I switched from Linux to Windows Server 2008
Wait, did I say that right? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around?
I admit it, I loved running Ubuntu Server 64-bit on my VMware server. It ran very amazingly fast, and I didn’t have to touch it for months. I also liked the idea of all of the configuration being text based. It was easy to backup and restore.
There were just a couple of recurring issues that made me uneasy. The console screen would randomly display network adapter issues, and sometimes I would lose the network connection until I would restart the networking script.
The other issue is that my software RAID 1 array would randomly disappear on reboot. I would have to run this command to fix it:
sudo mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 --assume-clean /dev/sd[ab]
The last major issue I had was with the VMware Server installation. Out of the gate, the installation was 10 times more difficult. It wasn’t a click->next->next->next install. Once I got it installed, the VMware server console wouldn’t connect.
Since Windows Server 2008 has been released, I’ve heard nothing but amazing things. This is the best operating system to come out of Microsoft for a long time. For about the past month, I’ve been trying it out on my laptop. It’s basically Vista x64 SP1 without all of the crap. Microsoft really messed up Vista, but somehow they managed to fix it in their server product.
Installation took less than 15 minutes, and I appreciate the fact that it doesn’t ask you anything other than the location to install to. It boots extremely fast, and is impressively snappy.
All of the previous issues I mentioned have gone away (I cheated on the RAID problem, since I’m not using RAID anymore).
The most frustrating thing about Linux (and one of it’s biggest strong points), is that I never had a really good GUI tool to fall back on when things got rough. When something goes wrong in Windows, I can at least look around at my options. In Linux, you have to look at documentation and examples, and guess what the syntax and settings are for your configuration.
The biggest problem for many of my readers is going to be the fact that you can’t get a copy of Server 2008 for a reasonable price. In my case, this is a development server, and I’m able to use my MSDN (Microsoft Developer network) license.
A common question I’m asked, is if I had any problems finding drivers. Every driver I needed was automatically installed by Windows. It’s very impressive seeing as how it’s a completely custom server, with all of the parts purchased on NewEgg.
I still love Linux, but right now I’m more productive with Windows Server 2008 x64.
Update Apr. 18, 2008: I posted a follow-up to this post here
Anonymous said,
Wrote on April 16, 2008 @ 3:21 am
I’m a bit confused. When running Ubuntu Server on VMWare Server what was your Host OS? Vista 64 I guess, or are you running VMWare ESX Server.
Now you’re running Win2008 Server as a guest OS on VMWare or are you running 2008 Server as the Host OS and not using VMWare.
I’m running a similar setup myself, XP32 with VMWare Server and Ubuntu 32 Server as the guest. I mainly use it as a subversion server. I’m eager to try Windows 2008 Server 64. Vista64 just didn’t like my box. Can I ask about the Hypervisor stuff, does it make things faster? Does VMWare support it?
Dan
[Stefan] said,
Wrote on April 16, 2008 @ 3:47 am
Well, using Ubuntu as server is maybe not the right decission. You should rather try Novel Linux Server with its sophisticated config GUIs (originated from SuSE Linux Enterprise Server with YaST config).
Ubuntu vs Win2K8 Server is like a shootout between a Walter PPK and an ICBM.
SuperJason said,
Wrote on April 16, 2008 @ 5:58 am
Sorry for the confusion. I was running Ubuntu Server as my host, and now I’m running Win 2k8 at the host.
The main purpose of that server is to simply host virtual machines and some file shares.
As for the HyperV stuff, I unfortunately haven’t tried it yet. I like the idea of having native support for virtual machines. I did some research before installing, and I didn’t read anything that great about the HyperV functionality.
At some point, I’ll try HyperV, but I so far I’ve always been able to count on VMware to make a great product.
SuperJason said,
Wrote on April 16, 2008 @ 6:00 am
stefan, I can understand you not liking the comparison.
When I chose Linux initially, I was trying to use something as lightweight as possible. Thanks for the suggestion though. I might give it a try on a virtual machine some day!
