Why go Windows vs. UNIX?

[tresfun]

Anybody else have thoughts on this? Obviously if i'm running active server pages i'm going to go windows/nt for my hosting platform but if i'm using frontpage to develop my site or if i'm using an ms access database does or cgi scripts does it really matter what platform to go on?

[HostZone]

Does it matter ? Nah.. We often have clients confused ***ut the Linux or Windows hosting platform. Many think that since they have windows they need a windows hosting platform, obviously this is not the case and we have to explain it to them. 9 times out of 10 we steer our clients away from the Windows platform and have them save money by selecting the Linux platforms we offer.

The windows platform is typically reserved for our clients that do ASP or .NET development, or have the need for MS SQL.

If price was not an issue and all things equal, I would personally still recommend the Linux platform over the Windows platform. Why? I personally think the linux platform appears to be more stable and geared for hosting multiple sites such as in a shared hosting environment.

[crucial.com.au]

I think it really depends on what the client wants we offer both Windows and Linux hosting for our customers. Linux provides a lot more reliabilty and uptime, while windows can be much easier to develop on. It really depends on your needs and preferences.

__________________
Crucial Paradigm Web Solutions - Affordable Web Hosting
Linux-talk.com - Your Linux Forum

[Hard@Work]

When I prequalify a new prospect I ask them if they are "developing with Windows technologies". I'm really just saying "are you using ASP/.Net, MS SQL, etc..." in layman.

If they go "huh?" then any 'nix will do as long as they can just FTP.

[dasp]

It really depends on what technologies you will use to drive your website. If you are using Microsoft Technologies like ASP and ASP.NET, or you are using Access databases, then you should go with a Windows host.

If you are not using such Windows-centric technologies, then you can perform your own due diligence and compare Unix and Windows hosters.

DiscountASP.NET Hosting
http://www.DiscountASP.NET
Experience the Power of ASP.NET for Less

[monster]

Originally Posted by tresfun

Anybody else have thoughts on this? Obviously if i'm running active server pages i'm going to go windows/nt for my hosting platform but if i'm using frontpage to develop my site or if i'm using an ms access database does or cgi scripts does it really matter what platform to go on?

There are a few technologies that support running ASP pages on Linux web servers as well.

[mcneely]

Well then

Between the two?

I guess they are both great
But, here's how I see it, all in a nutshell

I've developed on both platforms, win a few, lose a few.
The difference I see is this............

The old command line function seems to always win the day so far as stabilty in the Linux Plaform is concerned... Not only is it much more stable, but, it is much more secure as well. Linux hasn't had the attention that Windows has had over the years from all of the virus writers ......Linux? Reminds me of an old 1963 Dodge truck. You can bang it up and yet the old engine just keeps humming right along.

Windows? Now there's a diamond studded poodle walking down 5th Avenue if I ever saw one. My impression of Windows is such that, it doesn't come close to being the old rag tag Dadge truck from a few sentences ago, no, rather it's more like a Farrari.....Goes good until it brakes, expensive to fix and you wouldn't dare take it off road.........But all in all, it is a good product. I just prefer something that I can bang around a bit

[monster]

What functionality is it specifically that is setting up Windows as a Ferrari and Linux as a 1963 Dodge for you?

The open source debate rages, but for non partisans (people who just want things to _work_, and don't care which camp the product is from) there are some hard facts about both OS's:

