* Jonathan Peterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> >
> >At the end of the day, the simple fact is that Windows 2000 crashes more
> >frequently than *n[ui]x does -- this surely is unquestioned fact.
>
> I just questioned it. Win2k appears to be a very nice OS, although I've
> never used it at the server end. It may have all sorts of scalability
> issues and general crapnesses but I've not seen any evidence that it (or NT
> 4 for that matter) crashed more than Unix. There appear to be near infinite
> numbers of people who will testify that they worked in some huge IT place
> and all the NT servers were rebooted daily and all the nix machines had
> been running since 1988 with no reboots. There are just as many people who
> will say that they worked in similar environments where both systems hardly
> ever needed to be rebooted. I've known banks (GS) where solaris machines
> were rebooted daily or weekly.
>
> As for my very limited experience, neither Solaris nor NT crash during
> normal use as server platforms. I've known NT screw up during some hardware
> installs and some application installs. But then I've known Solaris do the
> same for some application installs.
>
>
Well here are some reasons why i prefer UNIX to Windows * for servers,
they are pretty much personal reasons and i'm sure not everyone agrees with
them.
* GUI
I really don't want to have a server running a GUI, it adds at least some
overhead, encourages people to `work on the server' and as its an additional
process may add additional security concerns.
While its possible (at least it was) to configure NT not to have a GUI,
the whole toolset is designed to have a GUI and GUI tools available. So
with Windows you are pretty much stuck with it, with UNIX, X isn't tightly
integrated into the OS.
* Mature Server Software
Windows leads the world in desktop software, however it doesn't have as
much mature server side software, and i'm not just talking about server
processes, i'm thinking about Cron, Procmail, Perl, etc.
The software that you use to administer and carry out processing with
is just as important on a server as your httpd. Windows simply doesn't
have as much mature software available on it, and when software is
ported from UNIX it often suffers in functionality (e.g. Perl and fork).
* There is only one Windows
Imagine if every car manufacturor decided to use acme car alarm 2000,
car thieves would love it. They'd get a simple acme car alarm disabler
kit and off they'd go. This is what is starting to happen with Windows
and it will continue to happen. I don't want to be as easy to hack as
every other machine on the planet and be part of that great big red
bullseye. When the Internet Worm came about it was possible due to
there being 2 major types of system mostly configured in the same way,
I think we'll see another worm soon but it will attack 2 or 3 types of
windows.
* MSDN
I'd love to read more about Win 32 programming, and the best source is
MSDN but it costs too much! Why for once can't they do the right thing
and let this information be available to all.
Ok, I've just checked and it appears that more information is now
available on the web for free, but it wasn't like this a while ago.
* DLLs
"Trust me I'm know what I'm doing" - a windows install process changing
your DLLs for you.
There is entirely to much DLL upgrading for my liking at every possible
chance with Windows software/service pack. I don't believe that this can
really lead to a stable system.
* Red Box vs. Blue Box
I want the servers to look different from the desktops, I don't want
the head accountant telling the CEO that his son is a wiz on windows
and he can go and tweak our server for us.
I don't want the requisitions officer to purchase from the same supplier
of desktop hardware for server hardware.
I just want them to be different.
* MS Windows running MS IIS and MS Exchange using MS ....
I do not believe that MS can be the best programmers of ...
operating systems
databases
internet servers
mail servers
They are good at company structure, but surely they cannot position
there company to be the best at everything on a level playing field.
And thats just it, its not a level playing field, superior software
will be hindered by the secret APIs, etc. And some pieces of software
just wont be able to be plugged in - why can't i run Samba on Windows?
Can I? I don't know but I doubt it will be easy.
* SSH
connecting through a cli interface from a remote location where you
have limited bandwidth is much better than using a gui remote control
tool. and because of windows GUI focus (see earlier GUI point) it
simply will never support remote CLI connections as well.
* No compiler
Why can't there be a compiler? Please just a simple one, so that if
i want to write some little program for myself I can do it there and
then. Its not that much to ask, it would just mean that when you get
a fresh windows box you dont have to go and waste time installing
additional software, and there are other examples of this ...
Editor
Scripting language
Cron
* Final reason (for now)
I don't trust them.
--
Greg McCarroll http://217.34.97.146/~gem/
