Windows vs Linux
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:08 pm
Sort of cross posting here, but for those who did not see it...
http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/mcse2.htm
Today I'm going to tackle one of the hottest topics in the industry, comparing Microsoft's latest offerings to the offerings being released by the major Linux players for both network servers and desktop solutions. I am going to steer clear of "total cost of ownership" arguments, because Microsoft has already funded extensive research that has proven Windows is cheaper to own and operate than Linux. I'm going to be looking at the issue from a pure usability perspective. Which platform saves me the most time? Which platform has the features I need? Which platform has the best third party applications and utilities?
* Windows versus Linux on the Server
Most of my friends and family use Windows 2000, but to power my business network I need the robust features and rock-solid stability of Windows Advanced Server 2003. Windows Advanced Server lets me establish and administer global networks consisting of thousands of clients across hundreds of domains, all with a single wizard. And since all of my buddies at work use Windows Media Player 9 to rip, mix and burn CDs that we can't share with each other or play in the car, we are extremely excited about the Windows Media Player 10 beta that comes integrated with Advanced Server 2003. Now we can rip, mix and burn right on the server! Try getting a streaming video, DVD, CD, mp3, wma, and active content player all tightly integrated into a Linux server. Not likely!
Advantage: Windows
* Windows versus Linux on the Home PC
For home or general office use, I recommend current Windows 2000 users upgrade the systems in their dens and kitchens to Windows XP - Home Edition. The Windows XP desktop is far more advanced than the laughable "home Linux solutions" from vendors like Mandrake and Lycoris, despite what some open source fascists will tell you. Windows XP features the dependable DRM features home users demand (keeps you from getting sued!), while product activation and restrictive EULAs limit what people can do with their PCs to the point that someone like cousin Joe or Grandma won't want one, saving guys like you and me from having to deal with annoying family tech support calls - the kind that we don't even get paid for!
I'm running XP on the monster rig I use at home--a brand new Compaq mid-tower--and the OS blazes like a Corvette. I especially like the four games it comes with - Hearts, FreeCell (so addictive!), Minesweeper, and Solitaire. It's easy to see why XP is considered the ultimate platform for gamers.
One thing many home computer users are concerned with these days is viruses and all the time they consume. Linux zealots will try to say that their platform isn't plagued by things like email viruses, but with Windows XP I don't gotta worry about emailing viruses to my friends and family at all. The built-in email client Outlook Express does it automatically, in the background.
Advantage: Windows
* Windows versus Linux - Applications and Utilities
I save a lot of time thanks to Windows XP, which brings me to another area where Linux is lacking. As I am sitting here writing this column, my computer is busily defragging my hard drive, running my virus scanner, and I'm being shown a list of all the latest MS security patches that are being remotely installed on my machine today. Why doesn't Linux come with any defragmenting tools or virus scanners or Active Backdoor Update like you get with Windows? These are all must-have features for me. Linux is seriously lacking in Internet utilities as well. No way would I run a Linux operating system if it means I can't connect to America Online. Also, where is Microsoft Office for Linux, Windows Media Player for Linux and Outlook Express for Linux? Nowhere to be found. If I can't type a letter, make a spreadsheet, or email anyone with Linux, why on earth would I ever put it on my desktop?
Advantage: Windows
* Windows versus Linux - Preference Tracking and Calling Home
Linux is popular with the freeloading crowd that feels justified stealing all their music, movies and software for free. But with Windows XP, and even more so in the upcoming Longhorn, activities that infringe on a corporation's intellectual property are becoming harder and riskier to engage in. I have dabbled with Mandrake Linux for a day or so, and I was shocked by how few preference-gathering applications were running in the background and how it did absolutely no "calling home", never even contacting the Mandrake server to make sure my product's license key was intact. Who wants to use an operating system that doesn't learn about you, that doesn't keep track of what you like to look at on the web, listen to, or watch? With Windows XP Home, I have the peace of mind that comes with knowing my habits and activities are being monitored by Microsoft, and my computer's hardware configuration and list of installed software is being stored in a database in Redmond. Windows Longhorn will go even further than XP in this regard, as it won't even run any programs or code that hasn't been registered and approved by Microsoft. Goodbye, Kazaa, WinMX, Limewire, Piolet, your infringing days are numbered! Windows Longhorn will be like having a little cop right inside your computer, something MCSEs such as myself have been demanding for years. Let me just say, it's about f'ing time!
Advantage: Windows
* Windows versus Linux - Intellectual Property and The Law
Any MCSE who reads PC Magazine knows about the current legal battle raging between the Linux camp (IBM, HP, Novell, Red Hat, SGI) and The SCO Group, who is currently claiming that major portions of the Linux kernel, the Linux filesystem, Linux networking utilities, and portions of the human genome are all illegally copied from Unix System V, of which SCO owns some of the copyrights. I read SCO president Darl McBride's press releases daily, and I don't understand how any current enterprise or home Linux users aren't terrified over this. Can any of them prove that Linux is NOT illegally derived from Unix System V? If so I haven't seen it. Once this case goes to court in 2005, and IBM loses, Linux users will owe SCO $650 *per seat* for Linux deployments. This is far more expensive than Windows.
Ultimately, using Microsoft software is much, much safer from a legal standpoint. Since the source code is proprietary and closed, there is no way for stolen code to get into the product. Users of Microsoft software have nothing to worry about from a legal perspective, which lets Windows network administrators like myself sleep easier at night. Or it would if our pagers weren't constantly going off.
