Mandriva sucks mad cock

[Tikker]

this is all


I've actually decided to rip out all the linux I've got (except my video stream receiving boxes) and go back to full on wind0ze network


linux requires so much more babysitting than windows at this point, it's retarded :\

[Gidan]

Switch to a different disto. I dont have a sinle problem with my slackware box or even my fedora box.

What are you trying to do that is giving you problems?

[Tikker]

for what I'm doing (phpbb forums, webhosting, ftp, SNMP polling, etc) it doesn't really make much difference if I use windows or linux

Linux was an experiment to use linux for the sake of using linux

I just don't have the patience anymore to deal with linux, or the generally shitty linux instructions

[Captain Insano]

I remember maybe between 2000-2004 everyone talking smack about how much better Linux is and how much more cost effective it is and how it was going to destroy windows and there I was all by my lonesome telling them they were all fucking high.

I think competition is great... but Windows is easier to use, works with everything and is MORE cost effective than Linux and has been proven consistently in many 3rd party technical studies.

Get one box running Small Business Server and all your clients running 64 bit XP Pro and you will be set for a couple years.

[Gidan]

Actually linux is making ground on windows especially when it comes to servers. One of the biggest driving forces right now for windows keeping its foothold is companies that require the use of .net. However linux compatability with .net is already in the works and is estimated to be completed within a year.

One of the places linux has all but completely taken over is webhosting. The datacenter I work in has over 22,000 servers of which 80% are linux. We consistantly have people switch over from windows to linux simply becasue the linux servers are better.

I would also challange your notion that windows is more cost effective, especially in a small business enviornment. When you could setup an entire network for $0 vs a windows network which can get very expensive its hard to beleive you would would cosider it cheaper to go windows.

[Tikker]

One of the places linux has all but completely taken over is webhosting. The datacenter I work in has over 22,000 servers of which 80% are linux. We consistantly have people switch over from windows to linux simply becasue the linux servers are better.

I'm going to call bullshit on that statement (at least around here)

the box of choice in these parts for most hosting has almost always been SUN

I'd be probably 65% of the boxes in our datacentres are SUN, followed closely by HP

maybe 5% are linux, with roughly the same percentage on windows

[Captain Insano]

I would also challange your notion that windows is more cost effective, especially in a small business enviornment. When you could setup an entire network for $0 vs a windows network which can get very expensive its hard to beleive you would would cosider it cheaper to go windows.

Small biz server and XP Pro if purchased when you get computers is cheap and its fucking cake to make work. The price of ONE Linux tech for 3-4 months is more expensive than all the hardware and software for a small business.

The ONLY way Linux is cheaper is if you have a Linux wizard on the payroll to actually make the software do what you want.

I think Linux is great for a free product, but until all these little factions come together and spit out one or two really good products instead of a million flavors Linux will remain a vast minority in the desktop OS/server market.

The cost studies of Linux versus Windows have been done hundreds of times by many 3rd party labs and almost always come out with Windows way on top. If you think about how many times you have had someone with mediocre tech knowledge fix a problem with a Microsoft box versus the cost of paying some Linux brainiac to fix every little bug I can easily see how over the long run Microsoft will save even small biz's a fortune.

[Lueyen]

I'm not really a huge fan of SBS myself, mainly because I've had to deal with the mistake of it being bought and implemented for a client who wanted to use multiple domains... or really wanted to keep thier server as the domain controller. SBS is fine if you are running a small single domain network, if you need to make a move to a larger network though, be prepared for your cost to sky rocket when you go to buy the regular windows server os.

As far as Windows servers in general.. I'm curious how much you are actually using. If it's mainly file sharing, that's pretty easy to setup and maintain.. but then again so is samba (unix port that shares unix files systems for windows boxes).

Depending on what you are doing Exchange can be a royal pain in the ass, I'm not super expierenced with linux, but I can tell you I'd rather do email with a unix box then with a windows one. Same thing if you are using it as a firewall or router.

All else aside though, I personally see a mix as optimal. For your average non technical user desktop, MS Windows is probably the way to go, due mostly to familiarity by the user. When you start talking servers, I see non MS OS solutions as a better route.

One thing that has not been mentioned though is efficiency, and the hardware overhead required by different operating systems. It has been my expierence that any flavor of unix I've dealt with can do a lot more with a lot less then a MS OS.

[Gidan]

Setting up a linux server for any good Windows tech is cake. Its the understanding of how a server needs to work and what needs to be running that is the hard part. Hell if you use Red Hat there is even a GUI for just about every major server app you could need.

I have used Windows 2000 and 2003 servers, its far easier to get linux up and running and keep it up then windows. Many of the settings in windows make absalutly no sence and I cant count the times I had to go back to book after book to find what windows wanted for certain settings, while using linux things actually made sence. Take Exchange server for example, when is the last time you actually set up an exchange server? I can setup a sendmail server in about 60 seconds.

The difference between windows and linux is very noticable after the server is up and running. The longest uptime I have seen on a windows server that was actually being used (I dont count the damn servers hosting 1 website that gets 2 hits a day and does nothign else) is about 1 month. I however regularly see linux server with 2 years of uptime.

Also when it comes to security on a server, a windows server cant even come close to a well secured linux server. Granted if your small business server has no connection to the net, this isn't a big deal unless you have random people actually sitting at server and logging in.

[Captain Insano]

hmm... would you say your learning curve from zero knowledge to proficiency with Linux was less than Windoze? I know both and I personally found Linux to be frustrating and time consuming to learn. Maybe it's improved a lot since I last touched it.

[Gidan]

The learning curve can be large if you are planning to edit the config files by hand, however RedHat for 1 has built a large number of GUI apps to help. I would say that if you understand how servers work, you could get a redhat server up and running fairly quickly,