...but I hate Windows even more now. It actually provides me with a living by having horrible security, being incredulously unstable, and generally failing on a regular basis. Despite this, I can't help but feel that the world would be a better place in its absence. Does this make me crazy? Oh yeah, the context is that I've just landed a job with a fairly small consulting firm in Rancho Cucamonga, CA. We spend 99% of our time fixing spyware and virus infections in the most insecure (and ironically most popular) OS on the planet. I was actually 'ghosting' an Pwn3d XP laptop today, and the server rebooted due to some stupid update in the middle of an image... for those uninitiated, it takes a long time to image a large drive over 100mb LAN, and it was interrupted by the reboot of the stupid Windows server. WTF would anyone want to run Windows on a server? Daaaaahhhh!
An observation is one thing, being pissed off at an OS being accepted as the standard while there are vastly superior alternatives literally makes me feel insane. I mean, Windows 2003 Server costs a lot of money, performs badly, has atrocious uptime, and yet it's "enterprise ready". Makes perfect sense. (????)
So why do so many companies and institutes insist on running such a bad OS? I have no shares in MS and I do not like them more than any other alternative but why is windows the most common OS out there? Surely not because of prices..... Linux is free. What is a serious alternative to Windows Server? This is a serious question and not a dig..... [ot]The same question goes to Intel and AMD. If AMD is so obviously superior, how come Dell and Apple don't switch?[/ot] I just cannot understand this....
Because Dell and Apple both have contracts with Intel, Intel are still huge compared AMD and so AMD can't produce the yields to meet demands.
Most servers on the internet are running apache web server which is open source, and if I'm not mistaken, running the linux kernel. So people have started to use linux as a server... actually, linux has had a pretty good hold on the server market for some time. It's the desktop environment that linux is really fighting for now. *edit* ok. I'm dumb. Apache just RUNS on linux... that's what it is. But it's an open source program.
Using Linux one can easily setup a Windows File & Print server and/or domain controller by using Samba. The sad thing is that Linux with Samba actually performs ~250% better than an actual Windows server on the same hardware. And obviously you don't have to pay per-client licensing fees like a Windows server. Not to mention not needing an anti-virus subscription and all the other overhead traditionally associated with Windows. Also, UNIX systems like Linux are infinitely easier and more natural to remotely administrate than Windows. So yes, Linux is a serious alternative to Windows on the server. In fact, the sentiment that Windows is a server OS at all is a fairly new one. I think it's just that people know Windows, as they use it on their desktops, so they don't want to learn something new no matter how much better it may be. Even though Linux is free and Windows is pricey, a) they don't know any better, never having worked with anything but Windows and b) they don't want to learn something new.
People use windows beacuse, most of them dont know or have never heard of anything else (except Mac maby). Beacuse windoze costs alot of money, the have alot of money for advertising and bullying smaller companies (ie all of them).
Well when I first tried linux, one reason I was kind of 'intimidated' I guess was because I did not know all the linux terms and what they meant. I didn't know what GRUB was for the longest time, but if I really think back to when I was like 8, I can remember feeling the same way learning on windows. I guess windows had me a bit brainwashed
Of course x86 architechture isn't the greatest either, but unfortunately, as the Itainium and Crusoe have proven, a radically better but radically different architecture doesn't mean it'll be the mainstream, especially when it means the rest of the computer industry would have to roll over to a new path---and by this I include both software and hardware together. Unless we start from ground zero, I honestly don't see the current path deviating from the x86/Windows combination anytime soon. Although Linux design is better, getting the public to jump on en masse is still the trick to pull off. I think I'll probably always run Windows because of how much time I've spent with it...and that's where MS wins. A vast majority of computers run some version of Windows, which is what most people know. While KDE makes Linux more like Windows in the graphical sense, it's different enough that people ingrained in Windows really have a hard time jumping on the bandwagon...especially if they don't really dislike Windows enough to jump ship. Even so, I can see an easier time with Linux challenging Windows for supremecy. If that were to happen, it could pave the way for a non-x86 architecture to take place, as the modular design of the *nixes/*BSD platforms seems to lean in an easier move in that direction...but I could be totally wrong.
I for one don't care whether or not Linux becomes the dominant platform on the desktop, though I do feel it should hold a much greater share than it does for all of its merits. On the server however, it's really hard to justify Windows' existence. Linux (or any UNIX) is so much better suited for the role as to make the whole situation ridiculous.