Anonymous said,
Wrote on April 16, 2008 @ 8:13 am
I’d rather go back to NT 4 than use Linux.
Thomas Allen said,
Wrote on April 16, 2008 @ 8:53 am
The way I see it, you’ve got things reversed. When things go awry, I need a good terminal to fall back on, not a GUI. That’s why I like Unix systems.
ziggy said,
Wrote on April 16, 2008 @ 8:55 am
I’m an avid Linux fan and cringe anytime people switch from a Linux server to a Windows server. If you are looking for a truely lightweight and stable server your best bet would be Debian or Slackware. Another alternative would be to use FreeBSD.
That being said I think criticisms like this are whats needed to keep Linux moving forward. There have been great leaps and bounds in the quality of Linux over the past few years especially at the desktop level. However, there is still a LONG way to go for it to be considered a great operating system. Some things that should be easy for the user is way too hard such as installing certain software and getting some hardware functionality to work properly. I’ve been using Linux in some form for 10 years but it took me 3 days of mucking around with configuration files in order to get dual screen monitor support to work properly in Ubuntu. That is unacceptable.
SuperJason said,
Wrote on April 16, 2008 @ 9:15 am
ziggy, I agree 100%
The Linux is a great platform as far as performance and stability, but the top layer needs be as simple as Windows for those of us that must be productive.
h3 said,
Wrote on April 16, 2008 @ 9:45 am
I agree that Linux (any distribution) are far from perfect, but still I got accustomed to it really fast and I can’t stand windows anymore..
An on the other hand, did you try to fill a bug report or get support on Ubuntu forums ? The community is really awesome and the answers and bug fixes comes really fast.
Anonymous said,
Wrote on April 16, 2008 @ 10:35 am
“In Linux, you have to look at documentation and examples, and guess what the syntax and settings are for your configuration.”
Until you learn how to use them, then that argument goes away. An inexperienced Windows Server user would say the same about that.
SuperJason said,
Wrote on April 16, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
In response to the last comment…
I actually think I’m going to have to disagree. Windows 2008 is amazing from a configuration standpoint compared to 2003.
When I go to do something, share files for example, it will tell me if other settings need to be made, and then ask me if I would like them changed automatically. I have never seen anything like that in Linux. Basically, the cohesion is unlike anything I have experienced in Linux.
Please don’t get me wrong. I love Linux and I still use it for a couple of things. The point is how impressed I am with 2008!
Anonymous said,
Wrote on April 16, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
ytechie: this is the lamest thing i’ve heard! sorry, but… hey! wake up! and is the title of this post just for getting attention or what??
Anonymous said,
Wrote on April 16, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
“Until you learn how to use them, then that argument goes away. An inexperienced Windows Server user would say the same about that.”
Windows GUIs (or any GUIs for that matter…) provide choices.
Text files provide opportunities to track down HOWTO files and research options for 20 minutes.
The learning curve for GUI environments is simply quicker.
I monkeyed around with setting up Linux (both Ubuntu and another), and while I was in the GUIs stuff was quick. THEN I had video driver problems…2 hours later after finding out what files to edit, X would start.
My modern Windows experience (2000+) is that “It just works”. If I had to edit the Windows registry to get everything configured that too would be a nightmare, however GUIs take care of all of that for me.
Anonymous said,
Wrote on April 18, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
why is it that people are afraid to read. reading leads to learning and growing and becoming more well-rounded. there’s a reason point and click can be referred to as point and grunt.
At that point it becomes more muscle memory than knowledge.
no big deal, you use what makes you most productive, but if i spend a few moments learning something new in the process of fixing a problem, I look at it as a growing opportunity, and then if I want to help out the community, I give back and write something to either automate or assist others in that process.
Anonymous said,
Wrote on April 18, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
If this guy can’t use command line, then he’s no admin.. Id fire you .
http://static.flickr.com/55/150664947_5a64267303_o.jpg
unfortunately our IT field is becoming more and more inundated with people like you .. that need a nice gui.. or don’t know how to use the core OS, but need fancy windows to do tasks.
