Good OS roundup article.

[EricMartello]

Hey guys, I found a nice little writeup about a few OSes. It does a pretty good job of summing up the + and - of today's popular OSes. Check it out.

Eric

 

[Nothinman]

XP: Pro: Highly-evolved SMP support
Win2K Server: Pro : SMP support is second only to commercial Unix OS

I have to disagree with this, everytime I've seen a process with 'normal' or nigh priority start using 100% it made everything else run like sh!t which tells me their task scheduler needs work.

And now with Linux 2.5.x booting on a 32 node (each node was dual CPU) 64G numa cluster I'd have to say Win2K will be left behind in that respect too =)

Linux: Con: Not off the command prompt bandwagon yet

Which isn't a bad thing. Power is a good thing. The NT cli sucks and that's one thing that makes it suck for server duties, how can you automate things when you can't script everything in the OS?

FreeBSD: Pro: Based on the stable and secure BSD Unix kernel

Too bad there's probably no code from 4.4BSD left in it. I have nothing against FreeBSD, but that's like saying someone is really good at something because his dad was too =)

Darwin: Pro: BSD-grade security, stability and performance

They keep saying that like BSD has some major advantage over other OSes, they all run virtually the same software so exploits 99% of the time affect them all.

Overall the article seems decent, the author definately seems to have more Windows than unix experience and it's a little short thought if you ask me.

 

[EricMartello]

I have to disagree with this, everytime I've seen a process with 'normal' or nigh priority start using 100% it made everything else run like sh!t which tells me their task scheduler needs work.

And now with Linux 2.5.x booting on a 32 node (each node was dual CPU) 64G numa cluster I'd have to say Win2K will be left behind in that respect too =)

Disagree on what basis? Personal experience? Your personal experience with 2K doesn't reflect the collective experience, or my own. I ran an SMP 2K box as a web server and not once have I had slowdowns while multitasking.

Win2K supports 32 way SMP, and Win2K3 will support 64 way SMP. I don't see Linux gaining any major ground, at least nothing that hasn't already been paved by a previous OS.

Which isn't a bad thing. Power is a good thing. The NT cli sucks and that's one thing that makes it suck for server duties, how can you automate things when you can't script everything in the OS?

Ever hear of task scheduler? Anyway I think the point he was trying to make is that all command prompt functions can and should be made into GUI, like Apple does. Apple still gives you a choice between CP for people who insist in doing things the hard way.

Too bad there's probably no code from 4.4BSD left in it. I have nothing against FreeBSD, but that's like saying someone is really good at something because his dad was too =)

You lost me on this one. If I were trying to improve an OS, I wouldn't want antiquated code slowing me down. Just look at the MS oses trying to support all the old 16-bit apps. Noble effort, yes, but it does not come without its share of drawbacks. If FreeBSD is shedding old code, I would trust the judgement of the developers over comments made by random posters on a message board.

They keep saying that like BSD has some major advantage over other OSes, they all run virtually the same software so exploits 99% of the time affect them all.

Overall the article seems decent, the author definately seems to have more Windows than unix experience and it's a little short thought if you ask me.

I don't know the author, but I think he knows what he is talking about moreso than you. Plus he did not bash any OS or favor one, something I found refreshing. I found the link on 2cpu.com, and some of what you say contradicts what is accepted on those forums. The article seems right on with most of what the people on 2cpu.com say, so that means your contradictory statements may not be entirely accurate.

Eric

 

[drag]

heh, that's funny linux hasn't jumped off of the command prompt bandwagon!

Linux without bash is like a stud bull that's been nutured! Gui config is nice and all, but if you need to modify the OS or change the way a service acts that the author of the gui didn't anticipate, then where would you be? probably SOL untill the next gui configuration program with the new features comes out...

It would be interesting to see some benchmarks of performance between the windows server 2003 (or whaterver the next windows server is going to be) and the 2.5.x line of linux kernels..

The last good stats I could fine on the internet were from as far back as 2000, after that MS began paying for it's own studies from benchmark companies that many concintrated on supposed windows TCO advantages, since comparing the performance of the linux and windows OS didn't show any real performance margin in windows favor. That plus after the stock market took a crap nobodies been willing to pay for the comparsions between the two OSes, exept companies that have something to lose depending on the outcome, so you can't trust those benchmarks.


here is something interesting, but it's probably bs anyways..

 

[Haden]

Wierd article, "...behind the times in quite a few areas, namely user friendliness", "FreeBSD is not really a consideration. It is a lot like Linux,...."
I wouldn't mind if it was desktop comparision, but servers. Probably I'm yet to see admin madly clicking every checkbox around...

