samba is faster than Windows Server 2003.:p

[dmcfarland]

My mistakes. Thanks for the info. :thumbup:

Windows Server 2003 (A.K.A. Windows 2003)

[toadlife]

Things began to change as the company began to expand, and began hiring more people. They hired a CIO who wanted to switch everything over to NT.

Did he have a reason for this switch?

The company ended up swithching over to NT and then the problems began. The PDC crashed every other day of the week, the exchange server was on the same computer as the PDC, so exchange went to hell when the PDC crashed as it did often.

Whoops! There was your problem! You don't put exchange on a domain controller. You can do just about anything else on a domain controller - file/print/database, but putting exchange on it is just asking for trouble. Judging by this one big no-no and the PDC dying like it did, it sounds like the dudes who set up your NT domain didn't know what the fuck they were doing.

My buddie there had a contest to see what was faster NT or Linux. The NT technician (Wannabe,) used copy from his workstation and my buddie used SSH on his. Needless to say SSH was by far faster.

Faster at what?

Regardless, if linux was running everything fine, the switch to NT seems needless. I've heard similar stories about new IT heads coming into perfectly operational WIndows shops and switching everything to linux with disasterous results.

If it aint broke - DONT FIX IT!

[H_TeXMeX_H]

Regardless, if linux was running everything fine, the switch to NT seems needless. I've heard similar stories about new IT heads coming into perfectly operational WIndows shops and switching everything to linux with disasterous results.

If it aint broke - DONT FIX IT!

IT heads trained in what ? Winblow$ I bet ... Winblow$ is broke, and it can't be fixed ... except with a sledgehammer.

[dmcfarland]

I didn't push for the switch over to M$. I am some of my co-workers were against it and we were vocal about our opposition. The idiot (CIO) argued that Windows had better technical support and that Linux didn't because he argued Linux was free. He didnt understand that Linux has a worldwide support base that wasnt limited to the RedHat corp. Not to mention the idiot (CIO) didnt listen to us.

Just for the record I would never advocate putting exchange on the same computer as the PDC. Thats suicide. Thats suicide . Samba was faster than Window$ when it came to printing, loging in etc. They erased my Samba machine after I quit, and installed NT on it. My Samba server went down one time, and thats when the power supply blew during a blackout. I dont know how it happened. I had it hooked it to an UPS. Needless to say, I swapped the drives into an idenical piece of hardware and fired up without any problems.

I hate NT. I hate Window$ 2000, 2003, and the rest of the windows family. My first love was netware and will always be a favorite. I used DOS and Xtree.net and things were good. I was drug kicking and screaming to Windows 3.1. I went reluctantly to 95, 98, and ME.

I love Linux.

[dmcfarland]

IT heads trained in what ? Winblow$ I bet ... Winblow$ is broke, and it can't be fixed ... except with a sledgehammer.

The window$ manaul comes with two pictures. One of a hammer, and another with a bigger hammer that has a caption underneath it-Use if the smaller hammer failed.:thumbup:

[toadlife]

IT heads trained in what ? Winblow$ I bet ... Winblow$ is broke, and it can't be fixed ... except with a sledgehammer.

How profound. What problems have you had with Windows that lead you to say this?

[MarathoN]

Dmcfarland, did you ever mention hating Windows 2000 before?

I didn't realise that you've used it.

[H_TeXMeX_H]

How profound. What problems have you had with Windows that lead you to say this?

Problems you ask ... I've had nothing but problems with Window$, and I never realised how many there were until I tried Linux. Every day (or nearly every day) I used Window$ a new problem arose. Most of them were security issues and stability issues. These went hand in hand, because the more secure I tried to make it the less stable it became. It was a lose lose situation ... until I installed Linux. And the amount of spyware and adware that kept building up on my computer despite numerous anti-spyware programs, and an anti-virus program, and a hardware and software firewall, all to no avail. Winblow$ is shit ! that's the least I can say for it.

[toadlife]

Problems you ask ... I've had nothing but problems with Window$, and I never realised how many there were until I tried Linux. Every day (or nearly every day) I used Window$ a new problem arose.

And let me guess. You've never had any problems with linux, right?

Most of them were security issues and stability issues.

Okay.

These went hand in hand, because the more secure I tried to make it the less stable it became.

What exactly do you mean? Care to give an example of 'trying to make it more secure'?

It was a lose lose situation ... until I installed Linux.

You're starting to sound like an infomercial here.

And the amount of spyware and adware that kept building up on my computer despite numerous anti-spyware programs, and an anti-virus program, and a hardware and software firewall, all to no avail.

So you're saying that instead of learning the root causes of security issue in Windows, and addressing them, you jumped ahead to the easy "solution" of installing applications that only take action after you've been exploited. Isn't that like hiring a bouncer and then having him sit inside your house? There are numerous steps you can take to prevent security problems in Windows. My best is that you installed so many redundant security applications, that they stepped all over eachother and caused the majority of the stability problems you spoke of.

Right now you riding the wave of obscurity, and judging by your "blame the software" attitude, if linux had 95% marketshare on the desktop, your linux box would have just as many security issues as your Widnows box did.