Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Linux 'easier to manage' than Windows
Ziff Davis ^ | February 14, 2006 | Ingrid Marson

Posted on 02/15/2006 6:06:44 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing

Survey: Research has found that administrators are more productive when working with Linux servers rather than those running Windows, but not everyone agrees with the results

(Excerpt) Read more at news.zdnet.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: linux; windows
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last
To: postaldave

Keep in mind that uptime is not just a measure of how often it crashes but how often you have to restart it due to resource contention or general maintenance patches..


21 posted on 02/15/2006 10:09:33 AM PST by N3WBI3 (If SCO wants to go fishing they should buy a permit and find a lake like the rest of us..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: postaldave
almost every day does not mean "every day", as you asserted.

And I don't have anything against Bill Gates.

22 posted on 02/15/2006 10:23:52 AM PST by Michael Goldsberry (Lt. Bruce C. Fryar USN 01-02-70 Laos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Every shop I've ever worked in that has separate Windows and *nix teams has double or triple the ratio in the Windows environments. Windows servers run 90:1 - 120:1, while the *nix boxes run 25:1 - 40:1.


23 posted on 02/15/2006 10:41:31 AM PST by Doohickey (If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice...I will choose freewill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael Goldsberry

That says more about the quality of the software than the host OS.


24 posted on 02/15/2006 10:43:16 AM PST by Doohickey (If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice...I will choose freewill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Doohickey
Windows servers run 90:1 - 120:1, while the *nix boxes run 25:1 - 40:1.

If that is true I would look at the complexity of the applications being served: Windows servers tend to be glorified desktops acting as a fileserver or maybe just a webserver. Hell out of the 50 some odd production Windows boxes we run about 10-20% of them Are domain controllers!! What a waste!

We have probably 6:50 Windows and 2:25 Unix with two who float between the both as needed. If we had to pick a box to lose and never returned I could guarantee you I could list 30 Windows boxes before I got to one Unix box..

25 posted on 02/15/2006 10:53:13 AM PST by N3WBI3 (If SCO wants to go fishing they should buy a permit and find a lake like the rest of us..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3

Incorrect. Typical shops I've worked in run the gamut from simple web and file/print servers to active/active clusters. The same roles as the *nix servers.

Uptime leans the *nix way, except for Linux which runs about the same as Windows. Why? Because business units buy Windows and Linux because they're cheap and don't need high availability. They can be built to keep the app up forever but don't want the expense.

Any study that doesn't take that into account is crap.


26 posted on 02/15/2006 11:06:16 AM PST by Doohickey (If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice...I will choose freewill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
The employees of over 200 companies that run Linux were interviewed for the Get the Truth on Linux Managementstudy, which was sponsored by pro-Linux organisation the Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) and Linux management software vendor Levanta.

Gee, I'm shocked that a report sponsored by pro-Linux orgs would reflect favorably on their products...

This is marketing drivel. Pure and simple.
27 posted on 02/15/2006 11:43:08 AM PST by Bush2000 (Linux -- You Get What You Pay For ... (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
These are most of the servers that I support right now. All are Unix .Uptime measured in days:

Uptime In Days 

28 posted on 02/15/2006 11:47:53 AM PST by zeugma (Muslims are varelse...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

what happened 100 days ago?


29 posted on 02/15/2006 11:58:07 AM PST by postaldave (democrats=traitorous b*st*rds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: postaldave
what happened 100 days ago?

A major critical patch that required a reboot. Most patches we apply don't, but every once in a while, it's necessary. 

30 posted on 02/15/2006 12:03:51 PM PST by zeugma (Muslims are varelse...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Says who? Some foreign rag quoting the Linux lab itself? Gimme a break!

Linux is a major pain to install and especially update. I saw a Red Hat system - supposedly the best - take six hours to complete up2date. It sat there for three of them saying "searching for headers to resolve dependencies" or some other nonsense.


31 posted on 02/15/2006 12:05:07 PM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle

pain to update?

pclinuxos you hit update and 10 minutes later from a fresh install it's done.

the wife's XP got a fresh install and days later it finally caught up and had everything updated.

piss poor arguement again tarnished buzzard.

one distro with a slow package does not mean linux is a pain to update


32 posted on 02/15/2006 12:10:16 PM PST by postaldave (democrats=traitorous b*st*rds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Michael Goldsberry
Unix in general measures uptime in months or years, not days or weeks as Windows does.

It has always seemed odd to me that people who can't manage a system consider themselves qualified to advise others.

I manage Server 2000, Server 2003 and until last week, an NT4.0 box.

None of these required rebooting except for hardware maintenance. I'm talking about up times of six months or more, most of it without any intervention at all.

People who are having problems should not be handing out advice.

33 posted on 02/15/2006 12:11:49 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: postaldave
piss poor arguement again tarnished buzzard.

You gotta understand--He knows nothing about Linux, doesn't use it, and has an irrational hatred of it. He just throws things out here and hopes something will stick.

34 posted on 02/15/2006 12:19:20 PM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: js1138
people who can't manage a system consider themselves qualified to advise others.

I've been a Unix Administrator for about fifteen years.

35 posted on 02/15/2006 12:19:26 PM PST by Michael Goldsberry (Lt. Bruce C. Fryar USN 01-02-70 Laos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3

20 percent of your Windows servers are DC's? What numskull set that up? We get by with 1 percent or less, and those boxes serve DNS as well.


36 posted on 02/15/2006 12:19:49 PM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Michael Goldsberry

I'm not talking about people who are competent. I'm referring to people who admit being incapable of keeping a system running reliably, but who have advice for others.


37 posted on 02/15/2006 12:24:16 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: js1138; zeugma

Ah.

Looking back at zeugma's graph made me think of my record uptime.

I had one box way back that was just a departmental email server. Sendmail and pop3 was all it did. (Also /var/mail NFS export to certain *select* workstations.)

It had an uptime count of just over five years when it was shut down for replacement.

Pretty cool.


38 posted on 02/15/2006 12:38:07 PM PST by Michael Goldsberry (Lt. Bruce C. Fryar USN 01-02-70 Laos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: postaldave

Definitely a pain to update if you don't have some sort of depedency checker, and not all of them do. This Red Hat box I saw hadn't been updated in a couple of months (offline), but it did take about six hours to get everything and install. That's ridiculous for 2 months worth of patches.


39 posted on 02/15/2006 12:43:31 PM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Hogwash, I've used it many times and know plenty enough to call BS like we see here all the time.


40 posted on 02/15/2006 12:48:32 PM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson