| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Enterprise Linux vs. Server 2003: Smackdown! | |
|
||
| Time: 16:38 EST/21:38 GMT | News Source: eWeek | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim | ||
|
What's this? People whining about the cost of serious Linux enterprise use? Folks get real? Have you priced Microsoft Server 2003 lately? IT managers who want to run an enterprise operating system like SuSE's Linux Enterprise Server 8 or Red Hat's Enterprise Linux Advanced Server are fooling themselves if they think they can get away free—or for cheap. Have you compared the TCO or ROI of Linux to Microsoft's Server 2003—the only serious new Intel-based server operating system left out there? I have; the clear winner is Linux. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 150 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:33:55 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 531 (199.36.37.55) at 9/8/2003 5:38:29 PM |
| Not exactly a fair comparison, Parker, since - I'm assuming - RedHat Advanced Server is not limited to just being a web server as W2k3 Web Server is. Still, if RH wants money each year, the deal is garbage. |
| #2 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 9/8/2003 6:09:16 PM |
|
mike, if all you want is an enterprise class webserver, it is a fair comparison. Still, listing the license fees for the other versions of Windows Server 2003 would have been more fair.
Regarding the article, this guy hasn't substantiated any of his claims. Yeah, Server 2003 is faster, but, I trust that Linux will be. Yeah, Server 2003 is faster here too, but, it's not good the way they made it faster. etc. etc. Oh, but mySQL and PostreSQL are comparable to SQL Server, Oracle, and DB2. This is one author, who has no credibility in my book. |
| #3 By 531 (68.185.166.189) at 9/8/2003 6:52:43 PM |
|
Definitely agreed, Bob. I'm not even sure what the purpose of this article is... all the author does is essentially say "Yeah, but..." a lot.
Of course, it's also pretty darn fast with bugs too. Care to name a few to give yourself some credibility, or are you just relying on all the penguinists to back you up on this? I wasn't aware that Linux was a bug-free OS, though. Damn... I'm switching! you're stuck with a very fast, very dangerous Web server. That's funny... I can't seem to find any vulnerabilities listed for IIS6. It turns out you can't run them (Exchange 2000 or 5.5) on Server 2003 You can't run them on Linux either. What's your point? Linux now has more server applications 30 different versions of a calculator don't qualify as server applications... sorry. Let me know when there's a serious competitor for things like Exchange on Linux. Doing a "fair job" doesn't cut it. Ever hear of a program called Lotus Domino, back-engine for a little program called Notes? It runs on Linux, too. Well, I guess one man's virus is another man's e-mail platform. If you think that by moving to Linux and using Notes you're sticking it to Microsoft, you've got serious problems. and, if you upgrade to Linux, you'll win too. Uh huh. I'll bet. This post was edited by mikekol on Monday, September 08, 2003 at 18:54. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 9/8/2003 7:38:33 PM |
|
The author of this article doesn't have much real world IT experience. He's been writing for zdnet for about 5 years now, and nearly every time I've read one of his articles it's filled with false claims.
Such is the life of a Linux zealot, I guess. |
| #5 By 9589 (66.57.63.97) at 9/8/2003 10:40:47 PM |
| Another week, another, "I love Linux" article. Boring . . . |
| #6 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/8/2003 11:10:31 PM |
| There are some legitimate points made (a compatible version Exchange wasn't shipping when 2003 Server was released, for example... but hey, did we want a more secure system out of the box, or didn't we???), but there seems to be a mistake regarding http.sys, among other things: "Running any end-user interactive program that close to the kernel is downright dangerous, no matter what operating system you're running." That isn't the nature of http.sys, from what I've read. Yes, it's running at the kernel level, but end-user interactive program? From TechNet: "Other than retrieving a stored response from its internal cache, HTTP.sys does not process the requests it receives. Therefore, no application-specific code is ever loaded into kernel mode." |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 150 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:33:55 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
