Beware fanaticism...
mai...@mail.com
operating system is to be avoided at all costs, how incredibly
immature. We use at least 6 different operating systems and each has
their strengths and weaknesses. I will say however that Linux is
nowhere near mature enough to be trusted with mission critical
systems, at least in our view. Also support is sadly lacking. It is
incomplete at best. It seems fine as a host for static web pages, but
as for our data-intensive dynamic web apps it is Windows 2003
Enterprise that gets our vote. Our servers running this are very
stable indeed, and they get hammered all day every day. Of course one
line of bad code can bring down any operating system. Also Linux does
not have nearly the amount of users, apps, and attackers that Windows
has, so the 2 are really not comparable anyway.
James Wakefield
>
> An operating system that has fanatics with a rabid hatred of another
> operating system is to be avoided at all costs, how incredibly
> immature.
Which, of course, reflects on the Operating System and not the
fanatics, right? This is unique to *nix, right?
> We use at least 6 different operating systems and each has
> their strengths and weaknesses.
Which ones?
> I will say however that Linux is
> nowhere near mature enough to be trusted with mission critical
> systems, at least in our view.
Interesting view. What's it based on?
We have around 120 Linux servers delivering almost every one of our
core services, with most exceptions being software that the vendor has
not yet ported from Solaris and/or tested on Linux. Solaris is great
too, but Sun hardware doesn't have the same bang:buck. Stability is
constantly improving. Certainly no problems running it with
mission-critical apps.
> Also support is sadly lacking. It is
> incomplete at best.
Again, interesting view, what's it based on? Who have you used for support?
> It seems fine as a host for static web pages, but
> as for our data-intensive dynamic web apps it is Windows 2003
> Enterprise that gets our vote.
You might be surprised at the number of apps of that nature (including
apps that you're interacting with right now to read this) that vote
Linux or another Unix instead and have few if any problems with
stability.
> Our servers running this are very
> stable indeed, and they get hammered all day every day. Of course one
> line of bad code can bring down any operating system. Also Linux does
> not have nearly the amount of users, apps, and attackers that Windows
> has, so the 2 are really not comparable anyway.
Er..what?
Maybe in the desktop space you're right, but in the server space, no
way. What apps do you think Linux does not have?
Once an OS (or any critical software component) reaches critical mass
it is going to get attacked. Whether it is the most or second most
popular (or third most) OS doesn't matter, what matters is whether
it's popular enough to make the attacker's effort worthwhile. This is
why you see exploits for IIS despite its popularity being second to
Apache, or why you see exploits for web forums that most web server
admins don't run.
>
>
> >
>
mai...@mail.com
banking and financial management industry where there are $billions
assets under management, OS400 with DB2 is the premier choice,
absolutely rock solid, pricey yes but you get what you pay for, with
various flavors of UNIX (not Linux), Win Enterprise, and DB2, Oracle,
or SQL Server DBs showing up as well. No one in this industry would
ever consider an unsupported or partially supported freeware
opensource combo such as Linux/MySQL, they would be fired immediately.
But it has its place, I am not saying it doesn't, we use it for
various web sites and such and it is fine, but to compare it to the
above high-end systems is absurd.
On Feb 28, 8:20 pm, "James Wakefield" <jmw1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
James Wakefield
>
> I guess it depends on one's definition of mission critical, in the
> banking and financial management industry where there are $billions
> assets under management, OS400 with DB2 is the premier choice,
> absolutely rock solid, pricey yes but you get what you pay for, with
> various flavors of UNIX (not Linux), Win Enterprise, and DB2, Oracle,
> or SQL Server DBs showing up as well. No one in this industry would
> ever consider an unsupported or partially supported freeware
> opensource combo such as Linux/MySQL, they would be fired immediately.
Linux/Oracle is our preferred combination. Are you aware that Oracle
are planning to produce a Linux distribution?
Would you really class Windows Server with the other OSs you mention
in terms of stability?
In what way would you describe Red Hat's support as "partial", or more
importantly, "less complete than MS"?
> But it has its place, I am not saying it doesn't, we use it for
> various web sites and such and it is fine, but to compare it to the
> above high-end systems is absurd.
If you're talking about the OS in isolation (not the DBMS), then yes,
I would agree that it isn't as stable or as proven as OS400, OpenVMS
or some UNIX flavours, but the experiences I've had, and friends and
colleagues of mine, with Windows (yes Windows Server, on server
hardware, with competent sysadmins) don't stack up with your classing
it as rock-solid.
Which is not to say I'd never use Windows Server, but not for what
you're talking about.
ChanKaiShi
> If you're talking about the OS in isolation (not the DBMS), then yes,
> I would agree that it isn't as stable or as proven as OS400, OpenVMS
> or some UNIX flavours, but the experiences I've had, and friends and
> colleagues of mine, with Windows (yes Windows Server, on server
> hardware, with competent sysadmins) don't stack up with your classing
> it as rock-solid.
>
> Which is not to say I'd never use Windows Server, but not for what
> you're talking about.
