I just read this and i am still dubious .
Linux servers are costlier and less efficient than windows !
read here
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...s/default.mspx

Its just Microsoft "Get The Facts" Linux "Information" campaign.

All those papers are commissioned by Microsoft, and therefore reflect Microsofts views. It really is nothing to worry about.

--Ian

I wouldn't take this too seriously. Look where it's from- microsoft! Of course they are going to say that their product is better!

check out jeremy's blog- he has some stuff to say about stuff like that.

http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/blo.../8/662244.html


titanium_geek

EDIT- beat me to it, Ian! darn aussies...

Person trying to sell you stuff says their product is better, news at 11...

A little tip to khaleel5000: When researching two competing products, never get performance data from the developer of one of the products. Please, it's like trying to decide which political cantidate to vote for based on who the television smear campaign tells you to vote for.
Either way, of all the tens of thousands of companies out there needing to run a more efficient server system, Microsoft looks at 100 that, for whatever reason, experienced increased productivity after "upgrading" their systems to Windows Server 2003. Of those 100, I'd make a ballpark estimate that only somewhere around 50 experienced increased productivity because of the Windows upgrade itself and not because of a completely seperate factor. The fact is, business productivity fluctuates back and forth all the time, just because a certain product was introduced to their model at the time that they had a positive fluctuation means nothing. I could come up with a similar pro-Linux "case study" list too, with 100 businesses that love Linux now because they had increased revenues right after they installed RHEL on all of their servers, and it wouldn't really mean anything either. For god's sake, it all depends on what the business is and where they are going. There is never an absolute measuring system for product superiority.

ok thanks peter but i didnot think about the data's manupulation (molding) factor

There's no question that Microsoft servers can be efficient and that, in many cases, they do the job quite satisfactorily. But to say "Microsoft servers are more efficient than Linux" is like saying that one type of car is "more efficient than" another. At doing what, exactly? Under what conditions? As set-up by whom? etc...

Remember: good data rarely makes good copy (for a newspaper or magazine), and good copy rarely contains good data. The purpose of a sensational story is to move issues off the shelves and to please the advertisers. Determining which type of server(s) meet a business requirement, in itself, requires a lot of money and a lot of hard-work research.

Exactly. I'm sure in some situations, Microsoft comes out on top. However, there are also many situations where Linux is better. For example, Linux is Unix based, which makes it very stable. This means you can have the server up and running with little or no downtime. However, Microsoft may have some features that Linux lacks (but I'm not entirely sure, so don't quote me on that).

I think the only real argument Microsoft has against widespread use of *nix in industrial situations is indemnification. There's not much Linux people can do to counter that one.

Somehow I don't expect Microsoft's corporate lawyers to take the stand in my defense if my servers happen to barf upon a customer's transactions and that customer decides to sue me. I don't expect that any software vendor would be prepared to defend me in that happenstance. When you drive that Ford vehicle off the lot, and crash it into your friendly neighborhood pedestrian, I don't really think that you can expect the descendents of Henry Ford to bail you out. . .



Both Linux and Windows provide you with the infrastructure that you need to build either a server that performs well or one that sucks bricks for biscuits. What you manage to do with that technology is up to ... you.

If you understand that, you are a computer programmer.

If you don't ... ... you must be a journalist.

lolz ..... ok its time for one more newbie question to spoil the mood , correct me if i am wrong but redhat 7.3 was a server OS (i ran it on my system when i didnot know even basics of windows , i just tried the first linux copy i got after i heard abt the mass corporate migration to linux) so can u run a windows server 2003 on a pc and run games etc flawlessly (as server OS tends to be stabler than desktop (right? !)] also if yeah then whats the major difference between server os and desktop os?

1.) They cost more.
2.) You get security updates longer than you would otherwise.
3.) A server operating system won't run flawlessly, maybe what you're talking about is an enterprise-level operating system. These are tested much longer than regular operating systems and therefore offer more stability in more scenarios. Microsoft's Windows Server 2003 would act more like Microsoft's enterprise-level OS. On that note, I don't think it's necessary for MS to charge 800 dollars for their server product, something you could get for less than half of that from RedHat or FreeBSD.
4.) In Windows' case, where Microsoft tends to cheap out on features, you actually get the capability to run, well, a server... and some other networking tools as well.
There is no added stability as far as you would be concerned, unless you are planning on literally leaving your computer on 24/7 for two years or more. Server operating systems are not made for the average user's computer, and you would be paying for a lot of features you would never use.
Jeez, for all those features Microsoft throws in to Windows Server, all of which you would get in FreeBSD for, well, free, I see a compelling reason for businesses to switch to Linux... unless they happen to enjoy paying 800 dollars for one server license.

Those are FUD, don't pay attention to it.

whats FUD?

Fear Uncertainty Doubt