Welcome to the Linux Foundation Forum!

Linux or Windows?

Linux Mandrake 7 or MS Windows 2000 Server?

Comments

  • Goineasy9
    Goineasy9 Posts: 1,114
    I started Linux using Mandrake 9.2, and that was many years ago (MANY YEARS AGO). So what is your question?
  • windows 2000 server is good.. but linux servers is great...
  • I have never tried Mandrake, any release, but for a server OS I am partial to CentOS, or Ubuntu Server edition. I perfer to go command line when it comes to servers. Of course any distro can be command line, but Ubuntu Server Edition does not even come with a GUI.
  • Goineasy9
    Goineasy9 Posts: 1,114
    Mandrake is now Mandriva ... for all you trivia buffs out there. It was a great distro to learn on.
  • Thanks!
  • CentOS! And to be frank - screw Windows. They pretty much force updates on you which can really give you a headache. On top of that, its pretty much a GUI OS. Yes there is Power Shell, but its still underpowered compared to *nix's shells. On top of that, security is horrid with any Windows OS. They lack ROOT! Basically, once you have access to a Windows server or OS, then its yours. There is no layering within the file system to truly prevent people from accessing restricted files or activities. Yeah, there is Active Directory, but its buggy and easy to create loop holes (like the one I found at a local University). There are *nix alternatives that are better. What cloud or cluster computing? Linux all the way. Majority of Super Computers use a form of Linux or Unix. If you go to Amazon, eBay, or Facebook - they are all running Linux servers.

    As far as Mandriva - DK. I have used CentOS and loved it. I really love the RPM vs DEB or Slack. But that comes down to personal experiences and tastes.
  • wow! Mr. GoinEasy9, what a trivia.. thats nice.. thanks for the info.
  • deatharte wrote:
    wow! Mr. GoinEasy9, what a trivia.. thats nice.. thanks for the info.

    I'm just pointing out the deficiencies of Windows. Something you forgot to do. You can say one is good and the other is better. But that's just an opinion, not backed from fact or experience. I was pointing out the deficiencies from experience. One night, a friend of mine and I spent 6 hrs dealing with a Windows 2000 email server that failed after Microsoft pushed another "update". That's another point, Microsoft's updates "fix" broken software vs. Linux's updates improve AND fix software.

    If your going to say anything in a thread that has a technical question, back it up with data.
  • Naiki
    Naiki Posts: 7
    Loved Mandy myself, its what got me into Linux many moons ago ^^ Not havin much luck with recent version though :(
  • mfillpot
    mfillpot Posts: 2,177
    Windows 2000 is the only MS Os that I think is reasonably stable, but as altNull pointed out, the forced updates quite frequenctly make undocumented changes, those changes in my experience open new holes, break components, turn components off or remove backward compatability. Due to those potential issues I would personally stay away from using any form of Windows as a production server.

    If you are looking are Mandriva for a corporate Linux server then by all means go with Mandriva, I know of an organization that is pretty much completely backed on Mandriva and they don't have many problems. My personal preference would be to go with Slakcware instead, many corp version tend to do custom code modifications to source code prior to compiling that alter the base functionality of apps, those alterations can lead potentiall lead you to more frequent security updates. Slakcware uses the original source from the true authors, this guarantees that the apps operate exactly as the original author intended.
  • Personally, I don't know that much about either of these versions in particular, so I will keep my response generic.
    For the last 15 years I have used one version or another of Windows starting with 3.0. I found Windows cumbersome and a tremendous resource hog eg.: need more RAM, need more processor speed, need a larger hard drive. Also as soon as a new version comes out, they at Microsoft will make sure you switch over because all the newer versions of software and hardware require the new versions of Windows. I was perfectly happy with Windows 3.11. It did everything I needed it to do including ease of networking setup, but suddenly 95 came out and I could no longer get drivers for my newer hardware. They at Microsoft also NEVER let software developers know about all the little quirks which every OS has.
    Conversely, I installed Linux Mandrake on a machine which had an 80 MB drive (that's 1/1024th of 80GB). It ran fine with 16 MB of RAM. Incidentally Windows 3.11 ran fine on the same machine (I think it was a 100 MHz 486).
    Windows is a closed OS meaning if you actually want to develop software for it look forward to dropping $1000 at the very least for the SDK and all the other related materials.
    Linux, however, is open OS. This means you can look forward to spending just a few hours and fewer dollars acquiring your developing tools and info.
    Microsoft has so many people hating them that some people have made it their life's goals to trash Windows OS any way they can. Some people hack Microsoft software just for general principles and I understand it isn't much of a challenge.
    In summary, I'd go Linux if I were you and never let Microsoft grab you by the short curlies.
    ~Lee

    P.S. ...and never ever buy a Lexmark printer and expect it to work with Linux. L
  • I think linux is better choice. ;)
  • mfillpot
    mfillpot Posts: 2,177
    shelner wrote:
    I think linux is better choice. ;)

    Shelner,
    What comparisons or examples can you give to justify your opinion?

Categories

Upcoming Training