Ian McGowan said,
Wrote on April 18, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
There are more nuances to this than the windows advocates or linux fans admit to.
Windows is easier to install and configure on “standard” hardware.
Unix/Linux is stabler and easier to troubleshoot when things hit the fan (though it does involve reading and learning what is going on behind the scenes).
Depending on what you’re trying to do, one of those things may be more important than the other. People are not fools – they make rational choices based on need and cost.
Can’t we all just get along?
SuperJason said,
Wrote on April 18, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
Ian, Thank you.
Anonymous said,
Wrote on April 19, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
What the OSS/*nix zealots fail to realize is that the brain is wired to better process and internalize visual information over textual or numeric information. This is the reason why the VAST majority of people use and prefer the GUI over the command-line since most people aren’t professional developeers.
How many people have traumatic memories of numbers or text? No, its almost always something more graphic and visual that has created the fear.The intro in all of the Heads First series of books all hint at how our brains process information and its TRUE.
Now let me be clear I am not advocating that the command-line doesn’t have its place. A command-line app is superior in terms of automated interaction with a program but inferior in usuabilty compared to a GUI.Its also vice versa for the GUI so its weak where the command-line is strong and strong where the command-line is weak.
What can we conclude then? THEY ACTUALLY COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER! The either/or choice is a false choice.
Anonymous said,
Wrote on April 20, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
I never understood what is it some Linux fans find so bad about using GUI interfaces. Really. It sounds a bit like the “real programmer” debates of bygone times when guys would argue about using machine/assembly language versus compiled languages for their programs.
Overall, it’s funny.
)
(Yeah, if I can install software by just pushing a few “next” clicks and get the job done I’d chose that anyday over trying all kinds of configs for a few days until it suddenly works
)
Oozzy said,
Wrote on January 13, 2009 @ 5:16 am
“I never understood what is it some Linux fans find so bad about using GUI interfaces.”
They don’t have GUI and thats why they hate it
They hate hardware vendors too. And the game vendors 
I’m running 2 Linux servers myself and i really like Linux for some server roles. But I’m getting fed with all the Linux fanboy idiots called themselves “admins”… sigh.
On the topic: Windows 2008 is really amazing peace of software. I must admin – good job by M$.
Nick said,
Wrote on March 27, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
Yep, been along that same road and I sympathize your choice of server.
There’s a lot of bashing going on from terminal advocates towards those that prefer a GUI, but when things get though – oh boy – does it make a difference.
The transition was made in our (500 people) company after we experienced a severe setbacks with our FreeBSD server. Using text-based documentation and a terminal does make you get a feel for what’s going on behind the scenes … if you have the time. Having a delegation of investors and your manager (Murphy’s law) breathing down your neck when things go bonkers is not a time when the terminal proves to be more productive. You have an entire workflow which has to pass through the keyboard. A GUI simply gives you a clear overview, textfiles means pen and paper.
Win Server 2008 has reduced our workload. Sure, things happen but it’s sorted much quicker and the learning curve is steeper. We kept a part of the FreeBSD server to train new people (smaller internal network with FPGA cluster) and we’re seeing less “stress” when they get behind the windows server.
Embrace change, don’t try to stop it.
Jeff said,
Wrote on April 14, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
I’ve used every version of Windows since 3.1. I’ve been generally impressed with the way things improved until about Win2k. From there, every OS that they have released has been worse than the one before it, in terms of usability and unnecessary complexity.
I just installed Windows Server 2008 as an alternative to my Vista installation. I hate it only slightly less than Vista at the moment. Nothing except the hard drives installed automatically.
The UAC permissions paradigm is still mind-numbingly poor — the Unix SUDO command is still vastly superior and less intrusive while being more effective at minimizing exposure to malicious software. All UAC does is teach users to ignore it. A ridiculous number of false positives is at least as bad as having no security. Unless, of course, you don’t *want* your server to run anything but the OS (but then, why have a GUI?).
The worst part is Internet Explorer. It automatically places any web site in the Untrusted security zone and requires you to manually add any that you might trust with an annoyingly intrusive pop-up message. Here’s a hint: a browser should not be so ingrained in an operating system that a bad website can compromise your server! My first installed application on this system is Firefox. It’s not perfect, but at least IE won’t be warning me whenever I want to do something useful.
And speaking of terminal vs. GUI, I’ll take the terminal. It may take longer to learn initially, but it’s much more powerful and faster to use. I can’t stand having to click 17 times through illogical (but improving) menus to change the minimum password length. Thank you, Windows, for showing that GUIs can be both pretty and more difficult to use than the console.
And don’t get me started on scalable GUI feature resolution in Windows. It still sucks (and always has) and isn’t even close to Mac or Ubuntu’s usability.
Back to Ubuntu for me. I’m only keeping Server 2008 on my system to play games.
Rave said,
Wrote on April 16, 2009 @ 10:12 am
I originally used windows but couldnt stand all the viruses xp had so i switched to linux and bsd. i been using linux for 3 years and it sucks. Linux is a piece of sh*t. The applications such as flash and java barely work half the time especially on kde. Certain printer drivers dont work. And webcams are a pain in the ass to set up on linux. I’ve used Fedora, OpenSuse, Mandriva, PCLinuxOS (bunch of a**holes those people in the community were).. I’ve used freebsd (a nightmare to setup) OpenBSD (even worse a nightmare) and DesktopBSD (nothing compatable hardware wise) and PCBSD (best of the bsd’s and easiest to use). But BSD still doesnt have flash support of its own. They have to incorporate flash9 through wine and embed it in the kernel through some wrapper. Trying to get most computer experts in my state or any state near me to work on a linux machine is almost impossible. I’ve had sound issues i’ve even caught the LKM Trojan on my mandriva and thats when i drew the line and said F*ck Linux and BSD and i switched back to Windows. Granted it has viruses but at least they have better firewalls and antivirus software to cope with that. When i was working with Linux and BSD i had to set up the firewall, the iptables, the ipv6tables, the ipchains, the rkhunter, the chkrootkit, the clamav, pax, aide, tripwire, and getting snort to work was almost impossible. SELinux was built half-as*ed and so was AppArmor. The firewalls (such as firestarter and guarddog) had to be configured and they werent nearly as advanced as norton or zonealarm for windows. And the intruision detection system was damn near impossible to set up and it was all terminal crap with mostly log files. It was a b*tch to work with. Modifying IPTables either through the terminal or through kwrite was a damn nightmare especially trying to make it work correctly. Symantec had been working with this stuff alot longer and do a much better job at it. KDE was a friggin nightmare. That desktop had more bugs and issues than explorer ever had. It’s far from stable. Konqueror constantly crashes java and flash are far from compatable for it. And good luck setting up a movie player in linux or bsd (with the exception of pcbsd or mandriva) setting one up had to be done through a third party and was a nightmare experience. You had to download the cvs grab all the updated codecs grab the actual file and download god only knows what dependencies are required to make the thing work… such as ffmpeg or gstreamer and many many others. Un-tar-ing the package make make install and check install. And you had to make sure you had perl and php installed on your system and a C++ and GCC compiler before you can do any of that crap. With windows its all point and click and go and its done for you. No hassle of setting up the most basic software or applications. None of that bullsh*t garbage to deal with like linux. Which is why i went back to Windows and havent regretted the experience one bit. No more headaches with linux and bsd. Granted windows may cost a bit more but in the end its well worth the extra money to know you wont bust your as* for hours doing something trivial to get it to work right. The problem with linux and bsd is its still designed for developers and hard core coders and not for the average guy who needs it as a desktop enviorment and perform basic functions like windows does. And yes BSD and Linux can catch viruses like windows can and once you get a virus its much much harder to get off your system than it would be with windows.
