http://www.tuxmagazine.com/

All this downtime and maintenance crap is a result of crooked Linux consultants/network admins and NOT of the underlying OS. Did you see what these guys get paid? It is in their best interest to have constant downtime. Cash is king baby, cash is king.

I do not think the company is stupid enough to keep a syatem administrator who is not good in Linux. But I am sure that the company should be either stupid enough to change the Linux to windows or good enough to get some money from microsoft..

Santhosh Thoams K
http://geocities.com/santoms_k

I have purchased Dell servers configured for Redhat Linux, Windows and Netware. The Linux server is our web server, running Apache. Never had down time due to Linux OS or Apache web server. I upgraded the web server (for faster hardware) and decided to go with SUSE. SUSE (like other flavors of Linux) allows you to apply updates with no effort. Upgrades are a snap and FREE. It also upgrades Apache for you. You can compile the code if you want to, but for the novice there's no need to. Don't know what Independence Air needed four consultants for. That is, unless they had to have customized software which is a programming issue and NO reflection on the OS or Apache. I use Linux, Netware and Microsoft. Each has its purpose and none require one consultant, let alone four. One phrase Independence Air needs to learn - "experienced network administrators".

I think we have a person that knows how to use Linux.

I will say that this shows how company's don't know the Linux environment.

The servers I used (Fedora Core, Gentoo) only have gone down after a power-failer (UPS had a bad battery) and I didn't blame Linux for that. Also if Linux is not a stable web hosing environment then the web must be unstable.

Where oh where do you go for your support. Each product you mention has it's own method for support. This study is about TCO, and all of the Linux guy seem to miss this as the point. If you would just stop your hatred and look at the big picture, you might be able to see the world through something other than Linux colored glasses. Of course they used Redhat, it is one of the few version of Linux with a full support structure behind it. TCO means a lot more than upfront cost. Go buy your clone and install your free software. I will go buy a machine with a company behind it and software with the same. Then equate your cost vs. my cost.

I will have to say I use the Forums, and the documentation from the distro. Also with some distros you can e-mail the development team. I have found bug in the system I e-mail the development team and receive a non-automated response saying that ether the issue is known or they will look into that. I even once received a e-mail when the bug was fixed.

Now, try to go to microsoft and try to talk to the developer and/or e-mail a bug to them. I have to pay to receive help that Linux can give me for free. The Linux community is a open community that every one can have there say heard.

I am starting to think that the company that try Linux and says that the TCO it to much must not be well aware about the Linux community and not well trained to use Linux.

BTW- my cost is lower because I do use the Linux Community.

Where oh where has your money gone?

k. Here we go. This isnt do defend pride or boost my ego. LEts look at the facts.

I get Linux for free. I set it up as it should. It runs flawlwssly with idiot proof udating from RedHat. Downtime = o% Cost for OS = .50 cents for a CD-R. Maybe I'm a lucky one. Or maybe I know what I'm doing BEFORE I do it. Yeah yeah cash is king, and some of us need downtimes for some cash. Sometimes you just get sick of your own servers going down every year or so from the next big virus or worm that affects almost every Microsoft OS before a patch or update can fix it.

NOW lets ask our lil wintendows fan how much he pays for CD keys and Microsoft Software. What about all the Anti-virus programs you need to buy? What about the third party firewalls you need because MycrowSUCK's own lil firedink cant block a pee flake.

Did anyone forget to think who made the annoucement that Wintendows is cheaper than Linux? I think it was Microsoft who payed VeriTest to release this information. It was Microsoft who also started this campainge to tarnish Linux.

Nice Job. Not Falling for it. Thanks for the good laugh!

Linux and Apache "required four full-time consultants at $115 to $130 per hour."

Wow, I wish I could work for one of these consultant companies. Better yet, I wish I could run one and soak up the profits. How much do you think the actual techs are making, less than $20/hour.

My momma told me... You betta shop around.

Hell there must be a ton of linux geeks without jobs willing to work for half that price!

Less than $20/hr? No way, more like 50-80% of the bill rate based on experience and past performance.

In my area a house call costs at least $50/hr.

I am a linux geek willing to work as well.

This study is only using one distribution of Linux - RedHat.

Did the study look at other distros of Linux? NO
I can have a system up with gentoo, apache, mysql, and php with in a few hours. I would like Microsoft do the same study with Suse and Mandrake.

If you look at the trend of Microsoft tests, they only use RedHat. My openion is that RedHat is slower then other linux distros.

I also wanted to add that RedHat has high service fees.

It's "opinion." Gentoo isn't a mainstream server and doesn't offer the same high availability options Enterprise Server does (clustering and such). Mandrake caters to the desktop users and Suse doesn’t have the market share Redhat does. If Microsoft wanted to run a fair comparison they’d need equivalent hardware (which I doubt they had), equivalent pricing (meaning not trying only free software, especially since you can run most apps on both windows and linux), and they take into account spam, worms, and security hacks which are a constant threat to any windows system.