 

[EricMartello]

Wierd article, "...behind the times in quite a few areas, namely user friendliness", "FreeBSD is not really a consideration. It is a lot like Linux,...."
I wouldn't mind if it was desktop comparision, but servers. Probably I'm yet to see admin madly clicking every checkbox around...

I operate my own web server for hosting websites, and I agree with this article for the most part. I tried RedHat initially, but it was a PITA to work with and I have no love for command prompt-based admin. As the article states, Linux distros are not standardized, so fixing a broken nix box can be a real disaster for someone who is not very familiar with linunx in the first place.

I do think OSes need to be 100% GUI with no CP requirements for admin purposes. I'd hate to have to admin my web box using a command prompt. I can click a checkbox faster than anyone can write a script, but win2K does all I need it to without the need for scripting.

Eric

 

[igiveup]

I tried to delete some files on my 2000 box at work today and kept wanting to beat my head against the wall when it wouldn't let me delete one .xlt file from an admin install of office 2000. The os wouldn't let me kill the folder like I wanted to. With linux I would have been in, rm -Rf Office, hit enter and its done. The fact that 2000 won't let you delete an XLT (excel template) file that couldn't possibly be in use (it was giving me a file access violation. Don't remember teh exact error at the moment) absolutely drove me nuts. Yeah, I could always start the computer in Safe mode (which I did after work when everybody else had gone home) to delete the file, and yes it worked, but whatever happened to the 5 nines of uptime microsoft was striving for?

CLI has its strengths, especially for somebody that knows how to get around. CLI is also one of the few ways to manage a lot of systems (SSH, telnet, whatever...) without expensive management software that lets you point and click away. Yes, there are terminal services for Windows 2000, but I would rather not run TS on every box just to manage it all.

As for standardized distributions, does it matter? Pick a distro and a corresponding book. They are all good, and at the heart are all fairly common. The CLI can be daunting but it pays off. Working with RedHat has made me a better 2000 admin, and it cracks me up when I am in Windows 2000 and I type ls instead of dir. Its never the other way around, and I do it so quickly that I suprise myself even.

Personally I like the freedom, stability and security that Apache and linux bring to the plate when serving up a web pages. You could do apache and Windows. Why though?

I am not trying to jump all over you on this, but even if you wouldn't touch anything but Windows 2000 for some reason, CLI is probably the most important management tool around. It will continue to be so also.

 

[EricMartello]

Well, my first computer was an XT running DOS 3.1, and I have used linux in a workstation setting in the past. I am not unfamiliar with using a command prompt. The simple fact of the matter is, I do not like it and I see no reason to continue using it. This is no longer about OS standards, it's more personal preference. You like CP, great. I happen to like graphical admin, as to countless other people.

Apache 2.x runs flawlessly on Win2K. So you couldn't delete a file. Does that make 2K a bad OS? No, it does not. I changed the system clock on my Redhat 7.3 install and I killed the system. I had to do a complete reinstallation -- now if that had happend on my server, it would be quite a problem.

The fact that this thread is becoming more of a personal favorites deal than an unbiased evaluation helps add credence to the original article's attention to detail as far as remaining objective goes. Most people here do not run mission critical servers, and I do not either, but I do know quite a few people who do. In business, favorites don't exist -- it's what works best that counts. And the fact, as shocking as it may seem, is that Win2K is a very capable OS for server applications, regardless of the fact that a lot of people have anti-MS sentiment for their own personal reasons. Linux is there too, but it is nowhere near as common as Win2K/IIS combos.

Eric

 

[drag]

sure you can click boxes faster than a person can write a script, but can you automate clicking? what if you have to add 50 users? Do you just right a script to use a list of users and create everyone, or do you have to create each and everyone using clickety clickty, typity. enter, 50+ times? Sure you can create a template... What if you have to do that 2 or 3 times a week? you get lists of users to remove, lists of users to add to you network. Do you hire a mouse monkey to keep track of it, or do you just automate it?
As long as you make sure that the lists are in standardized forms you can just hit enter and 12 seconds later your done, and if the list isn't in standardized form you can bang out a script that will rearange it, instead of coping and pasting 80 times over.

What if you have a configuration on 20-25 boxes that have to be updated or changed periodicly based on evovling needs of your clients, can you make a script that will check the server and update the configuration files, at say 12 am every morning? or do you have to sit at each and every computer and use a install/update program? What if you have to modify the registry or complex series of configuration files and don't have any pre-made updates?

I was able to figure out how to take the network printer configuration from one Mac OS X box and upload it onto a file server, so later I could take that configuration down and untar it in place of the current configuration of any Mac if the students go in there and mess it up. It took me a little bit over 2 hours to figure out how to do it with no documentation and very little experiance with the Mac.. It can save me many many hours down the road if we ever need to change the configuration of our 80+ macs... We had to it in the past, we will have to do it in the future...

