PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft 2003 Server beats Ubuntu



Konami
June 8th, 2007, 11:44 AM
I thought it was bias but I wanted to share it with you to know what do you think:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/facts/default.mspx?R=cf

mifi
June 8th, 2007, 12:27 PM
I thought it was bias but I wanted to share it with you to know what do you think:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/facts/default.mspx?R=cf
Does something like "the Highly reliable Times" exist? Sounds like a strange newspaper title to me. One cannot call himself highly reliable and still be trustworthy, can one?

mifi

Sslaxx
June 8th, 2007, 12:36 PM
I noticed the URL where this claim is made. Enough said, I think.

shijirou
June 8th, 2007, 12:53 PM
Hmm.... NCsoft using Windows 2003 Servers? This I gotta see...

Outrunner
June 8th, 2007, 12:55 PM
For some reason, I doubt this is true. I wonder why?...

the.dark.lord
June 8th, 2007, 01:03 PM
"The Highly Reliable Times"

Yeah, right. It indeed is correct.

viciouslime
June 8th, 2007, 01:42 PM
"Windows Server 2003 is more reliable than Linux, and delivers greater developer productivity and cost efficiency in a 64-bit environment. It was an easy choice to make." -Soon-ok Kwak, Director/Chief of Publishing Unit, NCsoft

WTF does that even mean? What is "linux" redhat. fedora, suse, ubuntu, the kernel, what? How can something that costs thousands and thousands of pounds be more cost efficicne than something that's free? OK you might have to pay a bit more for tech staff that have a knowledge of Linux, but there is no way that those costs aren't offset by the hundreds of thousands of pounds you would save on licence fees over the life of the company. In fact thinking anything more than about 5years ahead must offset such costs surely?

I would also be very interested to learn how "developer productivity" is measured.
The whole thing is just complete and utter bull.

Lucifiel
June 8th, 2007, 01:48 PM
I'd rather read a real case-comparison study instead. Something which is unbiased and third-party(with no favouritism to either Microsoft or Linux) would help point out the strengths and flaws within both MS 2003 server and a distro of your choice.

Then, you could use the results to improve the distribution.

mifi
June 8th, 2007, 01:48 PM
The whole thing is just complete and utter bull.
Amen.

ninthforce
June 8th, 2007, 01:50 PM
Yeh. Forgeddaboud Winblows.

proalan
June 8th, 2007, 01:52 PM
I thought it was bias but I wanted to share it with you to know what do you think:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/facts/default.mspx?R=cf

what facts? wheres the lab test comparison results? I don't see anything backing up their claims other than unsubstantiated statements from other corporate MDs.

prizrak
June 8th, 2007, 02:23 PM
As someone who deals with Server 2003 in a production environment on a daily basis I can tell you that it's BS. Even if Linux would end up costing you more in support fees and personnel, it would more than make up for it with lack of down time.

We got Solaris, RedHat and CentOS servers here as well and I almost never hear about downtime on them. It's all within the same team so I would know if something was going on. The Windows servers are rebooted weekly at least.

seshomaru samma
June 8th, 2007, 02:36 PM
interesting fact
the URL in question :http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...ault.mspx?R=cf
is blocked in China!

zugu
June 8th, 2007, 03:23 PM
NCsoft *is* big. If they manage the load with Windows Server, that says something about the product: it's an alternative to Linux, at least.

A company like NCsoft cannot allow itself to hire idiots in the network administration department. They chose Windows, so that's something.

jrusso2
June 8th, 2007, 03:43 PM
Even your beloved AMD is promoting the use of WIndows 2003 over Linux

Sunflower1970
June 8th, 2007, 03:52 PM
Ummm..yeah...MS servers better...At least not here. We have been having troubles with servers crashing at least once every couple of weeks...for, of all things, our phone system! They went digital on our phones a couple of months ago. Every other Friday, so far, for the past two months (since this was installed) the phones go down towards the end of the day....one of the busiest times for at least a half hour.

I'm sure there's someone somewhere who has had lots of luck with MS servers. There's always an exception to the rule :D

Lucifiel
June 8th, 2007, 03:56 PM
interesting fact
the URL in question :http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...ault.mspx?R=cf
is blocked in China!

