A Continued Look at Linux vs Windows

Rogier van Vlissingen writes to tell us Paul Murphy has an interesting writeup on his blog about the continued Linux versus Windows debate with regards to some of the recent insights provided by various groups. From the article: "Disinformation comes in three major forms: innocent mistakes, intentional disinformation (aka FUD), and (self) delusion. Delusions are easily the most dangerous of these. In the IT context the most common delusion is simply that what we know is right in general or applicable to some specific issue when, in reality, it isn't. We know, and we act accordingly - with frequently catastrophic results."

Comments

1:1

[rd4tech]

Lets count the differences outlined in the article:
1. apply security and recommended patches on a simulated monthly release basis;
Is there anything out there equivalent to windows update? Windows wins this one

2. upgrade the e-commerce application with new functionality at the end of each simulated quarter (i.e. change it to meet changing business requirements); and,
This shouldn't be discussed under 'linux vs windows', this is more the case of 'linux software vs windows software'

3. upgrade the core OS from SuSe 8.0 to 9.0 and from Windows 2000 server to Windows 2003/XP server at the end of the simulated year.
This would be the comparison of genkernel and the rest of the beasts in the pack with "Files and Settings transfer wiZZard" :). Linux wins this one.

Seems to me that the whole article boils down to 1:1

Re:1:1

[Anti-Trend]

"Lets count the differences outlined in the article: 1. apply security and recommended patches on a simulated monthly release basis; Is there anything out there equivalent to windows update? Windows wins this one"

I guess that all depends on what you mean by 'the equivilent [of]'. If you mean 'an ActiveX-based update engine via web browser', than I'd say no, nothing like it that I know of. If you mean an automated means of updating an OS on a regular basis, I'd say Linux is perfectly capable of such a thing. As long as a Linux distro has a managed packaging system, it has the capacity for auto-updates. One word: cron. Except on a Linux distro, you can have every piece of software on your system updated, not just the core OS components, the web browser and the office suite. I fail to see how Windows wins out here. I personally have my machines update nightly, but it wouldn't be any more difficult to have them update monthly if that's what you want for whatever reason.

-AT

The blogger's attempt to eviscerate the study...

[Assmasher]

...is more poorly constructed than the study's own synopsis (which was woefully lacking the clarity of the 10 answered questions earlier today on slashdot.)

Read, most amusingly, the blogger's attempt to repudiate the study based upon patching. LOL.

The basic problem with any study like this is that Linux and Windows admins approach things differently. *nix setups tend to spread the workload an application stack across multiple machines and Windows admins tend to load the entire stack on one or two machines. A study tends to try and mimic one or the other (Windows focused ones pick the 'all on one' stack approach, the *nix ones [depending upon what the scenario is] tend be less monolithic on the hardware level [oooh, flexibility :)].)

The "windows way": problem w/ study, or realistic?

[David Hume]

The second problem is something the author doesn't mention at all: "management" has clearly told these administrators to apply the patches directly to the "production" systems. In real life many people do this with Windows, but you don't do this with Linux. With any Unix you duplicate your production environment on the sysadmin's workstation and debug any processes to be applied to production there before proceeding. They don't say why they didn't do this, but a reasonable speculation is that there were two reasons: the simulation would have imposed unrealistic calendar time constraints, and, probably more importantly, this isn't the Windows way, and they did everything the Windows way.

I'm not sure the study's use of the "windows way" was, from a "scientific" point of view, a problem. I think it may simply have been realistic.

If the vast majority of (low wage) administrators are trained and have experience in, and solely in, the "Windows way," I'm not sure that allowing the Linux admins to use the "Unix way" would have been realistic. Yes, they could do it, and do a better job using the "Unix way," but that might make the study less useful and less accurately predictive given the shortage of people adequately trained in the "Unix way."

Also (and this is an honest question, I have no idea what the answer is), is the truly the "Unix way" to "duplicate your production environment on the sysadmin's workstation and debug any processes to be applied to production there before proceeding?" Is that even possible?
 