What about system file cleanups? What if you have a team of programers that are using your powerful server to program and compile programs with? do you have to go and find all the core dumps and erase them one by one? what about any temp files or misplaced files?

I realy don't know how well the windows cli can handle this stuff. I am sure that it can, but I am wondering how well it can. I am sure that it is not important for a couple of webservers, but I know these are realistic tasks for a administrator of a large network to go thru.. Can you use perl scripts and other programs to modify w2k's configurations? How easy is it to modify the existing OS/kernel to streamline the performance of it for a singular mission critical task, or is that illigal to do to windows for liscencing issues?

All in all I don't realy think that command prompt is realy all that old fasioned or backwards. I can type

cp ~/documents/*txt /mnt/floppy/ faster than I can click, In fact all I realy would type is

cp ~/do[tab]*txt /m[tab]f[tab] [enter] pretty simple, eh? I usually only have to know how to spell correctly the first three letters or so of any file or program. One of the reasons that I started using linux was that I missed having the DOS prompt, once I learned a bit about the bash shell, I realised that it is actually a very evolved way of communicating with the computer, very powerful and flexible and fairly quick. Going back to the windows cli was like going back to the stone age and not being able to view and edit files by hand was like having one arm tied behind my back.

I am not saying that command line is the most wonderful thing in the world and everybody should use it. It's just that just because something doesn't have icons, is black and white (unless of course you have a nice *term going), and has been around for a long time, doesn't necesarily mean it's old fasioned or obsolete.

edit (not that I am saying that you are saying that it's obsolete, it's just that the author of that article seems to have his own biased opinion about what is best, and I dissagree with him.)

 

[EricMartello]

sure you can click boxes faster than a person can write a script, but can you automate clicking? what if you have to add 50 users? Do you just right a script to use a list of users and create everyone, or do you have to create each and everyone using clickety clickty, typity. enter, 50+ times? Sure you can create a template... What if you have to do that 2 or 3 times a week? you get lists of users to remove, lists of users to add to you network. Do you hire a mouse monkey to keep track of it, or do you just automate it? As long as you make sure that the lists are in standardized forms you can just hit enter and 12 seconds later your done, and if the list isn't in standardized form you can bang out a script that will rearange it, instead of coping and pasting 80 times over.

Dos calls scripts "batch", windows calls scripts "macros". Windows has always had such automation tools, and yes you can automate clicking by using macros/scripts. Furthermore, you there are programs you can download to add such functionality to windows. Adding users the way you describe it would mean they're already in a database of some kind, and you are just transferring records to an actual user group within the system. VBScript makes this possible -- you can make a VBS which runs on the computer, or through IIS. It is easy to learn and work with.

What if you have a configuration on 20-25 boxes that have to be updated or changed periodicly based on evovling needs of your clients, can you make a script that will check the server and update the configuration files, at say 12 am every morning? or do you have to sit at each and every computer and use a install/update program? What if you have to modify the registry or complex series of configuration files and don't have any pre-made updates?

You can do this using macros...the registry can be updated using simple text files, which can be autogenerated as needed.

I was able to figure out how to take the network printer configuration from one Mac OS X box and upload it onto a file server, so later I could take that configuration down and untar it in place of the current configuration of any Mac if the students go in there and mess it up. It took me a little bit over 2 hours to figure out how to do it with no documentation and very little experiance with the Mac.. It can save me many many hours down the road if we ever need to change the configuration of our 80+ macs... We had to it in the past, we will have to do it in the future...

Windows stores most config data in the registry, which is organized logically. Simply export the config you need and when its time to replace it, merge the exported keys back in. Very simple, can be done with 3 clicks total.

What about system file cleanups? What if you have a team of programers that are using your powerful server to program and compile programs with? do you have to go and find all the core dumps and erase them one by one? what about any temp files or misplaced files?

Windows uses what's known as a TEMP directory. Any junk files go there...the programmers would simply set their IDE to use the temp directory if they have not already done so.

I realy don't know how well the windows cli can handle this stuff. I am sure that it can, but I am wondering how well it can. I am sure that it is not important for a couple of webservers, but I know these are realistic tasks for a administrator of a large network to go thru.. Can you use perl scripts and other programs to modify w2k's configurations? How easy is it to modify the existing OS/kernel to streamline the performance of it for a singular mission critical task, or is that illigal to do to windows for liscencing issues?

The stuff you mentioned, rudimentary automation of repetitive tasks, is generally a feature found on most OSes. It seems like I am getting a lot of these linux advocates out here. I'm not an MS advocate, I use Win2K because it works best for me. I also know enough about Linux and most other open source iterations of unix to realize that I could not be very productive using an OS which I need to relearn because it is a step backwards from my current OS, which it is. How much has the basic functionality of any unix system changed since its development in the 70s?

