[ale] Linux SuSe vs Windows 2000 Server

[Chris Fowler]

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 22:06, James P. Kinney III wrote:
> Wow! Do you like to ask loaded questions or what?!
> As nearly everyone on this group will tell, every molecule of evidence
> would point toward using Linux, in ANY form, to act as a file and print
> server instead of using Windows 200 Server. 

I'm not too crazy about Windows 2000.


> 
> The short list:
> (my apologies for providing the links to the data sources, google and
> slashdot can dig them up)
> TCO
> Security
> Stability
> 
> Linux is cheaper to use because it is built better by brighter people
> who want things to work, not just meet the next marketing deadline.
> 
> Linux is more secure because is doesn't share the same disastrous
> architecture that Microsoft is still lugging. As Linux is based on Unix
> designs, which in turn was designed by some of the brightest people in
> the world to do what is needed now (multi-user, multi-tasking, network
> centric) it is simply a more robust system. Since the source code is
> available for everyone to see, and fix, and improve, the security
> problems that do come up are rapidly fixed. 

The number of OSS users to the number of OSS creators are staggering.
Even if you can not program, you can still help out OSS projects with 
documentation, web site design.  Give back to the community that gives
so much.

>More importantly, the
> security fixes on Linux systems do not usually case the domino upgrade
> problem that Microsoft's fixes cause. Can you say "No Viruses"? Linux
> doesn't get all the 40,000+ viruses that Microsoft machines get. 

UNIX is not as targeted as M$.  It is harder to wreak havoc in UNIX
because of the priv levels.  But you could really screw up a users
home directory.


> Users
> are just that, users. They can't break the box by accident the way the
> user scheme works under Microsoft.

There are many more ways to gain access to UNIX.  So security must be
paid attention too.

M$ just sucks at protecting their systems. Just as memory leak issues
below are noted, memory management expertise is not on M$ top list of
things to do.  A side effect is that many hackers gain access via buffer
overflows and programming mistakes.

IMHO, Windows provides a level of abstraction to the admin that keeps
them away from the metal.  A side effect of this is that many people
consider pure windows admins to not be so knowledgeable in the field of
IT. Or at least us UNIX people do.  they might not know the difference
between IP or TCP or a gateway and a firewall.  This hurts the company
take work for and makes security a major issue for Windows environments.
The fact is that many of these admins just don't understand security.

> 
> Many people have gone months and months with out the need to restart
> their Linux box. Many Windows servers get rebooted every week "just as a
> precaution against memory leaks". A friend had to relocate his Linux box
> to a new building. This meant he was going to need to unplug it. His
> uptime was over a year at that point. We spent two days trying to rig a
> power supply that was hot attachable and portable to keep from having to
> reboot. 

All operating systems have memory leaks.  Poor programming = lost
memory.  UNIX is good about reclaiming memory when a program
terminates.  Windows may be lacking in that space.  But if you expect a
leak, you can restart a program  in Windows just as in Linux to reclaim
that space.  However, kernel memory leaks can only be reclaimed by a
special command we call "init 6".

I've tracked down memory leaks in a few good OSS programs.  So all
programs are prone to memory leaks no matter what OS is running.

> 
> Then there is the fourth part. Linux works with out feeding cash into
> the coffer of a criminal corporation with the morals of a cross between
> Stalin and an alley cat in heat. 
> 
> On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 20:59, Laurie Anderson wrote:
> > I am researching which operating system to install for a small network
> > (4-6 workstations, 2 printers).  I am deciding between Windows 2000
> > Server and Linux Suse.  Can anyone give me some suggestions and/or
> > somewhere to go to do a comparison between the two?  The
> > implementation will be in a small accounting office for file and
> > printer serving.  

If you are doing file and print sharing and no Client/Server crap, then
Linux is the right OS for you.  Samba is a breeze to configure.

I have ran into issues with unsupported USB printers.  Even when I
wanted to use them as a raw printer.  Those issues can be ironed out.

> >  
> > Thanks,
> > Laurie
> -- 
> James P. Kinney III          \Changing the mobile computing world/
> CEO & Director of Engineering \          one Linux user         /
> Local Net Solutions,LLC        \           at a time.          /
> 770-493-8244                    \.___________________________./
> http://www.localnetsolutions.com
> 
> GPG ID: 829C6CA7 James P. Kinney III (M.S. Physics) <jkinney at localnetsolutions.com>
> Fingerprint = 3C9E 6366 54FC A3FE BA4D 0659 6190 ADC3 829C 6CA7 


_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale