RSS Forums RSS
Please support our Windows Servers and IIS advertiser: Programming Forums

What's better? Windows 2000 Server or Linux Server?

Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 862
Reputation: Tekmaven is a glorious beacon of light Tekmaven is a glorious beacon of light Tekmaven is a glorious beacon of light Tekmaven is a glorious beacon of light Tekmaven is a glorious beacon of light 
Rep Power: 12
Solved Threads: 16
Moderator
Tekmaven's Avatar
Tekmaven Tekmaven is offline Offline
The C# Man, Myth, Legend

Re: What's better? Windows 2000 Server or Linux Server?

  #19  
Jul 5th, 2003
All hard core punk rock music fans say that once a band gets on MTV they have sold out. They don't care if the band actually has good music - they just won't listen to it.

This is whats happening with Linux and Windows. People think that Windows actually sucks. There are a lot of people that know very little about Linux/Unix/BSD that say "Gooo Linux! Window Sucks" - see Slashdot.

I'm fed up with all these shit Linux distros giving me 20 text editors and 30 GUIs. Whats the problem with Linux - its not the power - or the speed. Its that there is to much of everything. If the GNome Human Interface Project and K Desktop Environment (the two most popular GUIs) joined forces, and produced one GUI for X11, it would be much better. Shit is hard to configure. I hate looking at text files all day - why have a GUI app with a text based config?

I'm not saying Apache sucks - because it is a good HTTP server. But the fact is, those top 50 or however servers aren't really running Apache. Netcraft looks at HTTP headers which, can be modified to say anythign you want. Port80 Software's ServerMask can change the IIS HTTP Header to one that looks just like Apache's.

The sad truth is, that Apache's Server software is just as flawed as everyone elses. A direct quote:
The study found 0.53 defects per thousand lines of code for Apache, compared with 0.51 for the commercial software, on average.

And just so you know Windows Server 2003 is much more stable. The things that crash the OS - the background services have all been turned off by default. Only the services you need gets turned on - the opposite of Windows 2000 Server, where everything was "on" by default.

Does Linux have good directory management? I sure don't think so. Active Directory by Microsoft kicks anything Linux has to offer. But, the award for management goes to Novell, with Novell's eDirectory (its very good ).

Tell me one thing you can do better on Linux, and I'll laugh at you - tell you that you are using the wrong software, and tell you 300 things that Windows is better for. And a note, don't say The GIMP is a good image editor. It sucks.
-Ryan Hoffman

ASP.NET Specialist / Webmaster, Extended64.com.
Please do not email or PM me with support questions. Please direct them to the forums instead.
Reply With Quote  
Forums | Blogs | Tutorials | Code Snippets | Whitepapers | RSS Feeds | Advertising
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 6:35 pm.
Newsletter Archive - Sitemap - Privacy Statement - Acceptable Use Policy - Contact Us
Forum system based on vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2003 - 2008 DaniWeb® LLC