Linux:
- More stable than Windows, Linux still crashes of course, however this is more often than not due to hardware failure not an operating system issue.
- Free. The operating system is free, and most applications are free. Major commercial software costs are comparable to Windows (in a true apples to apples comparison test).
- Hiring a Linux admin and programmer's is the same cost as hiring Windows counterparts, pro-rated with experience of course. Unfortunately poor management, research, and decisions are often repackaged as "Linux costs more to roll out".
- Multi tasking is much (much much) better in Linux.
- More secure when configured properly. This is a particularly sticky issue with caveat's for both sides, but at the end of the day Windows claims top position for most vulnerable to (and least recoverable from) dangerous remote exploits.
- Easier to manage remotely. Windows has RDC and a host of other similar tools, but nothing on Windows comes close to the speed and power of the unix shell. Any and every aspect of a Linux system can be configured remotely from the shell. RDC is fast on a LAN, but very slow over the net, and GotoMyPC is _not_free_.
- Ironically enough, in some environments Linux is a better NetBIOS server than Windows is, for example when dealing with some versions of MacOS (not necessarily the ones based on FreeBSD).
- Allows admins to utilize older/out of date hardware. A 300mhz pc will make a great DNS server with stripped down Linux as compared to the performance of a comparable Windows DNS server.


Windows:
- Much better for enterprise database deployment (aka large scale servers). For example; Windows fares better on the big TPC database performance tests than Linux does in tests where the only difference is the OS.
- Easier to manage as a desktop OS for end users (if you configure all users as restricted users so Outlook can't infect their PC with viruses).
- The GUI is easier, especially for end users, to manage and navigate in Windows. KDE and Gnome have come a long way, but, for example, the "Start Menu" and application naming conventions, as well as installing new applications are all still harrowing experiences to non-technical end users. I wish they had (a secure) IE for Linux.
- More hardware and software are supported directly from the vendor.
- Easier for less technical people (end users and admins) to accomplish tasks, not more efficient, but easier. Most everything has a GUI app that can be found within a few clicks.
- Much more commercial software available.
- Ubiquitous and familiar.
- Becoming more reliable as time passes...in some areas. Windows 2000 is still a great server.


Of course all these points are hotly contested and Windows and Linux zealots will tout their software as more powerful. I find that the most reliable opinions when researching this debate are to be gleaned from department managers that used to be, and still are, bitheads - they have a solid conception of the technology and its capabilities, but they also have a global perspective of implementation considerations such as overhead, point of diminishing returns, install/mainte*****/migration issues. A tech head will often ignore "the bottom line", and a sales person is influenced by his peers without having an understanding of the technology (forgive my over generalization).

I personally use Linux, because it suits my needs and I'm technical. We use windows and Linux servers based on the role of the server. But my non-technical end user's use Windows, and I wouldn't have that any other way.

[mcneely]

Two words my friend

"Learning Curve"

I can screw up a Windows Server Platform like one could not imagine

I can make mistakes in the Linux as well and greatly at that

But.............Configured properly, the Linux is ***el and yes, it is indeed open source, less expensive and since I went to college, late 70's, I'm more familiar with grueling hours of typing (our computer classes of the day had more to do with programming vcr's and copying data to cassettes)

I'm new at this

So, as far as it goes, I would prefer to work with a platform that is chocked full of great ideas from everybody, as opposed to one that is soley reserved for the one microsoft way elite. ..................LOL

And yes............You are quite right. It very much is hotly debated amongst the guru's out there.

Diversity is indeed a good thing, and with the Linux, there's a feeling of knowing that everybody had a hand in it's evolution

[klever76]

My question is where is the hard data that would point to an advantage for one over another. For instance what comparisons have been done regarding the statements made regarding stability and uptime. What OS's specifically were considered what flavas of linux which versions of Windows. Windows 2003 is tauted as more secure and more stable so is IIS 6.0, how do I have factual evidence that would help me.

Originally Posted by HostZone

Does it matter ? Nah.. We often have clients confused ***ut the Linux or Windows hosting platform. Many think that since they have windows they need a windows hosting platform, obviously this is not the case and we have to explain it to them. 9 times out of 10 we steer our clients away from the Windows platform and have them save money by selecting the Linux platforms we offer.

The windows platform is typically reserved for our clients that do ASP or .NET development, or have the need for MS SQL.

If price was not an issue and all things equal, I would personally still recommend the Linux platform over the Windows platform. Why? I personally think the linux platform appears to be more stable and geared for hosting multiple sites such as in a shared hosting environment.