we are currently in the middle of a port of our web based systems from being purely windows-centric to open source...it starting to feel like it's going to take forever to finish and QA.
core reasons: 1) licensing cost - no further words necessary here 2) RAM issues/ 64-bit support/ Clustering or Replication issues / Speed - needed more RAM for ms sql 2000 than it's 32bit limit...as per our tests, sql 2005 is slower than 2k for our systems... in our systems, we've found PostgreSQL to run ~3x faster than MS SQL 2k which seems to be almost 2x faster than MS SQL 2005. however...our current ahmm trials are centered on the fact that MS, no matter what anyone else says, does strive to make life easier for developers with their IDE...not so for linux. I've worked on designing hardware chips to machine code(amd/intel/other processors), c, c++, visual c++, java, vb and honestly working with linux-tech feels like I'm back to my college-hacking-make-do days... :( but hey it's free, can't complain right? MS has billions to spend on Visual Studio...VS2005 code snippets are just a step away from UML... if they get that down right and perfect, even your 70 year old grandma can write software soon...sorry will drag and drop code objects and produce software to kick my ass... :) (it'd probably require 10kGhz multiple quad core machines with 200 tera ram though hehehhe). however we will always have a windows-based-dev team 'cause realistically...MS is everywhere... we have settled on FC7 for now. we did some tests on processing (web based interface and shitloads of db-server-centric data processing) with run level 3 and 5(with GUI)...with our system the gui adds 1-1.5% overhead...for us, we will keep the gui perpetually enabled for the servers, since we employ a mixed (Linux/Windows) tech environment (hopefully it will be 50-50 between command line and gui). hope this helps in some way... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pablo Manalastas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Technical Discussion List" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [plug] white papers/studies on linux over windows > --- Orlando Andico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 3:14 PM, JM Ibanez >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> .. >> > - A Linux server usually runs headless, so >> > resources do not go to >> > maintaining a GUI. Not so with Windows Server >> > 2003, which still runs >> > a GUI subsystem even as a server; >> >> Not anymore. I've never seen a headless Linux box in >> ages. I mean it >> has no monitor, yes, but the GUI is still running. >> This is true of all >> the client deployments I've seen. > > Almost all the servers (web, mail, mysql, dhcp, > moodle, etc) at Ateneo are Fedora at runlevel 3, which > means there is no X server running, thus no GUI. In > fact the entire server room has only one > monitor/keyboard, which is switched among servers. But > those are our servers, not client Linux boxes assigned > to faculty. > > >> But on Linux, everything is a >> THREAD. fork() is just a wrapper around the >> thread-creation routine. > > I've been reading /usr/src/linux*/kernel/fork.c > and do_fork() does not seem to be a wrapper around > some thread-creation routine, if by thread you mean > the new thread and its parent shares almost all > resources (text, data, heap, open files, etc), except > that the thread has its own stack. For now, I'm > confused. > >> Also, in my experience, equivalent apps run faster >> on Windows than on >> Linux, simply because better compilers are available >> on Windows. Very >> few Linux binaries are compiled with a "decent" >> compiler like Intel's. > > Can you name "equivalent apps" that run on both > Windows and Linux, and run faster on Windows? Thanks. > > Pablo Manalastas _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
