Read what an IT Professional has to say about Linux, and how Microsoft is better and in the long run, and cheaper to administer...javajolt
Submitted by Justin Chandler on February 11, 2009 - 10:28 A.M.
Before saying anything, let's get one thing straight: I have 20+ years of computing experience, with 12 of those years having been professional in nature. Over the past 10 years I have been managing server environments. Presently, I manage a data center that is predominately Linux (RHEL4-5) and Solaris-based machines. Previously, I was part of a 10 man team that managed 4500+ Wintel (Windows 2k, 2k3 on Intel CPU) machines. Speaking from experience, Linux is NOT a more stable or reliable operating system compared with Windows. We constantly have engineers working to correct problems with, or rebooting the Linux-based machines, while the few Windows-based machines have remained completely untouched for the past 6 months. We have uptimes on a couple of our Windows boxes of nearly 4 years -- a number the Linux machines haven't even come close to (The Solaris machines, while a real PITA to set up are, however, definitely rock solid!). Basically the only real advantage of the Linux operating system is that it is much cheaper to purchase than Microsoft Windows. HOWEVER, the total cost of ownership has proven to be anything but free, with the downtime and configuration time required to get things up and running with it. Attribute this to the requirement of modifying obscurely-named text files scattered through the file system in random places, the odd method of having to use a package manager to locate an application in a list of thousands, the difficult way to make system-wide changes without having to go to several places, or even the most basic lack of an easy-to-read DIR command (LS is powerful but hopelessly difficult to interpret the output - especially over a monochrome console) Also, Microsoft released the EDIT command long ago with MSDOS 6 (or was it 5?), which quite frankly makes the Linux VI editor appear to be (and it is!) clunky, confusing, and an overall PITA to edit text files... something an operating system entirely based on text file configuration should have gotten right a long time ago. OH, and let's just mention something here -- how wonderful is it to have to make all your changes in text files anyway? It would be like having to modify all your program settings for Windows by navigating the registry. Let me tell you something very simple. Out of EXPERIENCE, and not just opinion, I can say quite confidently that Linux (at least in this lifetime) will NOT grab very much market share from Windows, ESPECIALLY as a desktop environment. I run Ubuntu and Red Hat on my personal computer - two of the more easy-to-use flavors... and even with several years of experience I can tell you that practically ANYTHING you do requires time, reading, and OS tinkering to make it work. Linux has yet to break the 1% market share (some studies have it as high as 1.5% on SOLD systems -- but many people buy them with Linux preinstalled on the cheap.. only to delete Linux and install Windows). FINALLY -- to those that think Windows can't run on low powered machines you are mistaken. Using utilities such as XPLite, you can shrink your installation to a miniscule less than 200MB that runs very fast even on the weakest machines. Windows and Linux, quite frankly, both run on similar hardware -- it's just that Microsoft decided to leave out a comparable "package selection" ability which would allow you to customize your install. Linux is nice in this regard but if you think that full install of Linux is not just as overhead-intensive as Windows... you're speaking out of your buttocks and not from experience. I'm sorry but no... Linux is NOT a true contender in the OS market. Realistically there are only 2 - Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X. On the cheap, you got Linux -- which requires more work to install, maintain, and upgrade. In the middle you have Windows - easy to use that comes bundled with [for the most part] ugly PC systems that haven't changed their basic design for ages. At the higher end of expense you have the Apple/Macs, that include an equally easy to use operating system installed on simply beautiful hardware. If you're broke and have no life other than wasting your weekends trying to get that new video card working in your Linux-based machine -- go for it. If you have a little more money and prefer to spend that time actually playing games or doing digital editing on the same video card you just installed by popping it in and running SETUP.EXE, go with Windows or Mac OS. Frankly put, you GET what you PAY FOR. I wish my company's clients would pay for more Windows-based machines.
