Am I missing something?

[anthonyon]

Hi all,
I'm a Windows kind of guy. I guess because that is all I know. I have used Windows for years now and I think it is the best of the best. It's simple, straight-forward, and since after Windows 2000 its stable and secure. Yes, I said "secure". By default Windows is open to alot of vulnerabilities but if you tweak it a bit you can have a secure system. I have managed small businesses to corporate atmospheres using a complete Windows server platform and I have deemed it to be very good at managing a network. Well, actually the large corporate atmospheres always had cross-platforms...but my job has always been managing the Windows environment or working with Winodws systems.

I do not know anything about Linux, Unix, or the alikes...all I know is Windows and up to this point that is all I ever needed to know. I tried teaching myself Linux a few times but always gave up after frustrating myself to the point i wanted to jump off a bridge .

My question is am I missing something by not taking the time to learn Linux, Unix, etc.? In your opinion which is the better OS? Does Windows provide all the functionality needed to perform well at all times in all areas? Am I missing something. Because Windows has performed well for me as a web server, file server, DNS server, DHCP server, firewall server, etc.! I know if I knew Linux, Unix, etc. I could make the big bucks because of the demand for Linux, Unix gurus and I know for open-source that is the way to go but besides all that is Linux, Unix really better than Windows? Is it really much more stable and secure? Much more flexible? Or are they all just about equavilent to each other and it is just a matter of preference? Share your thoughts!

 

[comtec17]

1. More stable than Windows
2. "Ever heard of Virus's spreading across *nix servers?"
3. True Multitasking
4. Kernel control tuning
5. Secure (if setup properly)
6. Better performance
7. Command Line (GUI - YUK!!!)
8. Shell scripting, no VB or dos Batch
9. Do not have to reboot all the time. I have a server that has been up for 9 months without a reboot
10. Linux is free......
11. No "Blue Screen of death"
12. Very little fragmentation

 

[KenCunningham]

Just as Comtec17 says. If you are happy to frustrate your user community with constant reboots, then I guess Windows is the OS for you.

 

[alexhu]

I've been a UNIX admin for over 15 years and in that time have had responsibility for NT (at the time) servers.

While I personally avoid the Windows platform like the plague, after that experience, I now think that Bill Gates has done a pretty good job. After all, his OS will work on the majority of Intel based servers or workstations with minimal problems. UNIX on the other hand has always been written for proprietry systems and so must be more stable by default. There are of course exceptions where Windows servers have not been restarted for >2 years, but I suspect these are the exception rather than the rule.

I don't believe Windows will ever reach the scalability of UNIX for this reason. It will still have to work on all flavours of high end server.

UNIX can have viruses, but because Windows is the majority platform and can be run on any old PC with pirated software, which do the virus writers choose to attack?

Windows is inherently insecure because of its popularity. I'm sure if UNIX were the dominant OS, we would see the same there, because the man in the street just wants to connect his system to the internet and use it. Not mess around with antivirus, adware blockers, pop-up blockers and the rest of the stuff which is needed nowadays. It will be interesting to see if Linux ever becomes common to home systems whether this will happen.

As to your career, can you not make big bucks in a Windows environment? Just because you are good at Windows, will you be good at UNIX?

You will find it difficult going from Windows to UNIX because of the interface , as you have already found.

I feel I fortunately did this the 'right way round'. I started with proprietry systems, then UNIX, then Windows and then back to UNIX.

To throw in a general quote 'windows can be administered by anyone as its all point and click'.

I know thats not true for any sort of network or somewhere where othere users ( ) are involved, but the same is not true of UNIX.

I don't think you are missing anything by not knowing UNIX, I'm certainly not by keeping well clear of Windows . Why do you want to change? Why not add SQLServer to your skills, if you don't have it already?

If you really want to learn UNIX take a course - trying to teach yourself is hard at the best of times.

Hope this helps (I really hate that phrase )

Alex

 

[kHz]

OpenBSD

Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 8 years!

Windows would never be able to match that because they integrate their SW (swiss cheese) browser into their default installation.

Unix servers allow you to control any aspect of the server. Unix servers, as mentioned, are more scalable. At my previous company they were looking at replacing their Notes servers running on Windows (100 or so) with Unix (5) but didn't because of "politics." That pretty much sums up the performance differences of Wintel vs. Unix/RISC servers.

I think it would be cumbersome and a bit of a challenge for someone to go from a GUI environment to a command line environment. It is easer to go the other way around. I administered NT servers in the past, alongside Unix servers, and now all I do is Unix because I just don't like Windows.

 

[telbIT]

In your opinion which is the better OS? Does Windows provide all the functionality needed to perform well at all times in all areas?