I believe a comparable system can be built and maintained with both OS’s, but I in no way believe that it is more affordable to run windows servers than linux servers by a 30% margain as the report claims. That just screams “fix”.

I've had to use RH support once, I'll pass we couldn't even get an eval when we asked for it.

Gentoo I believe has HA options available to it. I think that SUSE would have made a much better target than RH being that it is also an at-cost Linux server product based on my experience with all of the above and more.

Blah, Blah, Blah.

All I was trying to say is that Microsoft seems to always compare windows services to RedHat and nothing else. What about Netware, and Solares?

I know Netware is not Linux, but I haven't seen Microsoft products compare with any Novell products (Groupwise, eDirectory, ZENworks)

I would like to see them use other Unix-like Distros then RedHat. It Seems they are trying to hide results from other Distros.

I also would like to say the the support forums at Gentoo is a very good resource that is free, so please don't say Gentoo is not a good Linux distro just because they don't have certs (BS on paper). Thry are a good group of people willing to make a good distro.

All I was trying to say is that Microsoft seems to always compare windows services to RedHat and nothing else. What about Netware, and Solares?

I know Netware is not Linux, but I haven't seen Microsoft products compare with any Novell products (Groupwise, eDirectory, ZENworks)

I would like to see them use other Linux Distros then RedHat. It Seems they are trying to hide results from other Distros.

I also would like to say the the support forums at Gentoo is a very good resource that is free, so please don't say Gentoo is not a good Linux distro just because they don't have certs (BS on paper). Thry are a good group of people willing to make a good distro.

I agree with your assessment. I think they use RedHat because they are very visible, and clearly the most expensive option in the Linux market. I also agree that the Gentoo forums are very helpful. Most Linux forums are, unless of course are talking about #Linux @ *net. ;-)

I'm most fond of Debian and Deb based distributions these days, as much as I cussed it 5 years ago I've found they are the most balanced. Gentoo takes way to long to get going because everything needs to be compiled. yes, I know about linuxpackages.net but I wasn't that fond of it. I don't like RPM based distros anymore, even with apt because of rpm hell. No, dependency hell isn't really a problem anymore but rpm --rebuilddb every other day after deleting rpm locks from simply installing packages is worthless. ;-) What's interesting is that I never experienced that in SUSE Linux. The only issue I had with SUSE Pro is that I just didn't like that 9.2 has GNOME 2.6 and not 2.10 like Ubuntu Hoary which I run on MY laptop today. On a server SUSE isn't so bad at all, and almost everyone with a commercial product that runs on a Linux server supports it.

Ultimately though, if I had to build up a 10g GRID you couldn't pay me enough to use a distro that Oracle didn't support just incase something broke one day and I needed to call them. Now that this may be something that is necessary for a network that I maintain it would require that I eval those solutions as a whole before hand so I don't sprawl my network with many different distributions. In essence, Microsoft kind of has a point using RedHat even though it's not the cheapest solution out there. ;-)

and tux is built for redhat and is the fastest static content server benchmarked to date.

Hummmm... let's review... The eWeek report of this says, "The test found that the Windows Server 2003 environment had 4:20:19 of average end-user service loss time compared to 4:59:44 of average service loss time for the Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3.0 environment on measured service loss events." So, even with pretty, graphical tools... the Windows guys had a 0.39.25 advantage over us Linux guys. Wow, Mickeysoft! That's REALLY something to brag about. Not!

eWeek article:
http://www.eweek.com/art...2/0,1759,1782996,00.asp

That's not what they're bragging about, reread the post :-)

According to NetCraft (an objective source, Apache is now holding almost 70% of the web server market. Now that says two things:
> It's an understandable target
> If somebody's got a darn good market share, then they're usually doing something right

http://news.netcraft.com..._web_server_survey.html

Also check this out and notice how most of the servers are running Apache: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html

So get THE facts, Microsoft! The problem most likely exists between the keyboard and chair. A new generation of admins will be coming soon, and they will have the training, knowledge, and experience necessary to keep Linux servers up and running.

> If somebody's got a darn good market share, then they're usually doing something right.

According to your logic... if Microsoft has a 90% OS market share, then chances are good that they're doing something right, correct?

You also talk about new Admins coming out... Indeed, and if they can manage Windows AND Linux systems, that's fantastic. Unfortunately, today's markets typically want people who are specialized in one area rather than general know-it-alls, so people will focus on one or the other. If companies are primarily Windows, they will continue to hire Windows admins over Linux unless they've made a committment to convert.

Enough of the MS-vs-Linux debate though... both have merits, both have limits, both are good for certain people.

He also forgot something else:

Apache is free.

