• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Does anyone think an NT server can compare to Linux/Unix Server?

E

eP?

Senior member
I was just curious what some of you thought, especially since most of you are big Windows fans.
 
For most stuff, no.
Win2K Server might hold up decently well to Linux, but no way against Solaris.

Then there is the fact that there are alot of things that alot of sysadmins like about UNIX/Linux that they dont like about Windows.

Of course there are some things that NT/2K Servers are obviously better suited for, such as domain controllers, exchange servers etc.
 
Depends on what you want to do.

NT is great from a price perspective when compared to Solaris, but does not compare to Linux (free - which nothing can really beat).

Solaris is great as long as you run it on Sun hardware (can be very expensive).

I believe Mindcraft showed that IIS was supposed to be a faster server www than Apache on Linux. It happened a long time ago, but basically Linux was beaten. With the advent of 2.4, I doubt this will be true any longer. Of course, you take the speed away, and you are left with a www server with less features and more security holes. I cannot tell you how many security bulletins I receive from Microsoft in regards to IIS.

NT really wins in many ways because of the huge amounts of hardware that has come out with drivers for NT.

I believe Samba on Linux has more features than SMB on Windows / NT. So, beaten again in a sense.

From a client perspective, I would have to go with Windows all the way, though. It's interface is slicker, more polished and easier to use than KDE, Gnome, Enlightenment - whatever. IE is also one of the best browsers around and only runs on Windows and Macs. Also, Solaris and Linux lack the games (very important to the consumer market) and software that Windows has to offer.

I believe that Linux, Solaris and other UNIX variants really excel at being servers of some kind while Windows has proven itself as a good client.

Complain all you want about Windows, but at least it doesn't have a lame smiley face for it's boot up screen.
 
Spank! Spank! Spank! SOLARIS...secure???? You are fscking high!

Commercial *NIX release and in that sense no better than most MS products. Real secure OSes are OpenBSD and FreeBSD. And really, really secure OSes are the latter two admined by competent folk.
 


<< Spank! Spank! Spank! SOLARIS...secure???? You are fscking h >>



Mmm, yeahh... right.

Solaris is an extremely solid OS, and that includes the security aspect.
Of course UNIX OS's are extremely reliant upon competent administrators, who know what to do and not to do.

And jsm, you do know that Solaris is free these days, cept if you run it on servers with more than 8 CPU's, in which case the price of the OS wont be a very big deal considdering the cost of the hardware.
 
Solaris blows chunks. Sorry. They are very slow to release the necessary security patches. I don NOT consider that secure.
 
Sunner, where can you get Solaris for free? (preferrably downloadable) I see that on their webpage but all I can find is a link to where you can pay for &quot;media charges&quot; that are like $70 if I recall correctly. I would really like to get Solaris if it's free, since that's the Unix the university I attend uses and some things would be easier if I was using that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top