Rights lets see what google has to say

[oztiks]

Google Search

Doesnt look like a very non-bias opinion if you ask me ..

It's the econo.....err, API, stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, you can analyze Linux vs. Windows over and over again, but what really matters in the end? Being a programmer myself, I would have to say a decent API is the most important. As far as being client systems, neither is too bad, it's when you run into servers that you hit glitches.

I'm not saying the Linux API is terrible, but it certainly is lacking to the point I would almost rather run a server on Windows over Linux, because Linux adheres to the POSIX standard, preventing it to grow like Windows (or BSD) has. Just look at network (and disk) I/O models. Windows has Overlapped I/O w/ Completion Ports (the equivalent of BSD's kqueue), and Linux has....oh that's right, you're stuck with select (ugh). Of course, the real sin is not many people take advantage of them even when they have the chance. Oh well...

187 patches? wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Linux web server, which has been running Debian 3.0 for over a year. (I haven't rebooted it.) I never applied a single patch. I know the kernel has the mmap vulnerability, but I didn't feel like rebooting the system and I know I'm not going to get hacked just because of that. Seriously where did they come up with 187 patches? I've skimmed the Debian security alerts and it's plainly obvious that 90% of them don't affect any of the software on my server.

Linux security is not that bad. I put this system online in July 2004 and never patched it and it didn't get cracked. Sure I was lazy... there were some things I should have done, but they weren't high-risk so I didn't. But people act like when a Windows vulnerability comes out, if you don't patch it the same day then you're fucked.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no MS fanboy, but i'm not going to let that crap stand.

up2date is not comparable to Windows Update. Windows Update seems to actually work, where up2date breaks itself because it's a piece .... well, it's... one of those things that almost makes you miss Windows when you're on a *nix box.

I wonder how much testing Microsoft does with the updates before they distribute them, because I don't think the people behind up2date are testing things worth shit.

You can mod me to hell if you wish, but that won't change the fact that up2date has a long way to go.

Re:Over simplified

[vhogemann]

You're right.

From the user point of view, Windows is a Desktop Environment. Just like Gnome, KDE and Aqua. So, if we're comparing desktops, we should be talking about these.

And even among Gnome and KDE, each distribuition implements them in a different way. So we can have bad, good and fantastic implementations depending on what distro you're talking about.

Personaly I prefer Gnome as my desktop environment, and Ubuntu/Debian as a distro. I fell that they provide a better "desktop experience" over Windows most of the time. Most of the hardware is detected instantly, and just work, and there are nice interfaces to customize and configure the OS.

But there are a few rought edges too. For one, there is no integration between my MP3 player and the various jukebox programs that exist on linux, I have to manually copy them to the player. And the "Add Printer" interface could use some advanced options, like its KDE counterpart.

I'm telling this because I think that most of the work is finished for both the GUI and the underling OS, be it Linux or BSD. The problem now is how interconnect them, how integrate the GUI and the OS, to make them act as one. There has been lots of improvements on this, but Gnome and KDE need more handlers to hardware events, and more graphical configuration interfaces.

We're almost equal to Windows in terms of features, and ease-of-use. It's time to take a better standart, it's time to look at MacOSX and make something as-good-as it, or simply better!

Stop talking about Windows!!

From an IT admin's perspective..

[magnumquest]

I've been an IT administrator in a company that was funded by Microsoft. We were actualy given briefings quarterly showing 'studies' that prooved that Windows was better. Kind of like what McDonald's restaurants started doing after the movie 'Supersize me' blew their cover. They 'proved' to their employees that the company is doing the 'right' thing. Pretty much what Microsoft does even for mere end-product affiliates.
I was the person in my IT department who suggested the team move to Linux, because I was sick of having to 'read' Microsoft manuals of their software when they 'launched' something new. It is true, Microsoft basicaly assumes that its 'end-user' even if its a Software engineer by training, is basicaly stupid. Explaining to the person who said 'Windows any one can run, linux is for specialists'. It does not end there.

Let's say (like in my case) I have a particular e-commerce solution to handle and I want my application and (OS) to be tailored to that solution. Let's also assume Windows DOES provide such a solution and it works great. Patches are seemless, updates are a breeze, I could deploy it with my eyes closed. Everything great so far. Let's say now though, my company starts dealing with another company that has a different e-commerce application working for them. Or my companies demands change. It wont be then a simple matter of 'upgrade' or 'download a patch to fix'. It would be a matter of making the program work for me, without having to pay thousands of dollars and relicensing new software?. Microsoft is basicaly a strictly 'product based business' NOT a solutions provider. There are alot of people who claim 'Microsoft has developed several seemless integration options' Such as the .NET framework (or other development technologies built to target Windows Developers). Lovely Idea. However, The amount we 'can' know about .NET framework without referring to a hacker's manual, is basicaly the amount Microsoft want's us to know 'safely'. So that someday when we need a better solution, We need to go back to microsoft and pay more. It would be silly for such a big corporation to PROVIDE a versatile solution if it wants to make money. Why wont Intel overclock their CPU's and send them off with a bigger heat sink before marketing? The cost? (it would be a mere 5 dollars over the original). Would you pay 5 dollars extra (over a 3.4 Ghz) for a 3.8 Ghz machine?. I definately would. (Do not say it is unstable, almost all of my home pc's run on P4 3.4 Ghz overclocked systems at 4.01 Ghz safely, and I do most of my office work on them). Same reason, why would Bill Gates unlock all the possibilities of Windows all at once for the hackers and programmers to explore?. Why not keep them coming back for more.

If you are going to have a 'technical' debate on Windows vs. Linux, i'd pose this question: When you have a dual processor Xeon system for your main file servers, and you want to use all that processor power and high pipeline bandwidth 'only' to ensure data security and smooth retrieval. If there is any one who has worked on powerful machines and used both Linux and Windows would understand when I say that 'a trimmed linux distribution' can deal alot better with raw hardware pottential than Windows OS can.

Bottom line is, I switched to linux to 'free' my company from the Microsoft bond.

It is TRUE, given the 'right' set of solutions, Microsoft OS and Linux distributions BOTH perform well. In some situations Microsoft has a clear victory, in others Linux rules the day. There never can be ONE study of ONE solution to proove LINUX is better or WINDOWS is better. There can be common sense that says on the long run, I'd rather know what i'm doing so that I can build upon it. Rather than having to call teacher Bill Gates for help.

It's a matter of choice really

[sl4shd0rk]

And you have very little of it with Microsoft. You do things the MS way, or you are fucked. This is not a 'delusion', stigma, FUD, or misinformation. It is a business model; a very succesful, and well marketed, business model. This is the core interest of Microsoft and the essence of Windows as a whole:

    "How do we keep people from making a choice to use something else"

This is the thought process behind your Exchange server, Active Directory, Roaming Profiles, Office documents, OS patches, and Tech support. All wrapped up in a really sexy desktop.

Linux is about choice. Linux is about standards. Linux is about YOU deciding what's best for YOU and then having the freedom to do it and contribute back to the whole process. That is what Linux is about.

You make the choice.

That's why all "studies" are flawed.

[khasim]

This is absolutely correct. Treat Linux as if it were Windows, or vice versa, and you are asking for real pain.

Which is why the only decent way to do any "study" is to set the objectives, the budget and let each team take its own approach.

Examples:
1) Build/maintain a web server that can handle 10,000 static pages a minute on a budget of $5,000.

2) Build/maintain a web server that can handle 10,000 dynamic pages a minute on a budget of $10,000.

3) Build/maintain a database server that can handle 10,000 transactions per minute on a budget of $20,000.

Then extend the maintenance of those over 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, etc. Include hardware/software upgrades.

Each team will come up with different approaches. I'm sure everyone here knows about the MindCraft "study" where a single Windows box with 4 processors and 4 NIC's was setup as a web server. But the logical approach would have been to setup 4 smaller, less expensive, boxes with better redundancy.