Many things get used because they're free, not because they're good. That isn't necessarily the case in this instance but it does have a bearing on the acceptance of that web server - and not a small one, either.

roflmao...

Apache is indeed free....for both Linux and Windows.

"A new generation of admins will be coming soon, and they will have the training, knowledge, and experience necessary to keep Linux servers up and running."

It's not like Linux has been around for years and admins could be trained how to do that by now or anything.....

Also, i'm sure if it was Linux that won you'd all be saying "Linux is so great. Linux won again"

tux is also free yet it doesn't run on both windows and redhat. maybe they should have used that or used apache on both machines. either test would have been acceptable.

Sure they have 90% of the desktop market, and they have been found guilty of using illegal methods to get there. The reports are flawed in many ways. These studies are funded to form results that align to those funding the study. If I go out and compare orange juice brands that cost the same and I use for example consultants that cost $130 per hour to pour brand A and consultants that cost $20 to pour brand B I can show very clearly that Brand B costs less money. These studies are worthless, and in my opinion are borderline unethical.

Apache isn't better because it's free?

Care to back that up?

Oh please - can the "illegal methods" BS. That's old, rubbish and typical anti-MS rabble spew. They succeeded on the desktop because they had a good product, had a great marketing staff, were aggressive and filled a need that no other OS could.

The naysayers and whiners who bleat the tired "illegal methods" and "poor little competitors" CRAP wouldn't last five seconds in the real business world anyway so their opinion isn't even relevant.

Are MS big? Yes. Did they get that way by being nice? No. Did IBM? Oracle? Computer Associates? NO. Is the business world nice? NO.

You do have a valid point vis a vis studies and amrketing though. Are they unethical? Is the American government unethical? The drug companies? The car indistry?

http://www.google.com/se...&btnG=Google+Search

Sorry, don't need to can anything. It's not anti-microsoft rhetoric, it's fact. I've been in the "real business world" for a long time now, and I don't see that either changing any time soon or even being relevant to the conversation. ;-)

"Are they unethical? Is the American government unethical? The drug companies? The car indistry?"

Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. That doesn't mean it's ok to be unethical.

That's not what I said.

If you look at the words and concentrate REALLY REALLY HARD you'll see that what I said is that products get used at least in part because they're free. That in turn means that people won't pay for a product if a free one is available that meets their needs.

That doesn't say that Apache isn't a good product.

That's what you implied, if you read between the lines. Apache is a very good product, and now that IIS has finally matured it isn't so bad either.

I too have been in this biz a very long time.

Furthermore I'm not naive enough to believe that in the business world "right" is ever going to become a way of life. The business world is more cutthroat than most environments. IBM did more than a few so-called "illegal" things (some actually were) - far more than MS ever has. And what are they today? The darling of the Linux set. Why? because they kissed their asses and handsomely funded that community. Did they do this in the interests of fair play, altruism or Open Source? Or did they do this because it potentially could stick it to their competitors and would make them scads of money?

I'm a practical soul. I don't weep, wail and lament things that are never going to change. I learn to live with them and occasionally even turn them to my advantage.

All those companies did and that's why they're successful - MS is no different. I just marvel at the naivete and hypocrisy when people yell about them but no one else.

IIS *finally* grew up - it took it long enough.

Personally I love Apache - free quality software is always a boon (it's also quite rare). I merely said that more people would use it because they didn't have to pay a cent for it. There was no other "implication".

I guess we missed the "that's not necessarily the case in this instance" part of the sentence, did we? :)

I have also been in the industry for a very long time. Cut-throat business is why most dotcoms no longer exist today. It's why worldcom almost didn't exist and why many enron execs are in jail today. Don't tell me that you can't be successful unless you are cut-throat because you are 100% wrong. You can be very successful by providing better value and service than your competition and operating within the laws set to ensure business operates fairly and honestly.

Have you looked around? Do you think FORD is not getting bent over about their cruise control problem right now? How about the problem with explorers flipping over they had a few years ago? You are on a tech site, of course you will only hear of tech companies like Microsoft here.

It's not just Microsoft, however they were found guilty. "dems da breaks". ;-)

You said "isn't necessarily" not "that's not" ;-)

I never said companies shouldn't provide quality products, service and support. I did say that companies have, do and always will indulge in aggressive practices to get ahead in this cutthroat environment. Some (manY!) will be more cutthroat than others. That's a fact of life. No large company can exist without that mindset - they simply won't last. Do you honestly think FORD will fix those problems because of altruism? Or because if they don't people WON'T buy their products, WILL laucnh a class-action lawsuit and the FEDS will nail them for violating safety standards?

Be real man!

I'm yet to see ANY large corporation not look at EVERYTHING in terms of the bottom line.

And on that note, I'm being paged for dinner. :)

A difference that makes no difference is no difference. ;)

agreed. :-)

Anything good? LOL

Apache runs really well on Microsoft servers as well.