After investing a considerable amount of time and effort into learning the basics of linux over the last few months, I was rather perturbed to read the following reports from MSoft's website:

http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/facts/analyses.asp

In a nutshell, the (independant) report appears to have found that not only does Server 2003 comprehensively outperform linux servers, but that the TCO of Server 2003 is lower, due to support, development and maintenance issues over time.

Is this report a fair comparison, or have the figures/tests been been massaged to show the MSoft server in a superior position?

I don't wish to start a huge, unconstructive slanging match with this post. Rather I'm hoping to discover the truth about the two OS's, so I can decide where to invest my development time over the coming months.

Microsoft has always had the irritating habit of interviewing themselves and paying "independant" companies to run tests. In the past, the tests have been under ludicrous conditions with an out of the box RH install and a fully tweaked windows box, so of course the windows box performed better, but just barely. Consider your source here, and just do what the rest of us has done. Run linux yourself, you'll see a noticeable difference in the speed and reliability. I run 2003 at my school, and its nothing more than a 2000 rehash. I find it funny that microsoft inadvertantly proved that an out of box install of red hat just barely performs worse than a fully tweaked windows install, btw

in any case, do you really want to be chained to that company and their arcane license agreements for the rest of your carreer? i know i dont, i dont care if their product is faster. Besides, i no longer trust code i cant see and modify myself. Anything could be hiding out in there, and youre at their mercy if a serious problem is found. Nothing you can do about it.

I'll bet they didn't include the cost of virus "protection" . I have MS customers who pay for AV programs and pay me to fix things when the latest virus bypasses all known systems. Then they have to fuss about messed up data and nasty grams from people who got the virus from the address book......
Also, if you want to add anything like email server ( Exchange ) proxy server ( ISA ) office suite ( MS office ) or any other goodies, you have to pay for those on a per machine or per user basis.
I do use Windows but much prefer to use Linux whenever I can. I like those wonderful built in features like iptables, open office, vsftp, apache web server, Apt-get package installation......
all at no additional charge and I can install the same setup on as many systems as I want. I can even install it on other peoples machines legally at no additional cost.

I love Linux

A Linux Vs Windows comparison coming from Microsoft's website. How convenient for them .

Well, there isn't much to compare. If you are running a server, Linux and *BSD all the way. It's free and don't have a per-toilet-seat license... As desktop is a little more controversial though...

If I have an old mashine for FREE and install linux for FREE the ratio must be unbeateble!

I know the time etc

what do you think lagged bandwidth and hours of downtime a month cost?

9 billion, actauly thats probly what theyed say so if they ever sued they could be rich, in reality it realy costs nothing, all your paying for to get internet is the conection, the computer, matenece (ok this is free, unless you have MS, or want to pay some "specialist" just to type a few comands to see if its still working),

but i do agree with 1 thing from the MS report on that site, linux is far most expensive to operate in an enterprise, reason: any idiot fresh outa school can operate MS (weather or not tehy do it corectly is a difrent thing), but only people that actualy know what there doing can use and operate linux for enterpises, altho if the companies would bother to teach emploies how to use teh somps tehy wouldnet ahve to pay like $100000 to people who know what there doing

Quote:

Originally posted by SciYro but i do agree with 1 thing from the MS report on that site, linux is far most expensive to operate in an enterprise, reason: any idiot fresh outa school can operate MS (weather or not tehy do it corectly is a difrent thing), but only people that actualy know what there doing can use and operate linux for enterpises, altho if the companies would bother to teach emploies how to use teh somps tehy wouldnet ahve to pay like $100000 to people who know what there doing

This is a very good point. Impressive.

The cost of unix personel will drop dramaticly due to linux since a whole new generation is learning this in free time and with pasion. Further will the UI change as well to the better. I think this will go a lot faster than MS bug and security fixing.

My faith in linux has been restored. Check out http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure...50801926NWMSRH for a list of some of the tricks that may have been used. All may not be as it seems....