Is linux better than windows for servers?

[iamthwee]

Discuss...

[jbennet]

yes, but only choose linux if you have a guru to set it up for you. If you want a working server in 10 minutes and dont mind the unreliability and security holes, then windows is for you.

i use both

bear in mind that apache/php/mysql on linux rules the net

[iamthwee]

Does linux have the same functionality, like say active directory?

And what distro is best for servers?

[jbennet]

You can use SAMBA for windows domain support and active directory i think. It is windows compatiible but if you dont mind about windows compatibility then you would use something like NIS/LDAP which is better.

[jbennet]

For servers you want stability (read: long release cycle, not the 3 months or so that somethig like fedora offers).

That basically limits you to:

Debian
Red Hat / CentOS

CentOS is a free copy of redhat enterprise. You get all the updates but no support , but it is fully 100% redhat compatible so things like oracle will play nicely (they like redhat)

CentOS/ Redhat have lots of nice GUI tools but debian IMHO is more stable and faster and easier to update BUT it lacks the fancy tools. However, most servers wont have a GUI therefore it doesnt matter too much

[dr4g]

For Servers. Linux blows Microsoft out of the window, hands down. Offering stability, security and maintainability.

Windows can be setup in 10 minutes, but as stated above, will give you numerous problems and issues.

[John A]

For Servers. Linux blows Microsoft out of the window, hands down. Offering stability, security and maintainability.

Windows can be setup in 10 minutes, but as stated above, will give you numerous problems and issues.

If that were completely true, don't you think more system administrators would be willing to spend extra time getting a Linux server up and running?

[Stylish]

If that were completely true, don't you think more system administrators would be willing to spend extra time getting a Linux server up and running?

Windows has top-notch support and already has claim to a large percentage of servers out there. The Microsoft name is know all around, whereas Linux is still mostly unknown.

The Earth was also once flat. Just because everyone's doing it, doesn't make it right.

From my experience, Linux has been more stable, reliable, and functional for my needs. It requires fewer restarts, shows less quirky crashes, and otherwise keeps on chugging for eye catching uptime.

[jbennet]

linux rules in the large server farms (like 65%) but windows has like a 90% dominance in the small/medium buisness setting

[DimaYasny]

windows is easy, many mcsa/mcse ppl out there who know how to work it.
linux is much harder, but it's a fire-and-forget kind of system, maintenance is minimal once it's up and running.

[jbennet]

yes, linux is very good for webservers.

you can get a LAMP server set up under debian in under an hour.

[pheeror]

Windows is good for server, only if you have to use windows on clients. And you have to use windows on clients only if you have windows-only software (solidworks,photoshop,accounting,office suite,...).
Or if you know nothing about Linux.

[jbennet]

indeed. at home i use:

windows 2000 client (1 client - parents pc)

NT4 server (on an old proliant - its my fileserver/windowsdomain controller)

XP pro (1 client - main pc - dual boot with ubuntu as i need some MS apps for college)

These all play nicely with my 1 CentOS server (for LAMP)

[nanosani]

You can use SAMBA for windows domain support and active directory i think. It is windows compatiible but if you dont mind about windows compatibility then you would use something like NIS/LDAP which is better.

Yes Samba can be used as a domain controller.

I think it'll really depend on what type of server you are planning to deploy .. I use both windows and linux as my servers. Satisfied with both at their own positions..

[jbennet]

exactly. i use windows as i need Visual studio and ASP.NET support and I use linux for my general day to day computing and PHP/mysql web devel. Use whatever mix is right for you.

[John A]

Windows has top-notch support and already has claim to a large percentage of servers out there.

So Linux has way less technical support? Great, that's helpful when my server breaks down. :icon_rolleyes:The Earth was also once flat. Just because everyone's doing it, doesn't make it right. But the knowledge eventually spread, and that was before transportation and communications systems had developed (at least not enough to sufficiently spread the information). Linux has been around for a while, and with the help of the Internet, the knowledge would spread pretty fast if it were flat-out the best server solution.From my experience, Linux has been more stable, reliable, and functional for my needs. It requires fewer restarts, shows less quirky crashes, and otherwise keeps on chugging for eye catching uptime.
Others might beg to differ.

[Infarction]

Linux is well known when it comes to a server OS. However, most people don't know or care about server OSs, so Linux is currently becoming known to the general public for its progress as a desktop system.

And LAMP is not the end-all to server configurations. Sure, it works great for your home setup, but for an enterprise it's probably not the greatest solution.

[jbennet]

So Linux has way less technical support? Great, that's helpful when my server breaks down. :icon_rolleyes:

I get all my linux tech support via IRC, USENET, mailing lists and forums. Instant, free and lots of it

[nanosani]

Yes .. most of the Linux support is available online .. and its a great resource of information.

[DimaYasny]

And LAMP is not the end-all to server configurations. Sure, it works great for your home setup, but for an enterprise it's probably not the greatest solution.

most hosters use LAMP. LAMP doesn't have to be a single website or a single domain, it can contain many domains on a single server, or have one huge domain spread n a cluster (apache is very scalable, so is mysql)