Joseph said,
Wrote on July 3, 2009 @ 9:49 am
Linux, most of them distributions, the major ones, are great, rich security features, run fast and smoothly, and text-based managent has its advantages…. BUT….still there are alot of problems with linux, for example, a new NIC has no driver for linux and not recognized by linux,another example is that linux excessively relies on text-based managment,text-based managment provide a powerfull control but it not perfect, for example it lacks the ease of status monitoring viewing like you would get via GUI. To totally rely on text-based or GUI is lost cause, you have got to have a good mixture between the two, because each has its prons and cons, use the GUI for its cons, and compensate its cons with a test-based managent backup, linux doesnt have that, it so excessively relies on text-based.
Another problem about linux is the misconception that “Enterprise” means it have to be complicated and hard to get it on and up, Wrong!, why do i have to write a custom made batch file, and then run it via a terminal just to run an excutable file? why not just double click? doest really makes u feel smarter and worth something in the IT world if you did it that way(linux way i mean)? i just dont get it. Not even linux relies on text-based for most of its administrative functions, even the scripts, commands, the namings scheme of these commands and to use them is complex, why does it have to be this hard?, okay i agree when have a running and working linux server it will be perfect and smooth and you wont need much to maintain it, but you will go to hell back and forth many times before you get your server to that level.
Another example of i wouldn’t use linux and it will sound silly to you i know but i have tried fedora before and it had the hellix player(Real player match in windows OS), and i have tried to play some songs with .rm extension but no luck, i mean come on, Real tech made the hellix player, but it cant run the songs in their audio format(.rm .rmv etc ..)? that was a while ago i think fedora 8, probably got fixed by now.
I know what i wrote was random but it was just reading my mind and writing down what i didnt like about linux without really focusing on how it will sound.
Joseph said,
Wrote on July 3, 2009 @ 9:52 am
sorry, a correction in my comment above ” use GUI for its prons” not cons, got the two words switched lol.
coco said,
Wrote on August 20, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
So to sum it up:
Windows Server without its cost will be cool
Linux without its hassles will be awesome
Combine the two you’d get the perfect system.
Isn’t it a nice dream?
Brodey Dover said,
Wrote on August 27, 2009 @ 11:07 pm
PC-BSD my good friend. You can install Gnome and it takes less time to get up and running.
Firstly, you should NEVER guess the syntax as that means you haven’t understood the man page well enough (linux man pages are hideous compared to *BSD man pages – they can be wrong and not inform you about important key facts).
I would rather run Windows than run Linux
. Firstly, I will give my best shot at implementing FreeBSD/PCBSD.
My first attempt at arch linux gave the worlds oddest errors whenever setting up the hard disk partitions, I got a kernel panic (even windows doesn’t really crash the kernel) when restarting samba services, and the man page for pacman left out key information on getting myself going.
My knowledge of FreeBSD came in handy for sure. FreeBSD and OSX are my top choices, but the server products coming out of redmond are actually worthy enough for me to run them on my everyday desktops as a second boot option.
Thanks for the article
bio said,
Wrote on September 28, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
The key question that I get all the time is why do use the command line. If you are an end user, then sure a GUI will be fine but if you are going to be an Admin?? I administer both windows and linux servers. I use the command line not the gui for the following reasons.
1. POWER OF THE SHELL….gui tools are extremely limiting. If a gui tool does 10 things, those are the only ten things that you can do. If their is a shell, I can do at least 100 and thats before I combine all the different options that are available.
2. What happens when you hit enter……you need to know that nothing is “automagic”. Without knowing what files and what directives in those files are affected how can you possibly be a good admin. What happens when you need to troubleshoot? Go get a gui tool that trouble shoots for you?
I have been an admin for 15 years and I have yet to see one that does this well. Why, because it would take a mighty amount of code to account for the multitude of problems that could possibly arise. So you need something that allows complete granularity…you need a shell, why do you think I have Powershell on windows now.
These comments are directed towards Administrators NOT end users or help desk. And in all honesty, how in the world can you be an IT professional and be upset at the aspect of having the read to learn something new that could help you..unbelievable. BTW…there are gui tools for both windows as well as redhat linux.
handa fanda said,
Wrote on January 16, 2010 @ 3:55 pm
yes, linux is pain in the bun, i like windows server but, having hard time installing and using perl packges
APhotographer said,
Wrote on March 16, 2010 @ 9:56 am
As for me, I like Linux very match and using it sometimes in my photo work.
Bordwalk2000 said,
Wrote on August 8, 2010 @ 12:14 am
You better be impressed with 2008 for it being 600 dollars. My god don’t you think that they are charging a bit to much for that?
Pedant said,
Wrote on October 9, 2010 @ 1:14 pm
What makes me giggle (as a user of both OSS and MS) is the comparison that everybody seems to draw between Windows and Linux. How can you compare an OS with a monolithic kernel? Lol.
It’s amazing just how many self-professed-up-their-own-arse-linusx-sysadmins I have encountered that insist Linux is an operating system. It’s not an OS, it’s kernel. That’s why some of us refer to it as Gni/Linux.
Personally, I firmly advocate that platform zealots will not be employed by my business. Both platforms have pros and cons. Neither is perfect. neither ever will be.
Get over ot peple!
Chris said,
Wrote on November 12, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
Life of a Windows Server admin:
Oh, you want to share that file? No problem, I’ll just right-click properties, set to sharing, change read/write permissions, and you’re done! Just point to the IP address on the network from your computer and you’ll be able to access it.
Life of a Linux admin:
Oh, you want to share that file? Well let’s see, I’ll just cd into that directory and do an ls -la. Uh, what the heck is drwxr-xr-x? Great, now I gotta go study Linux file permissions.
*30 minutes later*
Ok, so I think I got it, so I’ll just enable all of the letters and see what happens. There, the folder now has write permission for everyone! Oh, you wanted to SHARE it. Crap, I don’t remember where that samba configuration file went. Oh right, this box doesn’t have samba installed, now I have to go compile it. You know what, maybe I’ll just upload it to http://FTP...
Sorry Linux guys, but to say the GUI is limiting is an understatement. It’s good for its flexibility and ability to see what is happening behind the scenes, but in terms of productivity and being able to handle problems easily, the GUI wins by a landslide.
AlexB said,
Wrote on December 6, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
This is why I like OSX server. You get a (nice looking) GUI with the power of unix under the hood. Want to config stuff from a command line? You’re covered. Want to never leave the pretty world of a GUI? You’re covered. The real shame is that it never gets any attention.
obaidullah safi said,
Wrote on February 8, 2011 @ 10:32 am
you all guys are right, but liston cearfully
i am a big fan of Microsoft and i love Windows server 2008. it is really cool
Mads said,
Wrote on April 28, 2011 @ 10:12 am
ohh come on guys linux is the kernel yea sure but if you are gonna host specific things like lets say a minecraft server and to other services a email and webpage then i would over everything pick windows its easy the hardware i use do not need specific driver if was using linux nope windows has it do i need to download all nope i simply go online from the server and download and if you are using windows server then omg you are the best. when i was using linux well there was no minecraft server software with the functions i needed to keep it running while i was away(i am a student and are hosting tree services
) so i am a so called end-user but honesty i will all ways prefer the MS solution it like apple it simply work no getting the terminal and write something like a 2 page report on why it wont work then wait for at least 3-5 days before a answer gets on the forum then you write it all down then sudenly out of no were a error suddenly pops up you then go through the post and find that this error is a new one then just starts over and over again and just one thig extra when i was using linux(ubuntu/xbuntu/kubuntu) as a end-user i got every thing from my previus lesson then want to save and it just go balck i go to the more experienced it guy in my familiy and ask he says you can forget about every thing you just wrote, why dos linux or any gui for it has to be like windows ME again(yes its old but i try OSs when i have time) or well yea linux it simply sucks if you are gona host a server for a game or a webpage i will recommend windows but not every MS thing is good for an example the IIS dont use that or exhange i have had trouble with it well exhange is that it cost money and i really dont have that much to go with for the budget
sorry if you guys dont understand me but i am only 15(i dont live in usa or any other english country)
Mads said,
Wrote on April 28, 2011 @ 10:14 am
the linux do need but the windows dont (specific drivers)
xtropx said,
Wrote on May 11, 2011 @ 1:21 pm
[Stefan] said,
“Ubuntu vs Win2K8 Server is like a shootout between a Walter PPK and an ICBM.”