All in all I don't realy think that command prompt is realy all that old fasioned or backwards. I can type

cp ~/documents/*txt /mnt/floppy/ faster than I can click, In fact all I realy would type is

cp ~/do[tab]*txt /m[tab]f[tab] [enter] pretty simple, eh? I usually only have to know how to spell correctly the first three letters or so of any file or program. One of the reasons that I started using linux was that I missed having the DOS prompt, once I learned a bit about the bash shell, I realised that it is actually a very evolved way of communicating with the computer, very powerful and flexible and fairly quick. Going back to the windows cli was like going back to the stone age and not being able to view and edit files by hand was like having one arm tied behind my back.

I am not saying that command line is the most wonderful thing in the world and everybody should use it. It's just that just because something doesn't have icons, is black and white (unless of course you have a nice *term going), and has been around for a long time, doesn't necesarily mean it's old fasioned or obsolete.

You can still drive a Model T, and indeed it will get you to where you are going...but the car offers not safety features, could not keep up with traffic flow on today's roads, and is probably not very reliably on long trips. If computers were meant to be operated using a command prompt, we'd all still be using DOS. Why is Redhat the most popular version of linux? Because it is the most like Windows! And here is the kicker -- once you get Linux loaded up with its GUI, it is actually less responsive and less stable than an OS that was designed for GUI operation -- Windows or Mac OS.

Eric

 

[Nothinman]

Win2K supports 32 way SMP, and Win2K3 will support 64 way SMP. I don't see Linux gaining any major ground, at least nothing that hasn't already been paved by a previous OS.

There's no much left unpaved right now and as much as SMP scalability looks good on paper it's usually cheaper and better to use a cluster of smaller boxes, having 16 dual boxes is better than 1 32 because you can have some fail and noone will notice any difference. And clustering is something Linux and other unixes crush Windows in, right now Windows only really supports fail over clustering while Linux supports compute clustering (things like Beowulf) and NUMA.

Ever hear of task scheduler?

Of course, but what good is it if all you can schedule are GUIs that require user intervention? I know there are cli tools for Windows, but they're not nearly as extensive as those for unix.

You lost me on this one. If I were trying to improve an OS, I wouldn't want antiquated code slowing me down

This must be MS' thinking because it's apparent from the amount of problems they have. 'antiquated' code is tested code, rewriting everything every few years is a maintenance nightmare and just plain stupid.

Just look at the MS oses trying to support all the old 16-bit apps. Noble effort, yes, but it does not come without its share of drawbacks

Too bad people like Installshield still use 16-bit apps, removing that support would render the majority of installers unrunnable.

If FreeBSD is shedding old code, I would trust the judgement of the developers over comments made by random posters on a message board.

No doubt. Just like me with regards to your experiences with Windows.

I found the link on 2cpu.com, and some of what you say contradicts what is accepted on those forums.

And the random people on those forums are a more reliable source of information than the random people on these forums?

As the article states, Linux distros are not standardized, so fixing a broken nix box can be a real disaster for someone who is not very familiar with linunx in the first place.

And from the still growing amount of Nimda/Code Red attempts in my apache logs it would seem securing IIS and installing Windows patches is a 'real disaster' for people who think they're familiar with Windows.

I'd hate to have to admin my web box using a command prompt. I can click a checkbox faster than anyone can write a script, but win2K does all I need it to without the need for scripting

I'd hate to admin my boxes with a GUI, hell none of them even have monitors or keyboards hooked up. I can ssh into my boxes and add a vhost to apache's config file probably faster than you can add a host header entry to IIS, especially over a slow connection.

So you couldn't delete a file. Does that make 2K a bad OS?

No, but it makes some of the decisions MS made with the OS bad. I can delete any file in use on any OS I've used except Windows, it's an annoying limitation that has no real need to be there.

I changed the system clock on my Redhat 7.3 install and I killed the system

Sorry, I find that hard to believe. I'd mucked with my system times many times before I setup NTP on my network and I've had no ill effects.

The fact that this thread is becoming more of a personal favorites deal than an unbiased evaluation helps add credence to the original article's attention to detail as far as remaining objective goes.

That's because you can't have an unobjective discussion on this topic, especially when it's apparent the author doesn't have as much unix experience as he does Windows.

In business, favorites don't exist -- it's what works best that counts

Hardly, the people making the buying decisions let their personal preferances influence them all the time.

and yes you can automate clicking by using macros/scripts

I've looked at a few of those tools (actually I mentioned them to our Citrix admins for their eval because they had more use for them than I did) and they were a PITA, very easy to trip up and confuse.

Windows stores most config data in the registry, which is organized logically

Registry and logical are antonyms.

Why is Redhat the most popular version of linux? Because it is the most like Windows!

Because companies like a name, someone they can point a finger at. Mandrake was arguably the most 'Windows-like' Linux for some time and RedHat has remained the standard, RedHat doesn't even ship the most common desktop environment as their default.

And here is the kicker -- once you get Linux loaded up with its GUI, it is actually less responsive and less stable than an OS that was designed for GUI operation -- Windows or Mac OS.

Less responsive, maybe if you have a slow machine because the GUI is totally seperate from the kernel unlike in Windows where tons of things have been relegated to kernel space for speed improvements in favor of stability. But Linux is 100% stable with or without X, if X dies you just restart the GUI, if the NT GDI dies you reboot.

 

[drag]

Oh jsut to be a bit silly, I like to point out these 2 things when people get in a argument about smp and scalability and stuff like that between linux and windows...

Linux will work from here
To here.

Now hows that for flexibility and usfullness? That's why linux rocks, not because you can delete any files, or have a nice cli or whatever. It's only limits are what you say it is, all it realy takes is effort and intellegence and it can be anything you want it to be, of course this may not be pratical in the real world, but that's why Companes like Redhat exist, to do the hard work for busy admins. Just my 2 cents..

As far as Windows goes, it makes for a decent PC OS and thats it, nothing more. But that's just my opinion...

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

There's no much left unpaved right now and as much as SMP scalability looks good on paper it's usually cheaper and better to use a cluster of smaller boxes, having 16 dual boxes is better than 1 32 because you can have some fail and noone will notice any difference. And clustering is something Linux and other unixes crush Windows in, right now Windows only really supports fail over clustering while Linux supports compute clustering (things like Beowulf) and NUMA.

On systems that can actually have 32 CPUs, there is generally a provision to make CPUs hot-swappable. Having 32 boxes takes up a lot more realestate and will use more electricity, plus it is 32 potential problems...business have more to consider than just idealistic benefits.

Ever hear of task scheduler?

Of course, but what good is it if all you can schedule are GUIs that require user intervention? I know there are cli tools for Windows, but they're not nearly as extensive as those for unix.

Ever hear of macros? How about VBScript? And there's plenty of automation programs out there.

You lost me on this one. If I were trying to improve an OS, I wouldn't want antiquated code slowing me down

This must be MS' thinking because it's apparent from the amount of problems they have. 'antiquated' code is tested code, rewriting everything every few years is a maintenance nightmare and just plain stupid.

I guess you actually a lot of coding to make a statement like this. Sometimes rewriting code is the only way to progress. Take a look at PHP, for example...how often are functions deprecated. PHP code need to be rewrittent for optimal performance. Same with OS code. Yes, I do code in PHP.

Just look at the MS oses trying to support all the old 16-bit apps. Noble effort, yes, but it does not come without its share of drawbacks

Too bad people like Installshield still use 16-bit apps, removing that support would render the majority of installers unrunnable.

Yeah, and that is not a good thing, as I stated.

If FreeBSD is shedding old code, I would trust the judgement of the developers over comments made by random posters on a message board.

No doubt. Just like me with regards to your experiences with Windows.

I found the link on 2cpu.com, and some of what you say contradicts what is accepted on those forums.

And the random people on those forums are a more reliable source of information than the random people on these forums?

I would say so. They specialize in SMP computing. This place is more of a general interest area with no major expertise in any one segment of computing.

As the article states, Linux distros are not standardized, so fixing a broken nix box can be a real disaster for someone who is not very familiar with linunx in the first place.

And from the still growing amount of Nimda/Code Red attempts in my apache logs it would seem securing IIS and installing Windows patches is a 'real disaster' for people who think they're familiar with Windows.

Have you checked netcraft lately? I guess Ebay is in a heap of trouble now...what with running their main site on IIS4 and all...but I do feel IIS is not a very secure server. That is why I run apache 2.0 on my box.

I'd hate to have to admin my web box using a command prompt. I can click a checkbox faster than anyone can write a script, but win2K does all I need it to without the need for scripting

I'd hate to admin my boxes with a GUI, hell none of them even have monitors or keyboards hooked up. I can ssh into my boxes and add a vhost to apache's config file probably faster than you can add a host header entry to IIS, especially over a slow connection.

Highly doubt that one, buddy. It's called VNC. Versions that run on any computer, all fit on a floppy disk. GUI goodness in your shirt pocket. I can click "connect" and my desktop becomes my remote server desktop. No need to fuss around with command prompt.

So you couldn't delete a file. Does that make 2K a bad OS?

No, but it makes some of the decisions MS made with the OS bad. I can delete any file in use on any OS I've used except Windows, it's an annoying limitation that has no real need to be there.

Hmm...my old webhost had a problem where for some reason I would not be able to delete certain files or folders, even though I was their owner. Oh, this was on a linux box. Never had a problem on windows where i could "never" delete a file.

