Linux servers vs Windows servers?

Question

Any major difference between the two that I should know before choosing, or are they generally the same?

Answer 1

Ive used them all since the birth of internet, and they all have pros and cons. I wont mention Unix and Max since you didnt.



Windows servers I have recommended if its for one purpose, and many windows users need to do admin functions. Such as a Customer Support database, or an Accounting server, or a specialized server for Email or Newsgroups. But not for servers that will do all of those. Basically Windows servers tend to be more menu driven and easier for non system administrators to get complicated things done. But the programs do not tend to play will with each other. They dont talk to each other as well as Linux programs do so it is best when its only doing the ONE function.



Linux can do everything. At the same time. And they do not have to be programs created for the same "suite" or package. So for general purpose servers (such as a full internet server with web and mail and ftp and games) I would recommend Linux. It is abit harder to manage but that is getting better with all of the online help available.

Answer 2

Linux is a VERY powerful system. So is Windows. If you know what you're doing in EITHER of them, they BOTH can be VERY stable systems. I've had Windows Servers that (patching not withstanding) ran Exchange, IIS, SQL, Virtual Machines, File, and Print services for a domain that ran without reboot or problem for 10 months (and I rebooted it only after mistakenly believing I was having a problem with IIS). And I've heard of and seen linux systems that remain booted for months and even years as well.



What you should use is what YOU know. Running linux is free of LICENSE FEE, but it's NOT FREE of support costs. Further, the linux community is fond of telling you about it's great support - and it's true - it's great support for THEM. When you try to ask for help from the Linux community, TOO OFTEN, you get back unhelpful answers that include "RTFM". Jerk, if I had time to RTFM, I wouldn't be asking the question!



I've setup linux a few dozen times and whenever I've tried to use it to any serious extent, I've eventually broken it trying to push it and been unable to get it working again even with the help of my local linux group.



There are other things to consider: For example, if you have Windows Workstations, you can implement some serious management capabilities using Windows Servers. Linux can provide centralized domain style logons, but cannot provide the fine tuned control over Windows workstations that Windows can.



Finally, I like to describe Linux and Windows (and Mac) like this and most people don't disagree much with the analogy:



Mac: Easy. Because, in general, there are only 2 or 3 ways to do anything in particular. When you ask for help, you get the same general response from everyone so learning it is fairly easily and quick.

Windows: Moderately difficult. Because there can be 6 or 7 ways to do something... As a result, you often get different answers which makes learning things more difficult to learn. It can make it more powerful, but more difficult.

Linux: Difficult - because you can ask 30 different linux experts and get 30 different answers on how to edit a file. There's a ton of editors, some for the command line, some for the Graphical environment. so while it's very powerful, it's extremely complicated.

Answer 3

What services will the server be providing, and what hardware are you going to run it on? Generally, Linux is less demanding of hardware, but doesn't offer the breadth of driver support that Windows does. My experience is that both are equally stable when setup properly. There is probably a wider base of support for Windows -- Linux still hasn't shaken it's "techno-geek' image. If the purpose of the server is file & print sharing, and the clients are running windows, then connecting to a Windows server is easier (as you might expect)

Answer 4

It relatively comes right down to a minimum of one ingredient. what style of amenities is your server offering? in case you're working a uncomplicated record and print server, Linux will preserve you. in case you're working a community utility, say like Quickbooks, you rather have not have been given any decision yet to run abode windows. the cost of abode windows Server can get relatively super, relatively rapid. maximum agencies run a mix equipment, the place they use Linux anyplace a probability, and abode windows the place they could.

Answer 5

they are completely different and rely on very different strategies for protection of your systems. Linux will be more complicated to configure but unless you are talking about a very small network commercial products are recommended.



Linux is way much more secure, stable and configurable than Windows. Over the top 500 most powerful computers on the planet and that includes NASA, the US defence system large chemical corps etc etc of the top 500 computers ONLY one is on Windows all of the others are on Unix based system.



Linux rules unchallenged in the world of servers and for very good reasons. In a Windows World you will need to buy the OS + Windows Server (to the credit of MS easy to configure) + another "layer" is recommended for better security like Novell + many tools to protect the server like antivirus all of this costing a little fortune for much less stability and security than Linux



RICK

Answer 6

Linux, from experience, is much more stable than Windows. If you want better up-time, I would go with Linux for your server needs.

Answer 7

Linux by all means