PDA

View Full Version : Windows Server 2003 v Windows Server 2008 v Linux



Kernel Sanders
August 27th, 2008, 10:00 PM
I'll be honest here and say that I have very little knowledge of the server market past my basic experience in managing my own Fedora run Virtual Server.

So, ignoring things like costs, which would you say is "better" from a user friendly and general usefullness point of view?

SunnyRabbiera
August 27th, 2008, 10:03 PM
Well I used to run windows server 2003 at work and it actually ran very well, but if you need to save on cost then linux is the way to go.
A debian server would be better then a redhat one, but a BSD can beat it out of the water if you are willing to learn BSD.

Dremora
August 27th, 2008, 10:04 PM
Double post, uggh

Dremora
August 27th, 2008, 10:06 PM
Windows Server 2008 would be my choice, if money was not an issue.

Unlike Vista, it doesn't suck....actually Microsoft's professional Windows products usually tend to be alright, but damn are they expensive! :P

Anyway, setting up a Windows server is dead simple, setting up a Linux server is a nightmare if you've never done it before, and unless you paid for a support contract (which usually costs $200 a year per CPU, or more), good luck with that!

I think most business uses Windows because the costs of hiring more IT people to deal with Linux, and the per CPU support costs pretty much negate most of the advantages of switching over.

SunnyRabbiera
August 27th, 2008, 10:08 PM
Windows Server 2008 would be my choice, if money was not an issue.

Unlike Vista, it doesn't suck....actually Microsoft's professional Windows products usually tend to be alright, but damn are they expensive! :P

Anyway, setting up a Windows server is dead simple, setting up a Linux server is a nightmare if you've never done it before, and unless you paid for a support contract (which usually costs $200 a year per CPU, or more), good luck with that!

I think most business uses Windows because the costs of hiring more IT people to deal with Linux, and the per CPU support costs pretty much negate most of the advantages of switching over.

sounds like Microsoft FUD.
I set up a debian server once, it was very easy for me.

karellen
August 27th, 2008, 10:38 PM
from a noob point of view I'd say Windows Server 2008, more point and click :)

Dremora
August 27th, 2008, 10:39 PM
sounds like Microsoft FUD.
I set up a debian server once, it was very easy for me.

How is it FUD?

Even if you do figure out how to do something in most free versions of Linux, it could be drastically different 6 months later.

Thats why Red Hat and Novell try to have a certain configuration for several years before moving on, so you aren't constantly suffering downtime and retraining staff.

I've seen a lot of Suse, Red Hat, and Windows.

I haven't once seen Debian, Ubuntu, etc in a corporate environment.

These are people that want to keep the server up and running for months or years.

They don't really like the release policies of Ubuntu, and the no support behind Debian.

I believe Ubuntu's LTRs are supported for what? 2 years?

Novell and Red Hat go 5-7 years and are still backporting things all the way up to End of Life.

FuturePilot
August 27th, 2008, 10:42 PM
sounds like Microsoft FUD.
I set up a debian server once, it was very easy for me.

Yes I set up an Ubuntu server with the server edition and it really wasn't that hard. This was the first time I've ever set up a server. There's a slight learning curve, but it's not that bad if you're already used to Linux. And who's to say there won't be a learning curve with a Windows server? I'd say go with Linux. And don't forget Google is your friend. I've found searching for help with something in Linux a lot easier than searching for help with something in Windows.

Dremora
August 27th, 2008, 10:46 PM
And don't forget Google is your friend.

Note to self: Tell boss the free software way is "If it doesn't work, pray Google has indexed a howto that is for this version of this distribution, on this architecture, with this same exact setup, and bang on things until it works, then don't sneeze."

Sorry, this may work for amateurs, but I believe they'd rather have dedicated support. :lolflag:

Ubuntu or Debian may be totally acceptable for amateurs or for a simple web server for a small business that can't afford any budget for support and such, but Ubuntu is not making the inroads with business that it needs to be, and they are the ones with the cash.

swoll1980
August 27th, 2008, 10:53 PM
I've never used Windows server, but I can say from experience that setting up a linux server is not hard

HermanAB
August 27th, 2008, 11:00 PM
Win 2003 server works very well. I haven't used 2008. Obviously I prefer Linux - why else would I be on this forum?