You may think when you read the title Well, there is news! This I already knew! And is that Microsoft Windows Server It cannot compete or have anything to do on servers with respect to Linux or other UNIX such as Solaris, FreeBSD, AIX, etc. ON the desktop Microsoft Windows is the undisputed king, with that quota it has achieved, but in terms of HPC it is something very different. Maybe some small or medium-sized companies opt for Windows Server for some reason or for ease of use, but a large company opting for it is almost ridiculous (although there are).
Security, stability, robustness These are just some of the issues that make you run away from Windows Server platforms, and perhaps someone will come and tell me that they are safe, stable and robust... As much as Linux distributions or any of the OSes I mentioned above? I don't think, besides the license costs, it would be another matter to choose a different system than what MS offers. We have all witnessed those large companies that have suffered severe attacks from malware, or the latest cases of ransomwere that have devastated certain companies precisely for using Windows Server. That doesn't mean there is no Linux malware, but those cases could have been avoided. Why does Microsoft itself or Apple itself use Linux on their own servers? If they trust their Server products so much… they should use them… right? You will have some advantage to do so.
Well, for those who still have doubts, the famous portal Phoronix, has published the results of some benchmarks that have been carried out on Microsoft Windows Server vs 6 Linux distributions. The results of most of the performance tests do not leave a paid product very well compared to other open and free ones ... Those 6 distros have been Ubuntu (two versions), Debian, openSUSE, Antergos, and Clear Linux. And that others like SLES or RHEL have not analyzed, which by the way, I take advantage of the fact that we will soon make a deep review in this blog about one of these products that you will love ...
It shows that you work with servers ... And most importantly ... Take a free distribution of a program and then complain to the master gunsmith if something has happened in your company ... Linux would like to have a tool half as powerful as Active Directory. Although it is true that some servers can be more powerful in Linux (servers for WEB environments. You will not find anything better on the market than an Active Directory, a DNS or a simple Exchange ... If I want security I put a real firewall and not a shit with IPTables, from the deepest of respects.
LOL, easy boy if you want to use Active directory in linux you can use Samba as DC, or 389 Directory server or…. Well you have to choose ha ha ha, A DNS? windows LOL…. Exchange LOL…. let's not even for DNS server…. as for mail server they are used by moderately serious companies… By the way, have you ever gone through a computer security certification process, have you seen how long it takes MS to correct its security problems?…. Anyway, if you don't like iptables, don't worry, firewalld is now the standard. Greetings!
Windows Server does not even serve to provide services that are specific to Microsoft, I remember the anger that the teachers got because when accessing a shared folder with that "operating" system, more than 25 clients concurrently all lost the connection.
A GNU / Linux with samba was put on that computer to do the same task and the problem was over.
In another macro double room, about 200 were connected and the penguin did not even disheveled.
So to defend that Windows will be valid as a server is to completely ignore the issue.
I would recommend Zentyal which is "fool proof" (even Windows Admins).
I work in a company with more than 100 employees and a large number of shares with different security schemes.
First, if you don't have a good network, you lose connection. Second, if you don't have a good windows server setup, it doesn't work well.
Third, if you can't do the first two, don't go into this business.
Teachers? Of what, of literature?
Greetings.
"You can tell that you work with servers ..."
R / Does anyone use MS Windows Server for Gaming? I think not…
"Linux would like to have a tool half as powerful as Active Directory ..."
A / That indicates that you have NEVER worked with Samba.
"You will not find anything better than a ... DNS"
A / There are thousands of options equal to or better than Micro $ oft. A DNS is silly ...
"If I want security, I put a real firewall on it ..."
R / WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER THE WINDOWS SERVER FIREWALL SERIOUS !? LOL
(you're a 5 star comedian)
If I want a serious FireWall I put pfSense, never one from GNU / Linux and much less one from Windows.
When you want to criticize you are contributing nothing, you write an incendiary article and wing… well… I have been working in data centers with servers for more than 20 years, managing Windows especially and Linux. Each one is good according to what you want to offer, in AD Microsoft, exchange for large accounts, the security is impeccable in it, no matter how much you hear about the security roosters, linux instead files, FTP, web, ... In I've finally seen Linux and Windows take down ... they all have their flaws
There is an error paragraph 2 line eight
You have pripia.
On the other hand you are absolutely right
LONG LIVE LINUX!
Incendiary? No, completely informative, Windows is not good for servers even at the next M $, it is just an expensive toy that just does not work.
When the 500 largest supercomputers in the world all have GNU / Linux and not one Windows, it is for something.
What daring is ignorance!
All good, I'm a Linux lover, but I didn't get to see which are the comparisons in which one or the other system performed better!
The only thing I read is your fanaticism for one system and hatred for another.
The story is not just one!
LOL, did you read the full article? There is a specific paragraph that refers to a famous portal that is in charge of testing…. Anyway, your comment only shows your fanaticism! Greetings
You can see the hatred and the lack of information and knowledge on the subject that she tries to explain and that allows her to fill with bitter fanaticism.
Friend now I ask you a question? Have you ever used Microsoft's servers or services?
I think I would like not only canonical but any other company to have what only Microsoft servers produce.
Leaving fanaticism aside, I think that the hands that feed them should not be moderated, since Microsoft is the one who contributes the most to free software, even bringing their services and applications that hardly produce them due to lack of users.
Your conclusion is interesting, the article is perfectly supported by the facts and the result of the test bench. So no, it is not about fanaticism since today in the business sector MS no longer has the influence and weight that it had in past decades since Open Source prevailed, and to give you an idea MS does not have to other than to start changing their licenses so as not to continue losing market since they never attracted or finished convincing their terms of use and conditions (in some cases it even became abusive the number of times you had to go through the box to make legal use of their products, or give up endless freedoms) ... If you have really implemented some of their products legally, I think there is nothing more to limit, since that is added to how bad they are at delivering a fairly well-made product and Needless to say, to maintain it (at a certain point if or if it's time to start over), then I'm sorry but it's not sensible to use your products in a 24 × 7 production environment that needs availability and scalability.
The good thing about the GNU / Linux community is that any contribution is well received no matter who it comes from (That does not make MS better, since like all companies they always look out for their own interests [Be careful, I am not saying that this is bad] , and if that implies taking your products or services to the competition [because it has a greater market share] they will do it, since the technology market is like this - You have to adapt and evolve constantly !!!).
Best regards.
"Leaving fanaticism aside, I think that they should not bite the hands that feed them since Microsoft is the one who contributes the most to free software"
Do not be an idiot. Linux has been in existence for 25 years during which M $ did not contribute anything, except indifference at the beginning and open attacks later. When it did not work for them, it comes with kisses from Judas ... and of course, there are always fools who buy into the story and write very convinced: "M $ are the hands that feed them." Please. You said "putting fanaticism aside" and it was the least you did.
The previous ones already said it, I just add: what you "save" in license you pay in support, consulting and deployment. Another fundamental point that you do not consider is that the great translation curve is in the small micro and medium companies that do not have the staff or the resources to administer Linux services but through surrogate services most of the time Windows server offers what a Linux server cannot: operability and ease. The customer doesn't care about the 100 technical arguments we can make in favor of Linux. He only cares about paying for something to work and not paying amounts that cost a quarter in support of a license each time the Linux server has to be serviced.
Finally, if Apple and Microsoft use Linux, you should read the message between the lines: work with what works for you if you have technical resources like Apple and Microsoft use anything that works for you (Linux). Well, you have something to provide service with if not so simple, use Windows.
Finally, in the field of computer security, insecurity is not the responsibility of Windows but rather it is training and lack of training of implementers Windows can be as robust in computer security and performance as Linux if you doubt it, I mean the videos of Pablo Martínez (to give just one name) on YouTube.
If you are a computer scientist who respects himself, simply and simply do not marry anyone: not with Windows, not with MacOS, not with Linux
It is true.
M $ Windows Server is not a good operating system. POINT.
It is only used by those who need to mount a server and do not know how to mount a server or have someone to mount it.
Both are good, but as they said out there, small companies need to solve at low cost, it is true that MS charges an amount for any take away this straw in licenses, but not everywhere is a person who works with LINUX and not I charged you almost the equivalent of buying all the Windows licenses for solving a problem or implementing Linux in the companies. We must remember that the market share of users used to seeing and using Windows is immense. For this reason in small companies, I put Windows Server, and I can tell you that in my EXPERIENCE I have not had many problems with it. On the other hand, the times that I put Linux, the calls rain because the users do not understand things. And all because ?? The end user is too used to using Windows no matter what version it is.
In the end, WINDOWS IS THAT LEAVES ME MORE DIVIDENDS, BECAUSE THE CUSTOMER, EVEN IF YOU EXPLAIN THE CERTAIN LINUX SALES, THEY REJECT IT UNDER THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT SYSTEM, NOT COUNTING THE PRIGRAMS TO IMPLEMENT IN THE SERVERS IN A 98% ARE AIMED AT WINDOWS
Your article does not contribute anything. You just emphasize that Linux is better and Windows is crap. Which makes me think you don't have a lot of arguments.
Linux AdictosPlease check the quality of your articles.
regards
Which makes me think you don't have a lot of arguments.
Please, you indicated comparisons that you clearly did not check, there are comments from people who work with servers that agree with the writer and that you clearly did not read ... but you write very importantly: "which makes me think ...". Please, it's pretty clear that you didn't do that either.