>>45562634 But that's the point, Windows server is only usable for simple server tasks you see in a glorified office server. I have no problem when it's used for that, I have a problem when people try to use it at scale, administering Windows server is annoying as fuck in my experience.
>>45562448 CentOS or Debian. I'm not sure why any sane person would run either of the other two on a server.
To be honest, I'm not really sure why any sane person would run either of the other two on a desktop, either, considering there's Debian Sid and Arch for systems on which you care about up to date packages.
Don't listen to all this hacker-wannabe morons who've probably never had a real job in software development in their lives and pretend they know shit by repeating what others said eons before them on /g/. Windows Server is a very capable operating system. It's stable, extremely well documented, fast and now that a large segment of the .NET stack is being open sourced, it means IIS and ASP.NET are going to be ported natively to OS X and GNU/Linux, which will make Windows server-side development cross-platform and probably free. I seriously believe this will bring down the prices of Windows Server hosting costs a great deal and that may encourage more people to give Microsoft a go.
I'm not claiming Windows Server is the best server OS but it certainly holds its own. In reality, there is no such thing as "the best server operating system". As with programming languages, you must understand the problem domain, your particular constraints and your priorities, and make a decision based on that. Most people choose GNU/Linux servers because deploying a LAMP (or LAMP-derivative) stack is entirely free and not too hard. Also, many people argue UNIX servers are better because they have really good automation tools like bash scripting, cron jobs and whatnot. And that is true, but Microsoft introduced PowerShell, the Windows equivalent of the Bourne shell a while ago and that makes both platforms even again in that regard too.
All in all, it entirely depends on the problem you're trying to solve and your existing infrastructure. And before anyone tags me as a Microsoft shill, I'm running Ubuntu Server in my home server and administrate a Debian Linux cluster in my university, so shut the fuck up.
BTW, I know OP's picture only displays Ubuntu and Debian but I still found it funny no one mentioned CentOS, RHEL, openSUSE or any of the *BSDs. You cannot have a serious discussion about good server systems without those.
>>45562850 People mentioned it while I was writing my post. You had such a massive hard-on for calling me a dumb motherfucker you didn't read the post I wrote acknowledging such fact, yet you did not address any of my serious points, which proves you're just one of those low-IQ pro-wannabes who lurk /g/ and have never written a serious line of code in their lives.
>>45562701 That's fine if you're not upgrading your kernel or init system or something like that. And you don't need to compile everything on the production machine. It's not like you have to update any more often than you would with non-rolling-release operating systems anyway.
>>45562821 >now that a large segment of the .NET stack is being open sourced, it means IIS and ASP.NET are going to be ported natively to OS X and GNU/Linux not necessarily. >>45562914 You're either a troll or have serious rage issues. Either way you're not too bright.
>>45562959 >You're either a troll or have serious rage issues. Either way you're not too bright. Let's consider for a second it might be just the other way round. At least I supported what I said with facts and arguments. The only thing you did was call me a "dumb motherfucker" which instantly makes you right... right?
>not necessarily. That's the most compelling counterargument I've seen in my life. You sure have mastered the art of dialectics, sir. Good job.
I'm this guy >>45562934 >>45562963 The only reason windows is used, it's because companies need it for different purpose : compatibility with .NET, different library, framework, proprietary software (office is just an example that everybody knows), and for the support microsoft can provide you. But they are bullshit reason. Linux is more stable, secure, faster, consume less memory, and if you want to store important data you should never trust a non free operating system, there will be a botnet that will send the data to NSA, that will give/sell to American company. The security of the USA is military and economic, don't forget that.
>>45562505 >>45562512 >>45563026 >>45563039 Ubuntu is based on debian, they share a lot of packages, but they aren't exactly the same. The best example is that debian will use wayland whereas ubuntu will use mir. That makes a huge difference no ?
>>45563045 They haven't open sourced the entire thing at once, They're doing it progressively, smartass. Today they released the source code for System.Console, and that adds to the portion of the Linq, Threading and Xml libraries they published a while ago. It's just a matter of time until the entire framework is available.
It seems people hate being proved wrong on this thread.
>>45563238 It does to me. Ubuntu also uses Unity instead of GNOME. To be fair, there's nothing to stop you from just installing a different DE like KDE or another WM like Xfce or Openbox, or even replacing Mir with Wayland, but you'll have to do it yourself.
>>45563208 Well, I think your reasons are pretty valid. I guess if you are given the rare opportunity of starting from scratch (if you're a freelance developer or a start-up company), choosing UNIX might make things easier for you, but I still believe Windows Server is far from being a bad server OS.
Linux for hosting / ftp / backup / videocams / ... ESX for VM Windows server for network share, user management, thin clients, codesoft... everything else.
When working in IT (for factories or offices) you don't have time to spend on editing configuration file or fixing broken dependencies. Windows is by far the easiest to setup, comes with pro. support and warranties.
>>45562821 Completely wrong. We have windows servers and domain controllers. Microsoft is sloppy as fuck, documentation is good until you have to self document all their broken shit and workarounds because they don't fix anything.
For one example just take a look at IE which has versions 6 through 11 now with shitty user agent tags broken for no reason, nothing works the same between any release, they removed conditional commenting tags in 10 but shit breaks in 10 and 11 is the latest now. I have never had to pollute the shit out of clean code more than dealing with anything Microsoft related.
Linux based servers are stable, predictable, and well documented. Along with a open source collaboration and community that is more skilled. We use .NET for a few specific tasks but it can be deployed on mono just as easily as it can on a windows machine.
2008 r2 is great for server. NEVER crashes, hardly reboot, no need for updates (rarely). Great for DNS, DHCP, R&R, CA. With 8 GB of RAM and an i3 Ive had up to 13 Servers & WS Vm's in Hyper V. Phenomenal. Fuck loonyix and g'apple
>>45567211 1. Linux can do DNS, DHCP and hypervisor virtual machines, and probably do it better. 2. You shouldn't run everything on the one machine, especially if you're running DNS and DHCP. If that one machine fails in some way, your network and everything on the server comes crashing down.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.