>
maintainace windows. All mission critical application will be running
in clusted enviroments eitherway (be it *NIX or Windows) so OS
stability is paramout actually more for mid-tier implementation where
redundancy is lacking. Nasdaq is running SQL 2005 (http://
www.microsoft.com/casestudies/casestudy.aspx?casestudyid=49271). Do
you consider this as mission critical? Do you think it's rock solid?
Also being in mind that there are more incompetent admins for Windows
then for UNIX it's no wonder that some Windows installs are not living
up to uptime standard. I would personally never put antivirus on
production server but probably 50% of Windows servers out there are
running it. Instead of taking care of patching server intime and
follow good security practices a lot of admins just install AV and
think they are safe which in turn ruins both server perfomance and
availability.
I'm pretty sure if you go to any good datacenter with more then 200
servers you'll find some NT4 boxes out there with SP2 installed and
running just fine for years without reboots just becouse people forgot
about them and they were never used (I assume server is not exposed to
outside world of course).
NT kernel in pristine condition is very stable kernel. Start adding
kernel mode drivers, especially unsigned and unverified ones and you
can bring down any OS.
James Wakefield
>
> On Mar 1, 10:00 pm, "James Wakefield" <jmw1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you're talking about the OS in isolation (not the DBMS), then yes,
> > I would agree that it isn't as stable or as proven as OS400, OpenVMS
> > or some UNIX flavours, but the experiences I've had, and friends and
> > colleagues of mine, with Windows (yes Windows Server, on server
> > hardware, with competent sysadmins) don't stack up with your classing
> > it as rock-solid.
> >
> > Which is not to say I'd never use Windows Server, but not for what
> > you're talking about.
> >
> Windows server is as stable as it needs to be between scheduled
> maintainace windows. All mission critical application will be running
> in clusted enviroments eitherway (be it *NIX or Windows) so OS
> stability is paramout actually more for mid-tier implementation where
> redundancy is lacking. Nasdaq is running SQL 2005 (http://
> www.microsoft.com/casestudies/casestudy.aspx?casestudyid=49271). Do
> you consider this as mission critical? Do you think it's rock solid?
I'm glad it's working for them.
Have a flick through http://www.mysql.com/customers/ .
Or, try http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7323 .
> Also being in mind that there are more incompetent admins for Windows
> then for UNIX it's no wonder that some Windows installs are not living
> up to uptime standard.
Agreed, but I don't know that that's the full story..Perhaps MS could
help out by making the MCSE more affordable, cut out the fat and we
could have a certification that reflects more on one's competence as a
sysadmin than one's ability to afford the materials and exams and
regurgitate slabs of text.
> I would personally never put antivirus on
> production server but probably 50% of Windows servers out there are
> running it. Instead of taking care of patching server intime and
> follow good security practices a lot of admins just install AV and
> think they are safe which in turn ruins both server perfomance and
> availability.
(OT):What about on your mailserver? ;)
> I'm pretty sure if you go to any good datacenter with more then 200
> servers you'll find some NT4 boxes out there with SP2 installed and
> running just fine for years without reboots just becouse people forgot
> about them and they were never used (I assume server is not exposed to
> outside world of course).
Maybe, but you can say exactly the same about Linux boxes or any Unix,
really - including boxes that actually do things :)
> NT kernel in pristine condition is very stable kernel.
As is Linux.
>
>
> >
>
azag...@gmail.com
how many times do you reboot your windows machine?
how many times does your windows crashed?
why there are programs out there that been done to run unix or linux
tools on windows ? like CYGWIN
let me answer that ,cuz windows simply cannot run linux programs and
people need it ,how poor !!!
ChanKaiShi
required. Not more then that. This happens once every couple of month.
If you have to reboot your Windows machine more then that then there
is something wrong either with your or that specific machine but not
Windows in general.
My Windows did not crash in years. Again if yours does check your
machine or your knowledge in Windows.
THere are more programs for Windows then for Linux so I'm not sure
where you are going with your questions.
James Wakefield
> THere are more programs for Windows then for Linux so I'm not sure
> where you are going with your questions.
More of what kind of programs? Webservers? Mail servers? DBMSs? FTP
servers? SSH servers? File servers? Directory servers?
Authentication servers? I don't think you'll find Windows has more of
those types of programs.
ChanKaiShi
Windows users there IIS or Apache is sufficient. Same goes for mail
servers, FTP, File servers etc. A lot of *NIX programs are ported to
Windows as well.
I doubt you gonna win argument that there are less business oriented
applications for Windows then for *NIX.
On Mar 2, 7:43 am, "James Wakefield" <jmw1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > people need it ,how poor !!!- Hide quoted text -
James Wakefield
> I doubt you gonna win argument that there are less business oriented
> applications for Windows then for *NIX.
Perhaps, but I doubt you will either, given the impossibility of
actually measuring that statistic. A lot of business-oriented apps -
on any platform - are written in-house or are purpose built by
contractors for a single customer. And what is an app, anyway? Do
Excel macros count? Do 10-line mass-mailer shell scripts count? Does
an SQL statement that generates a report count?
ChanKaiShi
mentioned those: WWW, FTP, file, print, SQL servers. All those are
available in at least similar quanities for both OSes and somebody
says that since Windows can not run some *NIX program is big
disadvantage is pure BS.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -