Slashdot Mirror
Three Enterprise Operating Systems Compared
Anonymous Coward writes "Finally, a much awaited review of enterprise OSes. The guys from NW Test Alliance pitted
Red Hat, UnitedLinux, and Windows against each other and rated them on several rubrics. Red Hat won by a slight margin on the basis of its high hardware compatibility and strong security integration."
This isn't a Red Hat vs. UnitedLinux vs. Windows review. The declare Red Hat the victor over UnitedLinux. The compare some things, such as max tcp connections and file transfer times against Windows, but never do they declare that Red Hat has better hardware support or is easier to configure than Windows.
get nemulator
Even though it would be "fun" to see a comparison between Linux and Windows, I don't think it really could and should be done. Mr. Gates and Company would like for us to think that it is a viable solution to everything but honestly, as we all have discovered, there is no silver bullet. So what Windows may be good at something Linux may suffer at and vice verca. Now to know each ones strengths is truely valuable.
However what the article does with the two linux distros is good. Now we are comparing two OSes designed for the same general tasks and let them duke it out.
But in the end, I would like to see some list of strengths.
Enterprise distos are all about clustering and load distribution, but these tests are caried out on single machines. What is the point?
Why didn't they include any Enterprise Operating Systems in their comparison of "Enterprise Operating Systems"?
I mean, like Solaris or AIX.
Quite so. Webserver, I can just tell you, Linux will walk away with,
but I'd be very interested to see such a comparison for the database
server, (SMB) fileserver, thinclient server, and whatever other
categories the people organising the comparison think important.
(Print server is probably not necessary any longer, at least not
with the high-end hardware, now that you can get a really nice
network printer with a full maintenance contract and also use it
as a color photocopier on the side... but I'm sure there are
other uses for which the comparison could be done.)
> It bothers me when I see people with a whole lot of experience on
> one OS and some experience on another OS criticizing something
> about the one in which they have little experience, and this
> applies in any direction.
I have more experience with Win9x than any other OS, but I criticise
it more than any other OS except pre-X MacOS. Actually, in general,
I tend to criticise OSes in direct proportion to how much experience
I have with them, because it's by experience that you learn the
foibles, the things that are _wrong_ (not just different) with an OS.
I switched to running Linux full-time on my desktop about a year
ago this past April or so (though I'd multibooted for a while before
that), and I'm getting now a pretty good feel for what's wrong with
Linux (or, at least, with Mandrake).
> So far, most of the tests I have seen have either not been
> comprehensive enough, or have been slanted by the bias of
> the testing group.
Indeed, and that goes both ways. Microsoft pays some "Research"
group to prove NT is better, and then the Linux blogs post stories
showing that Linux is better, written by Linux geeks. I don't
trust either side of that. And then of course Apple will tell
you that Mac OS X is the best; it might be a _little_ easier to
believe they know what they're saying if they hadn't said that
about Mac OS 8 and 9 too, which didn't even have multitasking,
but even then I'd still rather hear it from someone who gave
each system a fair shake.
And yeah, I'd want proponents of each OS to configure that OS,
and then the people doing the judging to compare. Either that,
or all three OSes should be left in their out-of-the-box state,
in which case it might matter deeply which distro is selected
to represent Linux.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
I thought the title said Enterprise OS. All of the >$10 Billion/year companies I've written software for run *nix on Sun and/or *nix and/or an IBM OS on medium to big iron. They are not running Windows as an "Enterprise" platform.
I'm not talking email servers where a few poor sap CIOs got talked into running Exchange farms, or similar unfortunate tragedies with IIS, I'm talking the ERP stuff that runs the factory, accounting, payroll, and other stuff people have to bet their businesses on.
I realize OS/390 and Windoze are apples and oranges, but come one, they said ENTERPRISE. Now if they mean "Enterprise" as 2 guys and a van and a laptop, then hell yeah bring on the Windows. Otherwise, it's like having a review of the world's fastest street cars pitting Acura vs. Mazda vs. Toyota. The Lamborghini and Ferrari folks are tapping their feet and rolling their eyes. Put DB2 on an S/390 and on the bitchinest Windows box you can get your hands on, then do the test. I dare you.
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
WTF? Nice to see that the Novell was once again left out of the testing. Why don't you Linux Zealots try and broaden your horizons. After all the recent Novell is "Linux's best friend" posts the last couple weeks and still they get no respect. Novell would rape your Linux in such testing. Also Novell is now giving away 5 user Small Business Licenses. You have to jump through some hoops to be able to get your hands on it, but it is pretty painless. Novell is by far the best NOS out there, it is mature, stable (600+ day uptimes any one), and has great applications. Also most if not all on Novell'a apps run on UNIX, Netware, Linux and Windows.
For the love of god Linux is not the end all be all of NOS, if you hate M$ that much (I do) look at all the alternatives. Free does not make it better.
Friendly