[ale] Linux SuSe vs Windows 2000 Server

[Marvin Dickens]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:18:22 -0500
"Greg" <runman at speedfactory.net> wrote the following:

> Hello, Laurie;
> 
>     I would advise you to ask the question on a Microsoft list as well to
> get a balanced view of things.  As a MS developer I have seen both sides of
> the equation and as usual the truth is in between.  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.
> 
> Requirement: a file and print server for a small accounting office

Linux is perfect for this application.

> Hardware: Linux could run on a 486, though I would suggest a PII-233 MHz.
> MS Server requires a bigger and costlier box.  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.  A file and print server is not needing a processor as much as a fast
> hard drive. A MS install will take 671 MB of space.  However MS Server 2000
> seems to run slow on my Compaq P-600MHz Celeron with 256 MB of RAM - like
> quite slow.  So I would suggest a more modern processor (around a 1GHZ)
> 
> However, my Suse 8.0 recognized my HP LaserJet 6L with no problems.  


Linux now supports over 1000 printers (Go to http://www.linuxprinting.org). Out of the box, Suse supports almost as many. HP's printer division is providing excellent support to the Linux/Open-source community regarding developing/providing printer drivers for thier inkjet printers. Further, in most office situations, laser printers are the most common printing solution because
they are cheaper to own/operate than inkjet printers. What's nice about a decent laser printers is that they usually postscript built into them and setting up a postscript printer for use in Linux is easier than configuring *any* printer in Windows.    
  

The file and
> print server in my house is a Samba box acting as a PDC of the network with
> 3 MS workstations and many other boxes running Unix on them.  After the
> initial configuration it "just works" with no problem.
> 
> Cost:  Linux ($40 to $60 or even downloadable for free) vs MS (whatever it
> is nowadays)
> 
> 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 #)
> 
> Security:  It depends on the System Administrator.  An improper Linux
> install will be worse than a good MS install.  Both need to be behind a
> firewall if there is any Internet connection, 

I debate your assertion. Suse 8.1 configures a basic firewall with 5 mouse clicks that absolutely shames anything you could setup in windows in less than 2 hours.

> Stability:

If the stability of Linux verses that of Windows was a bet in Las Vegas, the house would always go with Linux.

> TCO - <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<HUGE SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There is no way on earth you gonna sell the notion that Windows provides a lower TCO than Linux. This is absolutely not true.

> Privacy;  MS has a End User's License Agreement which, starting with Windows
> 2000 SP3, allows them legal access to your machine.  I find this disturbing

I think disturbing is an understatement. Further, when you download upgrades for *any* MS products (Including win98 and win95) using MSN you must agree to these *exact* same terms: Allowing MS access to your machine anytime they want it. 

Regarding support for Linux, Take a look at the archieves for this list. You have a question, somebody is gonna know the answer. This *is* a great list that has a large number of very knowledgable participants. 


Best

Marvin Dickens 
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale