XP vs. 2000 with a hint of Linux
OK. It's pretty obvious that the OSs of today are Windows XP and 2000 (or are they? You tell me). Which one would/do you choose? Xtra Power or NT's successor? Or do you have your eyes on another OS? And here's another question: Do you think Linux has a gaming future (with M$ dominating the market and all)? I'll be ...
OK. It's pretty obvious that the OSs of today are Windows XP and 2000 (or are they? You tell me). Which one would/do you choose? Xtra Power or NT's successor? Or do you have your eyes on another OS?
And here's another question:
Do you think Linux has a gaming future (with M$ dominating the market and all)?
I'll be watching closely
And here's another question:
Do you think Linux has a gaming future (with M$ dominating the market and all)?
I'll be watching closely
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
I use terminal services to manange my home AD from other networks, since I am not so crazy about VNC and PCAnywhere. I like that you can find a Linux distro for just about any need, but they are splintering off so much that it will kill them in the end. And the only one that is doing a pretty good job of being user friendly to new users (Mandrake) is going to be the one with all the holes. Just watch and see as more virus writers actually focus on Linux and its related modules, since Mandrake is the "kitchen sink" distro that pretty much includes everything, it will also be the most prone to holes and patching (but unlike Windows, you will probably have to go to different sources to get all the needed patches).
I am curious though, in what experience are you comparing the security and stability of the 2 OSs to each other? What versions were they, and what applications were running on them?
I am curious though, in what experience are you comparing the security and stability of the 2 OSs to each other? What versions were they, and what applications were running on them?
Quote:
I use terminal services to manange my home AD from other networks, since I am not so crazy about VNC and PCAnywhere. I like that you can find a Linux distro for just about any need, but they are splintering off so much that it will kill them in the end. And the only one that is doing a pretty good job of being user friendly to new users (Mandrake) is going to be the one with all the holes. Just watch and see as more virus writers actually focus on Linux and its related modules, since Mandrake is the "kitchen sink" distro that pretty much includes everything, it will also be the most prone to holes and patching (but unlike Windows, you will probably have to go to different sources to get all the needed patches).
I don't think having multiple distros will kill Linux, quite the opposite in fact. With Windows M$ has to cater for millions of users of varying tastes and while they do they're best they're always going to do something a certain group of users don't like. Linux distributions solve this problem since users can find the one that suits them best to begin with and then customise it to suit their needs. If none of the packaged distros suit your needs then you can build your own distro from scratch. Virtuall no other OS offers this kind of flexibility. If you compile your software from source (which is relatively simple generally rewuiring only three commands: ./configure; make; make install) then software can be ported from distro to distro with realtive ease. This is what Linux us about: Freedom for users and Freedom for developers.
I use terminal services to manange my home AD from other networks, since I am not so crazy about VNC and PCAnywhere. I like that you can find a Linux distro for just about any need, but they are splintering off so much that it will kill them in the end. And the only one that is doing a pretty good job of being user friendly to new users (Mandrake) is going to be the one with all the holes. Just watch and see as more virus writers actually focus on Linux and its related modules, since Mandrake is the "kitchen sink" distro that pretty much includes everything, it will also be the most prone to holes and patching (but unlike Windows, you will probably have to go to different sources to get all the needed patches).
I don't think having multiple distros will kill Linux, quite the opposite in fact. With Windows M$ has to cater for millions of users of varying tastes and while they do they're best they're always going to do something a certain group of users don't like. Linux distributions solve this problem since users can find the one that suits them best to begin with and then customise it to suit their needs. If none of the packaged distros suit your needs then you can build your own distro from scratch. Virtuall no other OS offers this kind of flexibility. If you compile your software from source (which is relatively simple generally rewuiring only three commands: ./configure; make; make install) then software can be ported from distro to distro with realtive ease. This is what Linux us about: Freedom for users and Freedom for developers.
When i read that it was win2k server vs linux (redhat i think, 7?)
It was rateing their networking and file systems (NTFS and EXT2)
But ext3 is wompin on ntfs even more than ext2 did.
As for security, the usual, hole..exploits.. all that jazz.
For instance IIS vs the default installed apache server (a whole different test)
you have to admit, IIS vs Apache, apache wins no problem.
It was rateing their networking and file systems (NTFS and EXT2)
But ext3 is wompin on ntfs even more than ext2 did.
As for security, the usual, hole..exploits.. all that jazz.
For instance IIS vs the default installed apache server (a whole different test)
you have to admit, IIS vs Apache, apache wins no problem.
Quote:
I don't think having multiple distros will kill Linux, quite the opposite in fact. With Windows M$ has to cater for millions of users of varying tastes and while they do they're best they're always going to do something a certain group of users don't like. Linux distributions solve this problem since users can find the one that suits them best to begin with and then customise it to suit their needs. If none of the packaged distros suit your needs then you can build your own distro from scratch. Virtuall no other OS offers this kind of flexibility. If you compile your software from source (which is relatively simple generally rewuiring only three commands: ./configure; make; make install) then software can be ported from distro to distro with realtive ease. This is what Linux us about: Freedom for users and Freedom for developers.
Unfortunately, the more and more diverse they get, the more different they become *or* more "legacy" code that has to stay behind for compatibility. Either way, it doesn't seem like such a good case.
I don't think having multiple distros will kill Linux, quite the opposite in fact. With Windows M$ has to cater for millions of users of varying tastes and while they do they're best they're always going to do something a certain group of users don't like. Linux distributions solve this problem since users can find the one that suits them best to begin with and then customise it to suit their needs. If none of the packaged distros suit your needs then you can build your own distro from scratch. Virtuall no other OS offers this kind of flexibility. If you compile your software from source (which is relatively simple generally rewuiring only three commands: ./configure; make; make install) then software can be ported from distro to distro with realtive ease. This is what Linux us about: Freedom for users and Freedom for developers.
Unfortunately, the more and more diverse they get, the more different they become *or* more "legacy" code that has to stay behind for compatibility. Either way, it doesn't seem like such a good case.
Quote:
Unfortunately, the more and more diverse they get, the more you either different they become *or* more "legacy" code that has to stay behind for compatibility. Either way, it doesn't seem like such a good case.
The distro makers don't control the code, they only compile and package existing open source software and add a few bits and pieces of their own. Control of the code ultimately lies with the original developers of the software.
Unfortunately, the more and more diverse they get, the more you either different they become *or* more "legacy" code that has to stay behind for compatibility. Either way, it doesn't seem like such a good case.
The distro makers don't control the code, they only compile and package existing open source software and add a few bits and pieces of their own. Control of the code ultimately lies with the original developers of the software.
Quote:
But from experience in the working world, the *nix machines seem to be much more reliable than the windows servers and desktops, not trying to dis windows, just a reality I have seen. (but thats what keeps us in jobs )
So your "experience" with both of these operating systems hinges on some articles that you read as indicated below, correct? OK...
Quote:
When i read that it was win2k server vs linux (redhat i think, 7?)
It was rateing their networking and file systems (NTFS and EXT2)
But ext3 is wompin on ntfs even more than ext2 did.
As for security, the usual, hole..exploits.. all that jazz.
For instance IIS vs the default installed apache server (a whole different test)
you have to admit, IIS vs Apache, apache wins no problem.
I have never seen these tests, but I wonder who "paid" for them. As for anyone that runs a default installation of anything as critical as a web server, they get what they deserve. Now, you are stating that in one set of benches MS won because they bought the benchmarks (or something similar), but in this case these results *must* be valid, right?
Welp, here's what I have seen in my experience; much more care goes into the adminstration of the average Unix server than the average Windows server. That's where you will see a great deal of problems, and will continue to. Then, to top that off, there are so many Windows machines that there are many more targets to play with for hackers and script kiddies. There are too many Windows admins that are not properly trained, so they just throw everything on the box and don't pay attention to it. On top of that, many small businesses run Windows boxes (since they are cheaper) and stack all kinds of applications on it to the point of overloading it, or they install poorly written applications that take the server down. If there was as much care taken when installing Windows machines as there was with Unix (due to the expensive nature of the box, OS, and admins), you would more than likely see a different picture. Actually, on my networks I see a different picture everyday...
But from experience in the working world, the *nix machines seem to be much more reliable than the windows servers and desktops, not trying to dis windows, just a reality I have seen. (but thats what keeps us in jobs )
So your "experience" with both of these operating systems hinges on some articles that you read as indicated below, correct? OK...
Quote:
When i read that it was win2k server vs linux (redhat i think, 7?)
It was rateing their networking and file systems (NTFS and EXT2)
But ext3 is wompin on ntfs even more than ext2 did.
As for security, the usual, hole..exploits.. all that jazz.
For instance IIS vs the default installed apache server (a whole different test)
you have to admit, IIS vs Apache, apache wins no problem.
I have never seen these tests, but I wonder who "paid" for them. As for anyone that runs a default installation of anything as critical as a web server, they get what they deserve. Now, you are stating that in one set of benches MS won because they bought the benchmarks (or something similar), but in this case these results *must* be valid, right?
Welp, here's what I have seen in my experience; much more care goes into the adminstration of the average Unix server than the average Windows server. That's where you will see a great deal of problems, and will continue to. Then, to top that off, there are so many Windows machines that there are many more targets to play with for hackers and script kiddies. There are too many Windows admins that are not properly trained, so they just throw everything on the box and don't pay attention to it. On top of that, many small businesses run Windows boxes (since they are cheaper) and stack all kinds of applications on it to the point of overloading it, or they install poorly written applications that take the server down. If there was as much care taken when installing Windows machines as there was with Unix (due to the expensive nature of the box, OS, and admins), you would more than likely see a different picture. Actually, on my networks I see a different picture everyday...
Quote:
The distro makers don't control the code, they only compile and package existing open source software and add a few bits and pieces of their own. Control of the code ultimately lies with the original developers of the software.
And wasn't there a good deal of fighting between the core group recently? Isn't this fundamentally the same anyway; a single group controlling the OS? And if a group of volunteers (essentially they volunteer their time, right?) can't agree on something, then does it sit or does one person have the deciding vote over the direction? I have seen democracy slow down a good deal of decisions in instances, so do you think that democracy is something that will work for software in the long term if it gets *really* big?
The distro makers don't control the code, they only compile and package existing open source software and add a few bits and pieces of their own. Control of the code ultimately lies with the original developers of the software.
And wasn't there a good deal of fighting between the core group recently? Isn't this fundamentally the same anyway; a single group controlling the OS? And if a group of volunteers (essentially they volunteer their time, right?) can't agree on something, then does it sit or does one person have the deciding vote over the direction? I have seen democracy slow down a good deal of decisions in instances, so do you think that democracy is something that will work for software in the long term if it gets *really* big?
I read about the tests on slashdot.org, there was a link to where the tests were actually done, if i get the time ill post the links.
The company that did the testing is a known MS lackey
One of the tests, the same test was done by another company and the results, while were less far apart, linux came out ahead.
the original tests made it look like win2k was a universe ahead of linux, where the second test showed linux being ahead of win2k but not
THAT drastic of a different (but enough of one)
The company that did the testing is a known MS lackey
One of the tests, the same test was done by another company and the results, while were less far apart, linux came out ahead.
the original tests made it look like win2k was a universe ahead of linux, where the second test showed linux being ahead of win2k but not
THAT drastic of a different (but enough of one)
Quote:
I read about the tests on slashdot.org, there was a link to where the tests were actually done, if i get the time ill post the links.
The company that did the testing is a known MS lackey
LOL
Slashdot eh? *nix lackies unite! Sure, if you get the links I'll check them out as they might be interesting.
I read about the tests on slashdot.org, there was a link to where the tests were actually done, if i get the time ill post the links.
The company that did the testing is a known MS lackey
LOL
Slashdot eh? *nix lackies unite! Sure, if you get the links I'll check them out as they might be interesting.
Linux VS NT in real world tests.
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/99/13/186-1/
and this is a slashdot link instead of other links just because
it has so many, and im lazy.
http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/04/23/1316228&mode=thread&tid=109
The benchmark had been paid for by Microsoft. The Mindcraft press release failed to mention this fact.
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/99/13/186-1/
and this is a slashdot link instead of other links just because
it has so many, and im lazy.
http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/04/23/1316228&mode=thread&tid=109
The benchmark had been paid for by Microsoft. The Mindcraft press release failed to mention this fact.
OK, you are referencing a benchmark comparison for NT4(SP4) with an old Linux box? This isn't the comparison between Win2K server and RH7 that you mentioned earlier (unless I missed it in the link to the "unbiased" test). I would imagine that they would only bench NT4, as the article was dated OCT '99. And btw, why not use SP5 or SP6 at that time? I could have sworn SP6 was out by then, but that's been a while back...
yea i found the article to be a bit dated also
Win2k brought major advancements in IIS, NTFS, tread handling and scalability. Now with Windows.NET just around the corner proving to be stronger in the betas then even XP and the .NET iniative gaining serious momentum the NT platform has become even more speedy and reliable. I haven't heard much about linux for a while but my opinion remains the same. You get what you pay for, Microsoft makes a superior product but they want your money for it (sounds fair to me)
Win2k brought major advancements in IIS, NTFS, tread handling and scalability. Now with Windows.NET just around the corner proving to be stronger in the betas then even XP and the .NET iniative gaining serious momentum the NT platform has become even more speedy and reliable. I haven't heard much about linux for a while but my opinion remains the same. You get what you pay for, Microsoft makes a superior product but they want your money for it (sounds fair to me)
I know that there is a linux initiative for the .net framework and it is being written right now. I don't have time to look for any links (hopefully i'll remember when i get home). MS wants .net framework everywhere so letting the open source community use it will be good for them in the long run.
Quote:
Just installed Mandrake 8.2, runs great! Anyone know what the h@ll I need to do to connect to my server's shares on my lan? Other than that it's nice, but Win2000 is still my No. 1 HO.
You need SAMBA, and you might as well get friendly with SWAT (an html-based editor) to make it nice and easy to configure your shares. Domain authentication wasn't bad in NT4 domains (and I imagine AD mixed-mode would be the same), but I don't know how it would connect to AD domains running in native mode.
Just installed Mandrake 8.2, runs great! Anyone know what the h@ll I need to do to connect to my server's shares on my lan? Other than that it's nice, but Win2000 is still my No. 1 HO.
You need SAMBA, and you might as well get friendly with SWAT (an html-based editor) to make it nice and easy to configure your shares. Domain authentication wasn't bad in NT4 domains (and I imagine AD mixed-mode would be the same), but I don't know how it would connect to AD domains running in native mode.