Advantage: Windows
Final Score: Windows 5, Linux 0
Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1661, old post ID:14202
http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/mcse2.htm
Today I'm going to tackle one of the hottest topics in the industry, comparing Microsoft's latest offerings to the offerings being released by the major Linux players for both network servers and desktop solutions. I am going to steer clear of "total cost of ownership" arguments, because Microsoft has already funded extensive research that has proven Windows is cheaper to own and operate than Linux. I'm going to be looking at the issue from a pure usability perspective. Which platform saves me the most time? Which platform has the features I need? Which platform has the best third party applications and utilities?
* Windows versus Linux on the Server
Most of my friends and family use Windows 2000, but to power my business network I need the robust features and rock-solid stability of Windows Advanced Server 2003. Windows Advanced Server lets me establish and administer global networks consisting of thousands of clients across hundreds of domains, all with a single wizard. And since all of my buddies at work use Windows Media Player 9 to rip, mix and burn CDs that we can't share with each other or play in the car, we are extremely excited about the Windows Media Player 10 beta that comes integrated with Advanced Server 2003. Now we can rip, mix and burn right on the server! Try getting a streaming video, DVD, CD, mp3, wma, and active content player all tightly integrated into a Linux server. Not likely!
Advantage: Windows
* Windows versus Linux on the Home PC
For home or general office use, I recommend current Windows 2000 users upgrade the systems in their dens and kitchens to Windows XP - Home Edition. The Windows XP desktop is far more advanced than the laughable "home Linux solutions" from vendors like Mandrake and Lycoris, despite what some open source fascists will tell you. Windows XP features the dependable DRM features home users demand (keeps you from getting sued!), while product activation and restrictive EULAs limit what people can do with their PCs to the point that someone like cousin Joe or Grandma won't want one, saving guys like you and me from having to deal with annoying family tech support calls - the kind that we don't even get paid for!
I'm running XP on the monster rig I use at home--a brand new Compaq mid-tower--and the OS blazes like a Corvette. I especially like the four games it comes with - Hearts, FreeCell (so addictive!), Minesweeper, and Solitaire. It's easy to see why XP is considered the ultimate platform for gamers.
One thing many home computer users are concerned with these days is viruses and all the time they consume. Linux zealots will try to say that their platform isn't plagued by things like email viruses, but with Windows XP I don't gotta worry about emailing viruses to my friends and family at all. The built-in email client Outlook Express does it automatically, in the background.
Advantage: Windows
* Windows versus Linux - Applications and Utilities
I save a lot of time thanks to Windows XP, which brings me to another area where Linux is lacking. As I am sitting here writing this column, my computer is busily defragging my hard drive, running my virus scanner, and I'm being shown a list of all the latest MS security patches that are being remotely installed on my machine today. Why doesn't Linux come with any defragmenting tools or virus scanners or Active Backdoor Update like you get with Windows? These are all must-have features for me. Linux is seriously lacking in Internet utilities as well. No way would I run a Linux operating system if it means I can't connect to America Online. Also, where is Microsoft Office for Linux, Windows Media Player for Linux and Outlook Express for Linux? Nowhere to be found. If I can't type a letter, make a spreadsheet, or email anyone with Linux, why on earth would I ever put it on my desktop?
Advantage: Windows
* Windows versus Linux - Preference Tracking and Calling Home
Linux is popular with the freeloading crowd that feels justified stealing all their music, movies and software for free. But with Windows XP, and even more so in the upcoming Longhorn, activities that infringe on a corporation's intellectual property are becoming harder and riskier to engage in. I have dabbled with Mandrake Linux for a day or so, and I was shocked by how few preference-gathering applications were running in the background and how it did absolutely no "calling home", never even contacting the Mandrake server to make sure my product's license key was intact. Who wants to use an operating system that doesn't learn about you, that doesn't keep track of what you like to look at on the web, listen to, or watch? With Windows XP Home, I have the peace of mind that comes with knowing my habits and activities are being monitored by Microsoft, and my computer's hardware configuration and list of installed software is being stored in a database in Redmond. Windows Longhorn will go even further than XP in this regard, as it won't even run any programs or code that hasn't been registered and approved by Microsoft. Goodbye, Kazaa, WinMX, Limewire, Piolet, your infringing days are numbered! Windows Longhorn will be like having a little cop right inside your computer, something MCSEs such as myself have been demanding for years. Let me just say, it's about f'ing time!
Advantage: Windows
* Windows versus Linux - Intellectual Property and The Law
Any MCSE who reads PC Magazine knows about the current legal battle raging between the Linux camp (IBM, HP, Novell, Red Hat, SGI) and The SCO Group, who is currently claiming that major portions of the Linux kernel, the Linux filesystem, Linux networking utilities, and portions of the human genome are all illegally copied from Unix System V, of which SCO owns some of the copyrights. I read SCO president Darl McBride's press releases daily, and I don't understand how any current enterprise or home Linux users aren't terrified over this. Can any of them prove that Linux is NOT illegally derived from Unix System V? If so I haven't seen it. Once this case goes to court in 2005, and IBM loses, Linux users will owe SCO $650 *per seat* for Linux deployments. This is far more expensive than Windows.
Ultimately, using Microsoft software is much, much safer from a legal standpoint. Since the source code is proprietary and closed, there is no way for stolen code to get into the product. Users of Microsoft software have nothing to worry about from a legal perspective, which lets Windows network administrators like myself sleep easier at night. Or it would if our pagers weren't constantly going off.
Advantage: Windows
Final Score: Windows 5, Linux 0
Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1661, old post ID:14202
It was a good read, and I thank the person for the entertainment. 
you bot! 