[ale] Linux SuSe vs Windows 2000 Server

Fri Mar 7 01:18:22 EST 2003

Hello, 
Laurie;
Â 
Â Â Â  I would advise you to ask the question on a Microsoft list 
as well to get a balanced view of things.Â  As a MS developer I have seen 
both sides of the equation and as usual the truth is in between.Â  Here are 
some facts, but ultimately I would advise going with what you are comfortable 
with and what you can actually use, else a computer is just an expensive 
paperweight.
Â 
Requirement: a file and print server for a small accounting 
office
Â 
Hardware: Linux could run on a 486, though I would suggest a PII-233 
MHz.Â  MS Server requires a bigger and costlier box.Â  While the docs 
state at least (for just a boot - i.e. a *minimum) a P-133MHz I would suggest at 
least something in the P-300 - P400 MHz range with at least 256 MB of RAM to 
just use.Â  A file and print server is not needing aÂ processor as much 
as a fast hard drive.Â A MS install will take 671 MB of space.Â  However 
MS Server 2000 seems to runÂ slow on my Compaq P-600MHz Celeron with 256 MB 
of RAM - like quite slow.Â  So I would suggest aÂ more modern processor 
(around a 1GHZ)
Â 
Software:Â  Both are easy to install and work well with printers and 
such, but MS is easier and requires less hassle to set up on an average.Â  
However my Suse 8.0 recognized my HP LaserJet 6L with no problems.Â  The 
file and print server in my house is a Samba boxÂ acting as a PDC of the 
network with 3 MS workstations and many other boxes running Unix on them.Â  
After the initial configuration it "just works" with no 
problem.
Â 
Cost:Â  Linux ($40 to $60 or even downloadable for free) vs MS 
(whatever it is nowadays)Â  
Â 
Support: Linux (can be purchased or you can just Google and use list 
groups & buy some books) vs MS (serious $$$$ and not even a 1-800 
#)
Â 
Security:Â  It depends on the System Administrator.Â  An improper 
Linux install will be worse than a good MS install.Â  Both need to be behind 
a firewall if there is any Internet connection, but you did not mention that 
here, so unless you have an internal threat the lesser security of MS is 
irrelevant - and besides, Linux isÂ crackable despite what anyone 
says,Â it's just harder than a MS box - else whyÂ are there so many 
Linux security updates?Â  However,Â thisÂ shows that Linux is 
blindingly quick on fixing updates and MS treats it as a business 
decision.Â  So,Â ... examine your threats andÂ act 
accordingly.Â  Suse is good since it does not open a lot of stuff on the 
initial install.Â  If you do go with MS I would suggest turning off IIS, 
getting a good virus checker (and keeping it updated) and hardening the 
box.Â  MS has put out products/scripts to help you do this.Â  I have 
also the stuff they did for some hackathon where they competed against several 
Open Source systems in a no holds barred "come one come all and hack our boxes" 
competition.Â  ANY OS is only as secure as the System Administrator makes 
it.
Â 
Stability: Linux is not monolithic, so if one thing breaks it doesn't 
necessarily mean the whole system will crash - however you can crash Linux, it 
just takes more time and effort than Windows 2000 which is easily the hardiest 
system I have seen outÂ of the Windows pantheonÂ (out of Windows 95/98, 
NT 3.5 and NT 4.0). However if it gets hit hard it can bring everything down 
hard - like real hard.
Â 
TCO - 
I have MS systems that have run for a long time and did not require anything 
other than some electricity. If you are just going to do file & printer 
sharing you might want to consider the future costs.Â  If there is no need 
to update, then you could use NT 4.0 or anything else, really.Â  I mean what 
is it about file & printer sharing that will change next year that is 
different from this year or even last year ?Â  And why are you even updating 
in the first place ?Â  The only problemsÂ I see is if MS changes your 
workstations to require a MS server,Â or that if there is a possibility that 
you are an upgrading type of company.Â  MS licensing 6 is a heavy price to 
pay for a small/medium business whose requirements don't really change from year 
to year, and this could force you into paying a lot of money for licenses - and 
not have any real and tangible benefits for your money - and that is what MS is 
going to in the future.Â  So, Linux wins in this category unless you decide 
not to change.
Â 
Â 
Ease 
of Use:Â  No pc is worth anything if you cannot use it.Â  Linux is more 
complex to start out with, but then so is/was Windows.Â  Both have GUI's and 
use mice.Â  In either case, once you have it set up, both will just run, 
though you might have to reboot Windows now and then (memory leaks).Â  Linux 
folks like to crow about their uptime's, but if you don't need your box to run 
24/7 it is a totally moot and irrelevant point.Â  A MS file and print server 
will run during your business hours (unless you need 24/7 uptime).Â  Turning 
off a pc every now and then never killed anyone and is no harder then turning 
off the lights.
Â 
Privacy;Â  MS has a End User's License Agreement which, starting with 
Windows 2000 SP3, allows them legalÂ access to your machine.Â  I find 
this disturbing and so have personally stopped with Windows 2000.Â  Linux 
has no equivalent and so far has no prospect of turning into rent or lease 
ware.Â  However, if your requirements aren't going to be changing, you could 
stop with Windows 2000 and refuse to upgrade to any type of software that has an 
intrusive EULA.Â  I mean, if your MS network works today, it will work 
tomorrow unless you radically change your requirements.
Â 
If you 
do install Linux and it makes you unhappy and you are less productive then it 
was clearly a mistake - just the same with Windows.Â  Please don't let any 
inexperience with Linux be a deciding factor.Â  The Linux community is just 
that - a community that is more than willing to help. And only setting up mail 
servers is rocket science.Â  However, only you know your requirements and 
can make the decision.Â  I have seen good MS networks and bad ones - just 
like I have seen good and bad Unix networks.
Â 
Well, 
good luck and please know that I have tried to give a balanced and true 
accounting of the facts without tingeing them with any type of religious fervor 
towards one system or the other.Â  I have installed them both in small 
business and large and believe in facts without fervor (which I am sure you are 
sensing from other's postings).
Â 
Greg 
Canter
Â 
Â 
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr 
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
 -----Original Message-----From: ale-admin at ale.org 
 [mailto:ale-admin at ale.org]On Behalf Of Laurie AndersonSent: 
 Thursday, March 06, 2003 9:00 PMTo: ale at ale.orgSubject: 
 [ale] Linux SuSe vs Windows 2000 Server

  I am researching which operating system 
  toÂ install for a small network (4-6 workstations, 2 printers).Â  I am 
  deciding between Windows 2000 Server and Linux Suse.Â  Can anyone give me 
  some suggestions and/or somewhere to go to do a comparison between the 
  two?Â  The implementation will be in a small accounting office for file 
  and printer serving.Â  
  Â 
  Thanks,
  Laurie