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.

“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.

sorry if you guys dont understand me but i am only 15(i dont live in usa or any other english country)

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.

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!