Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows vs. Unix Revisited

Posted by michael on from the save-a-million-bucks-or-two dept.

dubious9 writes "Linuxworld has another TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) comparison of Windows vs. Unix. Note that is it not a Linux comparison or a specific Unix comparison at all. The comparison here is the Windows client/server model vs. the terminal/server Unix model. It discusses the needs of a school/university and considers such facts as what the students will have to run at home. It's written by a self proclaimed Unix evangelist, so don't expect it to be unbiased, but he makes points that are hard to argue with. All in all, it is a refreshing TCO comparison."

1 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. Re:give it a rest..... by hackstraw · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I'll agree, right tool for the job.

    I don't care how much people love samba, it cannot be a real domain controler, and even if it could, I really don't think it would be worth the effort. Why would you settle for 99% compatability? I work for a university and that is pretty much what windows servers do. (I've always called them password checkers :)

    I prefer UNIX/Linux, its what I do. And I just think that its better for big "enterprise" kinds of apps like busy web servers, databases, number crunching, etc. Windows doesn't really run on a 64bit platform, which can be a showstopper.

    As far as my personal computing, I use linux on an HP laptop. However, the TCO is the same because the laptop came with XP already on it, but I don't have office or any other $$ apps. And if I were to use office products daily, I surely would not use OpenOffice on Linux. Again, why settle for 99% compatability.