As a server OS, yes, the *nixes are better because of the design. Windows would need to be completely re-written from scratch with security in mind...which would probably mean that Windows release probably would not have an upgrade option from the previous version...at least I hope not seeing as how well upgrading straight from a 9x install to a 2k install worked (as in no reformat).
Well, that's what inspired this thread - the stupid Windows server rebooting and interrupting a 2-hour ghost process midway through. On that note, I'm gonna build a few Linux servers when I go in on Monday, and they've got me building a Linux DVR for security as well. Pretty involved for my second day with them (started Friday) but this stuff needs to happen. I suppose they could continue using Windows 2003 Server, but it irritates me to no end, sucks to manage, and is just as vulnerable to virii as any other version of Windows. It's not good to have a Windows server on the same network with client's PCs we're working on, as virii and worms could propogate to the server itself. Hell, that server may be totally 0wn3d already for all I know.
Thats a very good point, when i work with friends laptops etc i dont connect them into my network, untill im sure that theres nothing up with them. This has REALLY saved me alot of work, as one laptop that i had was full of nasty :swear: (incl sasser). so, my advice is if your sorting someones computer for them... dont network them untill your SURE its safe (or YOUR computer & YOUR bandwidth will eventually be spreading worms around).
...exactly why I mentioned this. Except when I work on people's Windows systems on my home network, it is 100% Linux here so there is no risk of infection. Also, I can do egress filtering at the firewall to keep the thing from spreading its payload outside my LAN. If I can get the firm I'm working for to at least that point, we'll be in good shape. Linux servers can provide all the connectivity with Windows clients that a Windows server could, except that a Linux server is not susceptible to virus infection so it's perfect for a hostile LAN like that.
Windows has major flaws for sure, but it's so easy to use and get your work done. I don't want to spend half and hour compiling a package just so I can listen to my mp3s! Don't get me wrong, I think Linux is a great alternative. It's got lots of great innovations and above all, it's free. I just don't think it's ready for the big time yet.
Sorry, no flame intended but that's spoken in ignorance. It's actually easier to install packages in Linux than any other OS that I know of, and once it's up it's quite a productive and stable work environment. Of course, you can use whatever OS you choose. But assumptions or hearsay like that are unfair and untrue.
It's no assumption, I went out and bought a copy of Linux magazine with a free Suse Linux 9.3 DVD. My intention was to find out what all the fuss was really about! After all, I couldn't believe an operating system that was free would be any good. I ended up installing SuSe with the KDE GUI, although I also reinstalled it to try out GNOME as well. I happen to think Linux is exceptionally stable, if a little slow compared to Windows. It takes longer to boot and some applications, especially Open Office, can take some time to load. I think Linux has excellent hardware detection, which impressed me a lot. It detected things like my Hauppauge Nova T card, which Windows cannot do (although I couldn't get it to work in Linux). Also, I feel Konqueror is the way forward for file browsing/internet browsing. I especially liked the fact it could preview almost any file, without having to open specific software. I don't have internet at home, so I couldn't connect my Linux distro to the internet. This was a problem when I needed additional components such as mp3 codecs. I brought home the lame mp3 codecs in a .tar file, and I just couldn't get them to work! As I said, people don't want to spend time compiling something like that, they want a simple executable file that does it for them. Linux is well known for poor multimedia support (out of the box, so to speak). I couldn't get Amorak to play my mp3s, although I managed to get Kaffeine to play them in the end. As I said in another post, I couldn't install nVidia drivers at all. They just wouldn't work whatever I tried. I'm always open to alternative software, and I think Linux is a step in the right direction. I am sure if I had time to learn the ins and outs of Linux, I would use it on a full time basis. Problem is, like many others, I don't have time to learn. I am not disatisfied with Windows enough to warrant a change. For sure, Windows has bugs and viruses, but I bet if and when Linux becomes more mainstream, viruses will follow as well. People don't like change, they will stick to what they know despite that fact it may be crap - just like Internet Explorer. I was brought up using a Macintosh and I used to swear by it! I started using Windows because I thought it was better.
My MMO engine will only run on a Windows server for now so that is really the only reason that I own one. Strangley, never had a crash and I've heard players get incredibly awesome latencies even from Russia.
