Why is Windows still the most used server OS if Linux is cle

>>58834703
More importantly why isn't RHEL more popular than other distros?

File: Screenshot from 07-02-2017 12:37:28.png (161KB, 1597x766px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1597x766px

What's that? 200 SBS samples?

>>58834703
>212 business technology proffessionals
your chart doesnt mean shit

>>58834723
Because it is literal botnet.

>>58834703
>Such low quality shilling
Hey pajeet, tell your boss to release a stable and polished version of wankblows instead of hiring online telemarketers like you.

t. Ex Windows user

>>58834766
>damage control

>>58834765
>desktop, laptop
Utterly #REKT

>smartphone
Literally the OS "du jour". Angry Birds machines. Blackberry was once a thing too, remember? Fuchsia will be something one day.

>web server
Irrelevant. Linux has always had a grip on webservers since even way before the survey I posted. Public facing http servers are supposed to be cheap for mass shared hosting. They're just front-ends. No mission critical system runs Linux though. Only sucky wordpress pages with fucking PHP on. Serious stuff runs on ASP.NET or ColdFusion.

>supercomputer
Bretty cool, but just number crunchers really. They don't store any data. And most supercomputers out there aren't the Top 500, your regular everyday supercomputer runs Windows HPC Server.

>Mainframe
Windows doesn't even run on those architectures. No surprise there.

>consoles
Again, Angry Birds machines.

>embedded
Talk about the Android malware infestation in the industry. Linux has no mitigations, so it suffers from security woes Windows doesn't have.

File: 1480709201938.jpg (64KB, 437x437px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 437x437px

>>58834799
>>damage control
learn 2 statistic

>>58834799
This is adorable.

>>58834810
>he doesn't know sqrt(n)+1
Pleb.

>>58834814
I've worked in IT for 12 years and have literally never seen a Linux server in a single corporate client. I have seen thousands of Linux web servers on data centers, but that's it. No serious business entrusts their data to your toy hobbyist OS. Stay rectally shattered.

File: Call-Centers.jpg (104KB, 1200x801px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1200x801px

>>58834820
You working in IT is irrelevant, statistics are out there.
Ask Google or Amazon if they're running a windows backend.

>>58834829
>one search engine
>one e-commerce
So you complain that I give you anecdotal evidence and then you go ahead and give me anecdotal evidence? Cute. Your rectal shattering is nearly palpable.

>>58834842
Should I list all of them or is your butt that sore?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_Internet_companies

There you go, go ask if they run Windows for any storage or backends.

>>58834799
You sound butthurt, MSShill. The fact is that no-one with an ounce of sense uses MS products on anything except desktop unless they have literally no other choice.

Windows is unreliable for any serious work with the exception of 3D modeling or Audio.

For starters its TCP/IP stack is shit, so any serious web facing service with a shitload of users is out of the question.
Secondly its filesystems are an abortion only second to HSF* so any serious data storage, long or short term is out of the question.
Thirdly there's a lot of work to get it secure, the kernel being a fuckstick and handling userspace crap like fonts can't be helped no matter how much you want to.
Thirdly no serious company will ever run a stock OS for their sensitive stuff, while WIndows can be modified for certain players by MS, there is no way for it to be modified like Linux and BSD.


tl;dr WIndows = CAD and small business stuff with retarded managers and even dumber employees, also games.

ITT: dumb linux shills

Windows is only used in large companies by grunt employees with a laptop given by the company, they usually come with a remote connection like SSH or VNC preinstalled to the company FTP with little user permissions, so they can work from home.

This makes sense, as normal employees no matter what large company are as dumb as regular end users anywhere else, so most companies don't bother with "OtherOS" education.

>>58834820
>I've worked in IT for 12 years and have literally never seen a Linux server in a single corporate client.

I like how you keep posting this thread and when you get called out on it resort to 'b-but muh experience'

making $0.10 per thread on 4chan for 12 years does not constitute 12 years experience in it, anon

>>58834820
working in IT for 12 years and never touching a real server, my god

pathetic

>>58834799
>No mission critical system runs Linux though.
Amusing. So your company really stores files on Windows Servers and not appliances that run Linux? I suppose your virtualization clusters are exclusively Hyper-V? Not to forget about all these Windows based firewall appliances and telephony systems. Also microservices and containers are totally usable on Windows by now.
If you're gonna use anecdotes, anybody can. And honestly, in my experience, nothing critical really runs on Windows servers. It's mostly used to run horrible isolated non-standardized applications, their databases and license services. These machines require constant upkeep and troubleshooting and thus are generally a pain in the ass to maintain.

Butthurt Lintoddlers ITT

I work as a software developer and I also rarely work with Linux servers. I think it has to do with the job market for .NET developers, especially back in the day when deployment to Linux wasn't a viable option. Also, you have to pay Linux sysads much more than Windows "sysads."

There is nothing wrong with using windows as your login/fileshare server

It costs too much to retrain nontechnical employees to work on Linux

>>58834799
Sorry for your loss, man

>>58835946
>Also, you have to pay Linux sysads much more than Windows "sysads."
That should even out as you need more manpower to maintain Windows Servers.

>>58834703
>>58834799
>>58834820
>>58834923
>>58834986
>>58835946
>>58836013
Friendly reminder that Linux is just a kernel not a complete OS.

>>58836164
stallman please

>>58834703
>Linux is clearly superior to it in every way
It doesn't matter if it's "superior", an OS is only as useful as the software that's written for it.

In the average business you have dead server applications that no one wants to sacrifice the upgrade cost, downtime and training costs for the desktop client that workers will use.

If not that, then it's slightly more justified because it's a niche, very specialized application that's only available for Windows (it's amazing how devs let their application become virtually stagnant because they have no competition). Also, "muh vital legacy applications"

Most people on /g/ don't have a job though, so they can suck Linux's dick all day without seeing a real-world, everyday SME environment.