Let me tell you my nightmare experience with Windows.

About 6 months after I acquired my first computer with Windows (I had used one at work, so I was familiar with it), which had Windows ME, I started having problems with my HP DeskJet printer. Print jobs would get interrupted with the error message "error communicating to printername" or "cannot communicate with printername" (I don't remember the exact wording now).

Sometimes this could be solved by turning the printer power off, purging the print spool, turning the printer power back on and sending the print job again. But it got worse and more frequent, sometimes requiring I turn the printer off and on 20 or more times.

Of course, anyone I contacted for help (HP - manufacturer of the printer and the computer, Microsoft) could only go through the basic "computers for dummies" troubleshooting steps (seeing if you've got a paper jam, seeing if the printer shows up in your devices, etc.), and then all would claim the problem was not with their device/OS. No one would take responsibility. I am not computer-illiterate and had been reading "SmartComputing Magazine" almost from the beginning, which can include some really good trouble-shooting, security, system administration and other advice while being understandable even by a newbie. I flipped through all my magazines and tried everything to find the cause of the problem, to no avail.

Finally the printer wouldn't work at all (and this after I upgraded to XP). I brought the printer to a computer repair shop, and it worked fine on their computer. I bought a new Lexmak Z45 printer. It was okay for a while, then the same nightmare started all over. Eventually I just couldn't communicate with the printer at all, ever.

Finally, one day (about 1.5 years after the problem surfaced), I got a new error message...telling me that my USB port was corrupted. I switched my hardware around, and it would give me that message on any port the printer was attached to, but not any others, so I know my USB port wasn't really corrupted. Apparently, nobody at Microsoft was willing to take responsibility that its OS had a glitch somewhere, or pass the problem out of the hands of basic help-desk operators to a programmer who could find the problem (I gladly would have emailed them a copy of any system files if the needed to compare them to the originals), or any other person who could figure it out. They wouldn't admit it was an OS problem and said I needed to contact the printer manufacturer, of course the printer manufacturer wouldn't take back the printer and insisted there was nothing wrong with their printer, which there so obviously wasn't.

It was so obvious Windows had corrupted my printer. It didn't do anything to the USB port, though that's the error it was giving me.

By this time I had gotten a 2nd computer. I got Windows XP with that and wiped out Windows on the first computer and replaced it with Mandrake Linux. I was a total Linux newbie. I got kind of frustrated with it and didn't have time to deal with it, plus I was involved in other stuff. But Mandrake had no problem with my USB ports. I since paid for and installed Xandros OS (about half the price of Windows XP), but I don't really like it because it's own package-management system stinks, and I got very sick and wasn't on it for a long time, 'till after my support ran out. It also has some very strange shells and the bash shell is missing man pages on a lot of commands. For some reason the executable installation program for Linux for the Firefox browser and Thunderbird email won't install on Xandros. I tried another browser, too.

Also, the printers most commonly sold with cheap Windows systems (HP and Lexmark) are really not supported with CUPS ("common Unix printing system") and there are no Linux drivers for my models. So I need to get a better printer, like a Brother or an Epson, which don't make tons of cheap printers that they won't support with drivers 6 months down the road, like the models you get included with deals from Wal-Mart and Best Buy.

If you pay for an operating system, you should get proper support, whether you're a home user or a corporation. Also, Microsoft's email support system did not work for many months! (It would not allow me to enter all the digits of my liscence key on the website, so I couldn't send an email support request, even while email support was free). That is absolutely horrifying!

Besides, Internet Explorer is a huge security hole whether you actually use it or not, and after settling the anti-trust in the U.S., Microsoft went ahead and did more once the suit was over...they made it so you can't even use the update site to check patches your Windows needs without using IE. You cannot use another browser to check for updates!!! (They even explicitly say so on their site, and I tried with 4 browsers, just in case.) That is definitely an anti-trust violation, how convienient of them to do this after they settled the lawsuit...the terms of which required Windows to allow users to uninstall IE!

And besides the unable-to-check-for-updates issue, it is possible to actually harm or break some functionality of Windows by uninstalling IE. In the anti-trust case, Microsoft claimed that they weren't in violation of anti-trust laws, in part, because users could uninstall IE.

I have had other problems with Windows too numerous to mention, though not crashing because this was a big improvement over ME by XP. I only held onto it so long because HomeSite, the only text-editor for HTML I have ever liked (it's awesome), is not made for Linux. But I've found a few with most of its features for Linux, so I have no reason to keep Windows, except I need to migrate emails, contacts, files, pictures, webpages, text files and bookmarks before I completely wipe it out.

BTW, I'm going to wipe out Xandros and overwrite with Knoppix or Gentoo Linux, or use Knoppix to install Gentoo Linux. I'll get pretty much any printer except HP or Lexmark and I'll be good to go. Brother is the best cross-platform brand, and I have a Brother multifunction center attached to my Windows machine, I just don't know if I'll be able to use all the features on the software they include with this model (the software is made for Windows and Mac)...but as it is, I don't have a fax # anyway. I'll get a new printer if I have to, never to use Windows again!

I've never had Linux crash or do an unexpected shutdown...ever! (Technically, Windows XP doesn't crash either, it shuts down safely to prevent a crash, but that's just as annoying).

After an introductory Linux class where I learned about Knoppix and Gentoo, I've decided on Gentoo, at least for this computer (my Windows box is in for repairs and I have all my files, etc., backed up by the store where I bought it). Once everything's migrated, I'll work on the Windows box, whether Gentoo or Knoppix or something else. I may even do a dual-boot system with Windows in case I need it for future college homework for IT classes, but not actually boot to Windows anytime soon.

Did you know that the original UNIX team was responsible for developing the TCP/IP standards that make the World-Wide Web possible over the Internet? They believed in a system where anyone, anywhere in the world with any computer could communicate with anyone else, and they work toward that end. Microsoft, after resisting TCP/IP, would love to hog the World-Wide Web all to themselves if they could! So they work toward that end. They propose using technology to inhibit illegal CD resales, and design it so such CDs can only be copied onto computers with Windows. (This is why I no longer buy any music albums. If I can't copy them to the system I want to play them from, which I have a legal right to do, I won't buy them at all. If I'm not sure a CD uses the new technology, and I buy it and I can't copy the tracks, I just return it to the store for a refund, saying it's defective, and never buy anything from that artist again.)

Maybe I got into a little too much detail here, but my point is: I ... HATE ... WINDOWS! Windows is a menace to free communication (and sometimes your hardware)!

 

[SamBones]

9. Do not have to reboot all the time. I have a server that has been up for 9 months without a reboot

I've had UNIX servers stay up for over a year, even with heavy use. I've also had VAX VMS systems that have stayed up for over 5 years with heavy use, but that's a story for another thread.

 

[edfair]

Had one customer that I moved into rented space. Moved them 10 years later to another location. Machine had been down once because a nearby lightning stike took out a serial port. This was on a SCO package on an Altos box. Not all are that good.
Learning was another story. I went into a customer location with a 20 year old manual and no unix experience to a machine that had already been through 3 other service organizations. 5 weeks later the machine was running with all the previous problems resolved and I had some idea of how it all fit together. That, however, was just the start of the learning.
There will be some time and effort you'll need to spend at the front end but it is worth it.

Ed Fair
Give the wrong symptoms, get the wrong solutions.

 

[Trevoke]

OpenBSD : one security hole in the basic install in 8 years..

Sure.. And the basic install is, well, a basic install. You can't do much with it.


Unix better than Windows? I don't know, man. You tell me. What do you wanna use it for?

A non-internet connected workstation where the user is not allowed to install software? *shrug* Windows is good for that.

A server which the user cannot touch and on which the company depends? Novell NetWare or Unix is good for that.

A computer which the user can touch? Well, probably a hammer applied to the user's head is good.

As a sysadmin, I would not want -- EVER -- to have to rely on a Windows server, and you know why? Because it comes with pre-configurations, and it's all point-and-click, and sometimes you have to click 10 or more times before you get to the option you want to change.

With a Unix box, all you have to do is have root access and go to the configuration file you wanna change (cd /etc/samba; nano smb.conf), and find the option in it.

Ah, yes. Also, a Unix box can have upgrades without being restarted. All you have to do is restart the service. A Windows box, on the other hand, usually needs to be restarted because some core components have been changed.

Windows is designed to be a single-user system, and Unix is designed to be a multi-user system. That's my conclusion.

-Haben sie fosforos?
-No tiengo caballero, but I have un briquet.

 

[kordaff]

Windows horror story.

An ISP I worked for had an e-commerce package that ran on a windows server. When it required a reboot (as it did almost daily) it had to have it's ethernet cable unplugged until the web server and database server programs came all the way up (about 10 minutes). Otherwise, it would start taking traffic before it was completely initialized and would get locked up.

I'd take any flavor of unix over windows.

Kordaff

- I said hit it with the fire extinguisher, not a hammer
- Because, if it catches fire, then you can put it out...

 

[piperent]

I guess the answer is: ask for a Windows/Unix comparison in a Unix Forum and you will definitely get a pro-Unix response. Nothing wrong with that.

I've used and supported Unix for 25 years. The nice thing is, solutions that worked 25 years ago still work today; in both form and content. Can't say that for Windows (try running older MS-DOS applications and see how useful they are). If I have a large DB application that absolutely, positively must be functional, well, I'm using Unix if at all possible.

Windows is good for window candy type applications, but not all that stable. Keep in mind that there really is no-such-thing as a simple Windows recovery. You lose it, it's total rebuild time. So, am I going base my applications on Windows and risk potential down time for a $2 million, $20 million, or $200 million dollar company? Not likely.

Does this mean I will never use Windows? Not at all. When I find stability, dependability, and reliability are more important to Microsoft than the total number of users running their OS, then I will re-consider. Until then, I'll stick with what I know works.

Now, if you haven't already done so, go ask this question in the Windows 2000 Server forum to get the other side's view. (-:
JP

 

[feherke]

Hi

ask for a Windows/Unix comparison in a Unix Forum and you will definitely get a pro-Unix response.

More Unix user tried/used Windows, then vice versa. So I think our opinion could be more relevant.

Feherke.

http://rootshell.be/~feherke/

 

[Trevoke]

Feherke : I have to disagree with you.
We have tried both, but we ended up choosing a *nix because we liked it that way.
There may actually be some really, really neat things in Windows that we don't know about; or simply, reasons to choose Windows which we ignore.
(note : there *may*, not there *are*)
It's only fair to get both sides of the question..

-Haben sie fosforos?
-No tiengo caballero, but I have un briquet.

 

[feherke]

Hi

We have tried both, but we ended up choosing a *nix because we liked it that way.

Me too. I tried both, then decided that I need *nix.

Feherke.

http://rootshell.be/~feherke/

 

[piperent]

I guess I'm missing something here. Comtek gave 12 reasons supporting *nix. KenCunningham backs up Comtek. Alexhu is sort of middle of the road, but sees both sides of the story. kHz likes the scalability of *nix. Telbit wrote an entire book about it. Sambones says his servers have been up for 5 years without problem. EdFair says the learning curve is worth it. Trevoke feels windows has too many pre-configurations and limitations on upgrading on the fly (among other things). Kordaff tells about his 'nightmare' on Windows street.

All this, and 'feherke' jumps on "Ask for a comparison in a Unix forum, and you'll get a Unix response". What's with that? What other response would you expect? Shoot, ask a guy wearing an 'Dale Jr.' tee-shirt if he thinks Jeff Gordon is the better driver, what would you expect his answer to be?

 

[Trevoke]

piperent, I think Feherke is just making sure that the OP is aware that the responses might be biased

Feherke : we chose *nix, but it doesn't mean we're right!
(although if we're wrong, I think I'd rather get shot in the foot repeatedly than use Windows for anything but playing games )

-Haben sie fosforos?
-No tiengo caballero, but I have un briquet.

 

[feherke]

Hi

piperent, I just disagree with the thought that our answers are influenced by emotions instead of knowledge.

The exclusively pro-Unix answers in the Unix forum are not because we like Unix, but because we are able to compare the two operating systems.

Feherke.

http://rootshell.be/~feherke/

 

[feherke]

Hi

piperent has right, you all wrote something about why to choose *nix and I did not. Sorry, my reasons are abit specific.
[ul]
[li]Most of the softwares are free, and while a commercial software must be eyecandy, the free software's greatest attribute is ergonomy. They usually does not decide what is good for the user, so they are more configurable. This can not only speed up development considerably, but when the workflow is more fluent, less human error occures.[/li]
[li]Each application does it's job and not try to be omnipotent. So if there is some thing wrong, you have to change/repair only one piece, not the whole. Additionally, if I am not satisfied by any available application for a job, I can write just a small piece and integrate in the mechanism.[/li]
[li]I found more programming tools and utilities which made my work easier. And beside this, I found more documentations too, both on-line and off-line, usually indepentely browsable. And when I found myself too stupid for the documentation, there are some good sources to study, because almost everything is open source.[/li]
[li]The big amount of text files used as executables and data files made my work faster and easier, because with them debuging and behind-the-mountain modifications are handy.[/li]
[li]Due to the large number of developers, the standards must be followed strictly, so there are fewer incompatibilities, and even when are, is easier to detect them. This leads to less proprietary formats too.[/li]
[/ul]

Feherke.

http://rootshell.be/~feherke/

 

[piperent]

I just disagree with the thought that our answers are influenced by emotions instead of knowledge.


feherke,

Our answers are influenced by our emotions and emotions are derived from our knowledge. Knowledge and emotions go hand-in-hand. One becomes passionate about something then seeks to gain knowledge, or, one's knowledge drives his passion.

So much for the phylosophical JP. My head hurts. :