I am Microsoft User need some info about linux

wikiking · 08-20-2017, 06:59 PM

i am Microsoft user. I have local area network in my town. many userr suggest linux for better networking. can any one tell me about that.

frankbell · 08-20-2017, 08:37 PM

That's an awfully big subject for a forum post. If you have Windows clients, you will need to use Samba.

The best guide I've found for that is Samba by Example. Although Samba is now at v. 4.x, that's still a good place to start; v. 4 added new features to Samba, but did not change stuff that was already proven to work.

Then there's this list of LQ tutorials and this LQ Wiki article.

A web search for Linux networking basics will turn up many articles, tutorials, and YouTube videos.

dave@burn-it.co.uk · 08-22-2017, 01:31 PM

Linux won't make any difference to the availability of networks, indeed it may, if network card drivers are not available for your cards, make it worse. Many hardware manufacturers concentrate on Windows drivers before thinking about Linux ones.

AwesomeMachine · 08-22-2017, 02:18 PM

A Linux machine makes sense for server applications, such as centralized user storage, email, print server, voip server, and other types of server applications. But it won't necessarily make things easier, just more centralized and secure.

rtmistler · 08-22-2017, 02:31 PM

I agree this is a very open-ended question. When these many users you describe suggest this, perhaps you can challenge them to ask why they feel this way, and what their specific meaning is about "better networking".

We can all guess, however what really matters here is what these users are suggesting to you and whether or not you have any opinions about this topic yourself.

What I can tell you is that I got started with Linux way back when it was new and did little with it except to load it and relish in the fact that you could run the equivalent of Unix, on a PC. Over time, Linux started to get big with embedded systems and I began to do custom Linux work. Eventually Linux became more common for PCs as an alternative to Windows, and also the GUI desktop became far more stable, as well as closer to the Microsoft that many users are familiar with. In parallel Linux grew a lot of adopters for the server end of things. This did take some strong efforts on the parts of distributions, leading to some commercial ones which exist today. As far as for a desktop, Linux is very well evolved where it is usable for very new users and they can accomplish normal user-based things with relative ease. Since Linux was not the traditional target of viruses or other attacks, from the network perspective, it was cleaner, had less fuss, and you didn't have all sorts of spam about registry scrubbing. Meanwhile, Linux doesn't have a registry, and therefore it was not an item to be attacked, much less fixed. Things have changed, and in fact a lot of spam and ads now use the browser interface. They're actually less about intruding on your system and more about working to be in your face no matter how much protective blocking or other add-ons you put into your browser. Still, Linux ... at least for me, is more usable. This is however a personal choice where you should explore.

And towards the exploration recommendation:

Use Virtual Box to load virtual machines and explore Linux
Boot off of live DVD or USB to see how Linux runs on your machine, but without installing it yet
Eventually consider installing Linux on a spare machine, or as a dual boot

schneidz · 08-22-2017, 02:38 PM

my only guess is that you have a few linux clients trying to nfs mount or ssh into your server but those services arent running on your machine.

if you switch to linux then i assume several windows clients would then complain that file-and-printer sharing isnt working...

justmy2cents · 08-22-2017, 02:43 PM

Quote:

If we've learned anything in the technology business in the last 25 years, it would be to never underestimate the Linux kernel. Why, then, have so many networking companies been so eager to bypass the Linux kernel -- or more specifically, the Linux kernel networking stack? What could be so wrong with the networking packet arteries in the Linux kernel that motivates so many of us to bypass them?

There are two main reasons. First, the kernel networking stack is too slow -- and the problem is only getting worse with the adoption of higher-speed networking in servers and switches (10GbE, 25GbE, and 40GbE today, and rising to 50GbE and 100GbE in the near future). Second, handling networking outside the kernel allows for plugging in new technology without the need to change core Linux kernel code.

For further reading on the subject: http://www.infoworld.com/article/318...el-bypass.html

How this compares to Windows networking see the post below.. However FreeBSD I know is more superior than either Linux or Windows, at least in the area of high-speed networking.. If you didn't know Netflix servers run FreeBSD, as FreeBSD can output 90 Gigabits on a 100 Gigibit card which is really good.. The goal of an OS is to get as close to the speed that the hardware allows.. Also modern servers that utilize many cores and that run FreeBSD outperform Linux, because FreeBSD's scheduler and memory allocator is simiplier..

justmy2cents · 08-22-2017, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justmy2cents

The following is why Linux is faster than Windows:

It uses a monolithic kernel (increased boot times since everything the OS needs is loaded when the kernel is loaded) wheras Windows uses a microkernel which only contains the basic necessities and the remaining aspects are loaded separately, thus making it a slower when booting up..

The package management system is more efficient thus uses less space and RAM when downloading software, and it can do it faster..

.so files are superior to DLL files because when a Windows programmer wants to write an app he will no idea what version of Windows the end user will have, and so the programmer wont know if the correct DLL will be installed. So he's has to include the DLL with the app which makes the installer much larger, and the C: drive much fuller. (and also more RAM is used)

Windows doesn't need to be the fastest as it's users don't care as Microsoft's marketing tactics sold them. Linux on the other hand requires itself to be optimized for performance in order to survive.. Even if Microsoft wanted to outperform Linux it cant due to the amount of manpower it has compared to the Linux ecosystem. So instead for Windows to survive their development activities need to be market driven..

Why Linux is a more ideal server than Windows:

It's faster and has an increased level of privacy

It slim, flexible, and scalable so a company can mix/match various applications depending on the user requirements, whereas with Windows you'll be in a vender lock-in situation.

It's free and open source (Microsoft licenses cost alot of $$$)

It can run for years without requiring a reboot as almost all Linux configurations can be changed seamlessly while the system is running

It can be highly optimized (i.e LFS, Gentoo)

It can handle a large number of processes at once

Linux admins always have a clear view of the file system and are always in control

So in essence nothing can touch Linux except maybe GNU's HURD

This was on old post of mine

sundialsvcs · 08-23-2017, 07:37 AM

I would not consider Linux to have "better networking" than Windows. I would consider this to be a fallacy, and not a sound basis for any business decision.

I would flatly argue that "Microsoft is very good at what it does for a living," namely, selling "a tightly vertically-integrated, single-vendor solution that actually does work."

Yes, they came by their millions quite honestly.

However, you certainly can – and should – expect to find Windows and Linux and OS/X systems side-by-side in any network, and you definitely should familiarize yourself with how non-Windows OSes cooperate with Windows (and vice-versa). You should not content yourself with knowing only how Microsoft Windows does things.