I changed the system clock on my Redhat 7.3 install and I killed the system

Sorry, I find that hard to believe. I'd mucked with my system times many times before I setup NTP on my network and I've had no ill effects.

Good for you. I did not enjoy such a smooth transation. Redhat gave me a kernel panic for updating my clock.

The fact that this thread is becoming more of a personal favorites deal than an unbiased evaluation helps add credence to the original article's attention to detail as far as remaining objective goes.

That's because you can't have an unobjective discussion on this topic, especially when it's apparent the author doesn't have as much unix experience as he does Windows.

Actually, you can if you know what you need out of an OS. You are trying to make this into another MS vs Linux wars. The author did not conclude with "Of all these OS, I recommend _____." IT was open ended, such as pick what works best for you. The author's experience level is irrelevant...just as you demonstrate a general ignorance to any other OS other than Linux...it really doesn't matter. Obviously, if you like Linux then it is what you should be using.

In business, favorites don't exist -- it's what works best that counts

Hardly, the people making the buying decisions let their personal preferances influence them all the time.

Let me guess, more hands on experience backing up these statements? Naw...I think you just wanted to contradict me so as not to be outdone.

and yes you can automate clicking by using macros/scripts

I've looked at a few of those tools (actually I mentioned them to our Citrix admins for their eval because they had more use for them than I did) and they were a PITA, very easy to trip up and confuse.

Yeah, you'd need to be a bit more dynamic to be able to use more than one type of OS without running into these kinda problems. :\

Windows stores most config data in the registry, which is organized logically

Registry and logical are antonyms.

If you find linux logical, I could understand how something that actually is logical would seem illogical.

Why is Redhat the most popular version of linux? Because it is the most like Windows!

Because companies like a name, someone they can point a finger at. Mandrake was arguably the most 'Windows-like' Linux for some time and RedHat has remained the standard, RedHat doesn't even ship the most common desktop environment as their default.

Aw, now you are just denying everything even when it is a blatant fact. You know damn well that Redhat got on the map only because it was so similar to windows, read GUI. Don't even try to say it was for some other reason unless you wanna deem yourself full of crap. Mandrake may be more "windows like", but it was second to redhat. Why does pricewatch still exist when there are other better sites around? BEcause pricewatch was one of the first.

And here is the kicker -- once you get Linux loaded up with its GUI, it is actually less responsive and less stable than an OS that was designed for GUI operation -- Windows or Mac OS.

Less responsive, maybe if you have a slow machine because the GUI is totally seperate from the kernel unlike in Windows where tons of things have been relegated to kernel space for speed improvements in favor of stability. But Linux is 100% stable with or without X, if X dies you just restart the GUI, if the NT GDI dies you reboot.

My machine is a P4 2400 with 1GB of ram and a GF4. I don't think it is super fast, but it is not slow. Linux crashes its fair share of times. Don't be trying to blow that "linux never goes down" BS my way. If GDI crashes, you can restart explorer without rebooting. Windows does this much more gracefully than linux, I might add. What is the point of debating obvious facts like this? Windows was designed to be GUI, hence it is better. It is faster as a GUI os. NT was built to be an SMP kernel from the beginning...it is better at SMP than pretty much all open source OSes. That is a fact as well. Because it doesn't work for you does not mean it does not work at all.

Anyway, if you got a problem with this article then go tell the author, not me. I didn't write the article, I just agree with it. I REALLY DO NOT CARE one way or the other about Linux or MS -- I'll use whatever the F I wanna use. I was just posting a link for people to read, I have no interest in this pointless debate.

Eric

 

[Spyro]

:Q

Sheesh, and I thought Lin vs. Win. desktop arguements could get heated.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Ooh sweet, religious debate

I didn't even read the article so I won't say too much, but I do have to say that anyone that just assumes that the command line is a bad thing is ehm... *ignorant* at the very least.

For us and a few others, FreeBSD is not really a consideration. It is a lot like Linux, but with less of the contemporary refinment. SMP is a "luxury" feature with FreeBSD, and even in the latest release it is still "a work in progress". Many serious servers gain a significant performance boost with at least two CPUs, so for SMP to be so undeveloped makes FreeBSD better suited to a role such as firewall, FTP server or router. If you plan to run a database in a high traffic environment, SMP can provide as much as a 40% improvement in performance. While BSD-based Unix iterations have earned the best of the rough and tough servers award, useability for newcomers and lack of hardware support may prevent many people from using FreeBSD even if they wanted to.

This guy is an idiot.

You trust "SsZERO" over "a random guy on a message board" eh? Seems to me that this article was just written by some random numbnut.

 

[Spyro]

You trust "SsZERO" over "a random guy on a message board" eh? Seems to me that this article was just written by some random numbnut.

And that pretty much summarizes things IMHO

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

My machine is a P4 2400 with 1GB of ram and a GF4. I don't think it is super fast, but it is not slow.

Hmmm... I think of anything over 1ghz as being pretty damn fast

Linux crashes its fair share of times. Don't be trying to blow that "linux never goes down" BS my way.

Never goes down for me. You using redhat or something? Redhat sucks.

Windows does this much more gracefully than linux, I might add.

How do you figure? My window manager dies, I go to a terminal and restart it. If explorer dies, you hit ctl+alt+del and go to "run command" and restart it. A gui surely does not automatically make things more graceful.

[NT] is better at SMP than pretty much all open source OSes. That is a fact as well.

Prove your fact, because I sure was not aware of it.

Anyway, if you got a problem with this article then go tell the author, not me. I didn't write the article, I just agree with it. I REALLY DO NOT CARE one way or the other about Linux or MS -- I'll use whatever the F I wanna use. I was just posting a link for people to read, I have no interest in this pointless debate.

Heh, sorry, but you post something like this, and there is bound to be some flamage.

And as far as clicking vs. command line, call it anecdotal if you will, but the unix admins I know pretty much laugh at MCSE-types. Yeah, unix is harder to learn, because you're actually learning worthwhile stuff.. You can't just whiz through some tutorial and become a biologist.

 

[drag]

I have seen were the nt kernel outperformed linux by quite a bit, but that was back in early 2000 with the 2.2 series kernels, probably with pentium 2s and stuff like that, who knows. But after that MS began paying off benchmark companies and everybody got all pissy. Plus with the economy in the dumps nobody realy wants to spend the money on those performance benchmarks which are actually realy pricey to perform, since they try to emulate real world conditions as much as possible.

Now most studies concintrate on total cost of ownership and stuff like that, which depend on three year long or so "studies" to get their information. The range of results go from 17% in MS favor to upwards of 50% or more in Linux's favor. These things are very unreliable IMO. Basicly they depend on several assumptions, like hardware and tech support and employees, how do you compare one company to another? They are just to different, what it realy comes down to is this:

Nowadays Linux and Windows will do the same job with the same cost of hardware. Windows may have better SMP support, but Linux has clusters in it's corner.

Linux/Unix is more secure, Windows has more support. A bad admin using linux is much more dangorous then a bad admin with windows.. maybe.

Linux/Unix tech people cost maybe 10-20 thousand dollars more a year then windows admins, but Linux/Unix admins are generally much more productive then their windows conterparts. (remember this is generalities)

It's probably true that Linux needs a bit more hardware to do the same job as windows right now, but the cost of actually keeping linux running and secure is less then Windows.

So right now it is just a toss up. Most of those articles say that if you are already using Unix/Linux stick with that, but if your employees are 100% windows and have very little experiance in linux then you will probably be better off with windows for the time being. But of course the longer you stick with one the harder it will be to switch to the other, like if 2.6 is realy a godsend for linux then you'll be kinda screwed if you are using windows-only, but it that .net crap takes off then your a loser if you are using linux, but then again who knows?

But I suppose the best OS we could possibly use would be Mac OS 9.22 since it was designed to be 115% gui and windows is only designed to be 85% gui, (and linux's *gasp* GUI seems more like a afterthought then an entrenched part of the OS) because you know the hallmark of a good OS is a GUI-based design.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: EricMartello
Because it doesn't work for you does not mean it does not work at all.

Eric

That is what I must say to you.
The CLI is probably the second most important limb after the kernel. Just becasue you don't know how to use it and try to stay in the GUI doesn't mean ther isn't something inherently wrong with it.


And why is a gui that important in the first place for administration? ---No offense, but using VNC blows chunks using a gui and it is inherently insecure(easily fixed though). Not just remote operations can do without the GUI. I myself, a meso-noobie at linux, frequesnt its capabilities constantly. ALso, with windows machines, I realize that there is terminal services. I have used it on countless ocassions to monitor servers etc, and like it ,but I've seen unix/linux admins perform their admin tasks countless times faster.

We can bicker all we want but in the end there is usually a common ground surounding one thing.


Unix has been a SERVER OS, and windows has been for consumers. Since their beginings they have begun producing worstation and desktop flavors and worstation and server flavors, respectively. From this one can deduce that Unix and its derivatives are more oriented towards markets were certain traits will appear.


Oh yes, redhat is big for probably the only reason that no one metioned:

They sell linux, BUT market it towards business.

 

[Haden]

I do think OSes need to be 100% GUI with no CP requirements for admin purposes.

Then, by no means win is better for you. Linux/BSD can't compete with GUI only tools. However I think you should try command prompt, even windows admins I saw
working have 3-4 prompts running (for simple stuff like ping, net etc.).

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Wierd article, "...behind the times in quite a few areas, namely user friendliness", "FreeBSD is not really a consideration. It is a lot like Linux,...."
I wouldn't mind if it was desktop comparision, but servers. Probably I'm yet to see admin madly clicking every checkbox around...

I operate my own web server for hosting websites, and I agree with this article for the most part. I tried RedHat initially, but it was a PITA to work with and I have no love for command prompt-based admin. As the article states, Linux distros are not standardized, so fixing a broken nix box can be a real disaster for someone who is not very familiar with linunx in the first place.

I do think OSes need to be 100% GUI with no CP requirements for admin purposes. I'd hate to have to admin my web box using a command prompt. I can click a checkbox faster than anyone can write a script, but win2K does all I need it to without the need for scripting.

Eric

Your remote gui window over dialup from a hotel in the middle of BFE where you are spending a little time talking to customers and fixing their stupid problems will be faster than my ssh session?

 

[Flatline]

And besides, if you really want GUI administration on your Linux box, use Webmin.
I have yet to "crash linux"; gnome or KDE will occasionally sh!t on themselves (although kde3.1 has been pretty darn good so far), cut you type in startx at the CLI and you're back in business.

 

[Spyro]

And besides, if you really want GUI administration on your Linux box, use Webmin.

 

[igiveup]

So you couldn't delete a file. Does that make 2K a bad OS? No, it does not.

Any time an OS stands in the way of me doing my job then I have a problem with it. Something as simple as deleting a file can and should be easily done. Hell, you can't even kill a task in windows that runs under the system context unless you use the kill.exe program that comes in the Support.cab file in the Windows CD. That should be easily done from the command line, and you shouldn't have to uncompress a file to do a common administrative task.

What is the point of debating obvious facts like this? Windows was designed to be GUI, hence it is better. It is faster as a GUI os. NT was built to be an SMP kernel from the beginning...it is better at SMP than pretty much all open source OSes. That is a fact as well. Because it doesn't work for you does not mean it does not work at all.

Quite obviously there needs to be a hell of a lot more debate. Look, trust us when we tell you that CLI is very important to any Admin, regardless of the OS. Don't kick linux in the nuts until you learn its CLI and can make an honest choice. You really haven't given linux an HONEST shot until CLI comes into play. Hell, I don't even install KDE, Gnome or Xwindows on any Linux server I build. There just isn't a point.

I don't even consider myself proficient in Linux or Unix either.

 

[spyordie007]

Eventually I will read this whole thread, but for the time being I thought I would reply to this statement:

Originally posted by: igiveup
I tried to delete some files on my 2000 box at work today and kept wanting to beat my head against the wall when it wouldn't let me delete one .xlt file from an admin install of office 2000. The os wouldn't let me kill the folder like I wanted to. With linux I would have been in, rm -Rf Office, hit enter and its done. The fact that 2000 won't let you delete an XLT (excel template) file that couldn't possibly be in use (it was giving me a file access violation. Don't remember teh exact error at the moment) absolutely drove me nuts. Yeah, I could always start the computer in Safe mode (which I did after work when everybody else had gone home) to delete the file, and yes it worked, but whatever happened to the 5 nines of uptime microsoft was striving for?

CLI has its strengths, especially for somebody that knows how to get around. CLI is also one of the few ways to manage a lot of systems (SSH, telnet, whatever...) without expensive management software that lets you point and click away. Yes, there are terminal services for Windows 2000, but I would rather not run TS on every box just to manage it all.

Windows CLI would have solved your problem just as well as any *Nix CLI with a "del /f", you really didnt have to go through the trouble of rebooting in safe mode. Once more just about all Windows server fuctions can be carried on from the command prompt, and that includes things such as Active Directory and Exchange. In reality there is very little you cant do from a Windows command prompt and the only reason the majority of Windows admins dont use those capabilities is because they are not familer with them (many of them did not exist in NT 4). My one suggestion to Windows server admins who want to start using the CLI more would be to get out your Windows 2000 resource kit because many of the commands are not installed by default and you will have to add them.

I think that the article is a little short and doesnt go into the various services that you may be running. For example, if all you wanted was a simple HTTP/FTP server the "best" answer is almost always going to be Linux/Apache. If you plan on running other services than YRMV.

If you want to know what I personally run it's no secret, I run Win 2K Servers with AD/Exchange/IIS (specs and basic services linked in my sig.). Once more the other network that I admin (at the school I work for) is just about all Windows servers as well. I'm not saying that Windows servers are the best (by any means) but I think all of the server OSes have their place and that is the reason they all exist. I think arguing that one is better than the other is like saying Reebok shoes are better than Nike, they both make some nice shoes now get over it!

-Spy