Pretty much right on. While you could use various Linux distributions for Enterprise-level applications, if you are going to compare you can’t have apples to oranges. If you want to deploy a Linux alternative to Microsoft Server, you have to be in the same Enterprise-level boat. I have always went for a somewhat different solution.
The power of Linux as opposed to MS Server Operating system is their hardware requirements. I can run FreeBSD on a machine with 128mb of RAM and a Celeron and use it for a variety of network services. (VPN Tunnels, DNS, DHCP, Routing, etc) Just to get Server 2008 up and running you need a machine with 4 times as much RAM, and of course activating the Routing and Remote Access Services will use more memory and CPU.
So I think system admins come to a choice. Virtualization is the future. I can virtualize a variety of open-source Linux and Unix distributions all on one modest ESX server (think 16-24GB RAM, 4-8 Cores, depending on the needs) and achieve the same functionality level as a more expensive, more power hungry Windows Server. There is a learning curve involved in this. Reading the documentation. Understanding. -or- A system’s admin can go the Microsoft route in order to save some time and money and hassle with bash & terminal and other such things. (If you are savvy, you figure it out.)
In the end, if you are talking about what is going to get you hired or keep you successful in industry, chances are the boss will be more interested in those who can cut costs in both hardware and software while keeping the functionality and keeping systems running smoothly in their environment.
Lin Win said,
Wrote on June 27, 2011 @ 12:43 am
If you are an admin you need to master both systems. If you have a server farm of webservers, you can dramatically reduce costs on hardware requirements and power consumption by using a GUI-less LAMP stack on all machines. This will make your boss smile. That’s why 75% of ISP’s run Linux. On the other hand, if you need a large AD domain you have no choice but use Windows for ease of configuration, which will again save time and money.
I have used both systems and Server 2008 will do if u run just a few services. To run more services you need multiple servers because it is a resource hog compared to a Linux server. Microsoft and hardware vendors will smile when they see the revenues.
A Linux server can be hard to configure (for me that is not a problem but a challenge and a chance to learn), but once configured it runs blazingly fast and rock stable.
And, whats wrong with a little scripting to automate tasks? If you are a sysadmin who can’t do scripting, then what kind of sysadmin are you? Scripting can be done much more powerfully on Linux than on Windows.
The multiple Linux configuration files are an advantage to me, as compared to the monolithic Windows registry which can be it’s achilles’ heel.
GUI configuration is not my first choice perse. I thing setting up DNS is more cumbersome in a Server 2008 GUI than directly editing the records in a zone file on Linux. Not everyone likes to use 2008 for it’s DNS server role. Why do you think BIND is the most used DNS server on the planet?
The guys complaining about drivers clearly have no clue what they are talkin about. This driver problem is caused by closed source vendors, and not by the Linux kernel. Same goes for closed source codecs like flash, and setting up multiple monitors with closed source video drivers. So if you must bash anyone, bash those vendors.
Furthermore, a failing custom driver on Windows can crash the entire OS (happens regularly with dodgy USB sticks requiring their own custom drivers). If a driver fails on Linux the kernel and the distribution OS will happily keep running.
Incidentally, in 12 years of experience with both systems I have had more hardware/driver trouble with windows than with Linux.
And how about hardware migration? Stick a HD with a Windows install into a new computer and you WILL have to reinstall in 90% of the cases. With Linux, you can just use the same install in 90% of the cases, saving enormous amounts of time when you have to migrate a few hundred systems.
As for security, I never liked the cumbersome “runas” feature in Windows, sudo is much more transparent. Seems to me that the majority of posters here run their server as adminitrator all the time. You can’t do nothing worse for security than that.