What?! Serious?! O_o;;

Is just that one link blocked or is the whole of Microsoft.com blocked? :o

ThinkBuntu
June 8th, 2007, 03:58 PM
Those ads always make me laugh, but I think that Linux sites that allow these ads are pretty silly. Much respect to DW for only selling Linux-related ads. In any case, even if this review is unbiased, I'd like to see how many people are running MS Server on the desktop, considering that Ubuntu's a desktop-oriented OS. I'd love to see also how MS server measures up to Debian or FreeBSD servers.

prizrak
June 8th, 2007, 06:01 PM
NCsoft *is* big. If they manage the load with Windows Server, that says something about the product: it's an alternative to Linux, at least.

A company like NCsoft cannot allow itself to hire idiots in the network administration department. They chose Windows, so that's something.

I work for a Fortune 500 company and 90% of our technical stuff are complete and utter morons. I had to explain to a person in charge of hardware purchasing what a Dual Quad Core system was. (His IT not management). Hell I had the networking team asking me if I want a remote registry access port open on a UNIX or Windows server.

So don't assume that size of the company matters. You can manage the load with Windows, we are not talking Win 95 after all. Most of the systems here are fail over clusters anyway so we can reboot each node as needed while the other one is dealing with the requests.

seshomaru samma
June 11th, 2007, 01:58 PM
What?! Serious?! O_o;;

Is just that one link blocked or is the whole of Microsoft.com blocked? :o

It was on the day I posted
Now it's open

I think they some times block sites by mistake

cunawarit
June 11th, 2007, 03:16 PM
Clearly the site is biased, it is advertisement!

But anyway, from my experience Windows 2003 Server is an awesome OS, and it is no secret that I am a big fan.

As for downtime comments, it is true that some security updates do require you to restart Windows 2003 server. However, you can maintain your uptime even when a reboot is required by using clustering.

kamaboko
June 11th, 2007, 03:38 PM
The problem w/a post like this on a Linux forum is that no one will believe it. Linux is a religion here, not just an OS. Hell, (no pun intended) Linus Torvalds could have ran the study, offered pages and pages of proof, and posted MS is better and still no one would believe it.

ComplexNumber
June 11th, 2007, 04:00 PM
i don't think the article i even worth commenting on.

Extreme Coder
June 11th, 2007, 04:12 PM
I couldn't bother myself with opening the link, after looking at the first part of the URL.

prizrak
June 11th, 2007, 05:51 PM
Clearly the site is biased, it is advertisement!

But anyway, from my experience Windows 2003 Server is an awesome OS, and it is no secret that I am a big fan.

As for downtime comments, it is true that some security updates do require you to restart Windows 2003 server. However, you can maintain your uptime even when a reboot is required by using clustering.
And completely destroying the cluster in the process of fail over. It happens, alot... Server 2003 is not a bad piece of software but it really can't handle the extreme loads that *nix can. It's a nightmare to administer as well, lacking a decent CLI it requires installing something like Perl for some very basic tasks. Of course the problem is that Perl is not nearly as well integrated into the OS as bash into Linux.

Also don't get me started on having to deal with RDP (remote desktop). For one a basic license only includes three simultaneous connections (2 RDP and 1 console, difference being console user gets kicked off if someone else connects to it), it is 100% graphical so a pain to deal with over VPN connections. It's actually not all that quick even through the office LAN because there is a lot of demand on the server but it's usually not too bad unless you are logging in during peak time. From your home connection over VPN though it's very slow.

You also need to factor in security concerns. We had a bunch of servers go down because of a worm. All of them reasonably fully patched (can't install a patch to production without testing it first) and with A/V software. Clean up took an entire day and I had to go out looking for all the servers my team supports (DB team not even sys admin) to see if the patches have veen applied. Granted that is more a problem of the Sys Admin staff than Windows itself but very infrequently will there be a flaw in *nix that would get exploited by malware so quickly. (Before you say it's becaus no one cares, *nix servers comprise around 50% of all servers worldwide)


The problem w/a post like this on a Linux forum is that no one will believe it. Linux is a religion here, not just an OS. Hell, (no pun intended) Linus Torvalds could have ran the study, offered pages and pages of proof, and posted MS is better and still no one would believe it.
My experience with the OS in question is what makes me not believe it. Or rather I believe that Server 2003 is cheaper (with the right deals from MS) than a *nix system (depending on what exactly you get) but I will never believe it is more stable since I have data to prove otherwise.

ukripper
June 11th, 2007, 09:45 PM
This article is advert which MS does in every computer weekly magazines we get at work. This is just a biased promotion by MS. Doesnt worth commenting on it.

jgrabham
June 11th, 2007, 09:47 PM
And.. on to intel CPUs :]