Why Chose Windows Over Linux?

Where I work, the programmers all use sun unix cause that is obviously geared twards programming. The marketing and business guys all use windows cause they need officer and junk like that, that is only availible on windows (I Know you can use office on unix but its much easier on windows =D).
 
On the client end: Because it draws on an already existing knowledge set my users most likely have. Its also fairly priced for small business. Its easy to support.

On the server end: Because it draws on a skillset that I have had for almost a decade now and because linux gives me no advantages in my business other than bottom line purchase cost, which this is quickly outweighed by the ease of configuration and support that windows gives me
 
This is highly dependant on a few factors.

1) What apps will you be running?
2) How qualified is your tech?

If you need a windows app ( as I do where I work ), then you may be forced to use windows. You can try wine, but it's unreliable at best, can cause data corruption in many cases ( assuming network enviroment here ).

The other factor that I've seen people overlook completely is how qualified is the person who will be responsible for setting this kind of stuff up? If you have no software holding you to windows, then linux is a very viable option. However, if you have someone who half asses it, what's the point?

Done correctly, linux on the server and desktop is kick-ass. Not only is it lower maintence, but it's more secure and easier to use. And believe me, it makes for some happy admins. :)
 
Choose windows over linux if the users are familiar with windows and not familiar with linux. It doesn't take long to train people on linux, but it certainly will take a bit of time. Also, if you have certain windows programs that you need to use for your business. Bottom line is to use whatever you and your users are comfortable with. For desktops, windows and linux can be pretty equally intuitive. Users can generally figure what to point and click to make the computer do what they want to do. In a company setting, users probably wouldn't be reconfiguring their systems much, so that shouldn't be an issue. So as far as desktops go, windows doesn't have much of an advantage other than familiarity and possibly some windows-only programs. Now for the backend stuff there will probably be a lot more nitty gritty configuration stuff you need to do to make sure your servers are secure and running properly. If you like point and click configuration, then windows would probably be the better choice. A lot of linux configuration is still done by editing config files. There is a nice tool called webmin, though, that is basically a web-based configuration tool. You should still hand edit files to make them what you want, but webmin is a good stepping stone. As far as server software goes, pretty much anything available on linux is available on windows. They have both been around long enough that you can get stable, secure software for both.

It is difficult to make a recommendation without knowing more details about your setup, but I am leaning toward linux on this one. From your original question, it sounds like you are leaning toward linux, too, and are asking if there is any reason you should use windows instead. Or did i misinterpret that? If you already feel comfortable using linux than I say go for it. It'll save you a few hundred dollars per computer at least(windows and office and whatever else).
 
On the user side, as long as you have a good WM they will think "that Windows looks different". As long as the apps work like they should, and all they have to do is click on a menu to get what they need they'll be fine. That's only if your tech is up to supporting it though. Mine help can't. Neither of them knows a thing about Linux, and instead of a bonus this quarter I'm paying for them to go learn. All the linux machines we have are identical and all are using Gigabit ethernet. All the home directories are on a server. When you log on it mounts ~ via NFS. These folders are backed up to tape in the night, and dupped twice a day incase of a major screwup during the day. If we have a problem with any machine we swap in one of the spares, and downtime is less than 5 minutes. Then take it back to the Tech shop to fix it. Users can sit at any machine, and log in. Tey love that, and it also helps if noone is in the office yet. They just go to a machine where noone is sitting, and continue working.
 
Originally posted by NewBlackDak
Users can sit at any machine, and log in. Tey love that, and it also helps if noone is in the office yet. They just go to a machine where noone is sitting, and continue working.
Click to expand...

How much slower is doing that over having the user files on a local machine? I think that is pretty cool to be able to go to any machine and log in and continue working.
What are the specs on the machines that the users use?
 
Originally posted by WS6
How much slower is doing that over having the user files on a local machine? I think that is pretty cool to be able to go to any machine and log in and continue working.
What are the specs on the machines that the users use?
Click to expand...
Note: This can be done in windows as well, although linux's implementation is far superier ( my opinion ) ( if I even spelled that right, which I probably didn't ).

Here's why: Windows uses roaming profiles, which copy the entire profile to the local machine on login and then back on log out. Users with large profiles ( say, tons of documents or the like ) will experience long delays in both logging in and out. This can be allieviated with mapped directories ( which, to my knowledge, are only available under an AD setup ), but in my experience, there are still long delays logging in and out.

Linux, on the other hand, shares out the home directory to the remote machine. No copying crap across, it's just another leaf on the file system. ( a trick which, given the right set of circumstances, can be used to share binaries as well ).

The benifit to the windows approach is if the server goes down, you still have access to your profile, but often it's only until you try to log out. Sometimes you can log in with a local copy of your profile when the profile server is down, sometimes you can't. Seems to be fairly haphazard when it works and doesn't work.

The benefit<sp?> to the linux approach is simplicity. KISS is a term that, as an admin, you come to love ( Keep It Simple, Stupid for those that don't know ). None of this complex sharing and mapping, which are just more things that can go wrong. Simply mount the remote file system, and from that point on, no-one cares where the data really is, as long as it has access to it where it expects it, everything is gravy.

If you get the impression I like ( love ) linux's approach, you'd be right. In your standard office enviroment, you will have a reliable server with reliable network connections. No reason to take the time to copy an entire profile across. If you are in a situation where you have a high speed, unreliable internet connection, then it might be a different story.
 
photoshop is a big reason for me.

remote administration is another. ( im sure there are plenty of ways to do this in linux, but linux to windows, im not sure of and some of our servers are windows)
 
Originally posted by WS6
How much slower is doing that over having the user files on a local machine? I think that is pretty cool to be able to go to any machine and log in and continue working.
What are the specs on the machines that the users use?
Click to expand...

There is a VERY slight delay, but it's only because the NFS volume is mounted dyanmically upon login. Since we're all Gigabit though it's hardly noticeable. We've got 4 classes of machines.
Class 1: Terminals
These are basically only used for access to an IBM Server. They get very light Office app use, even lighter email, and have no internet access.
They're all PII 300MHz, 128MB Ram, 3GB HDD, Intel Gigabit ethernet, and onboard ati-rage.

Class 2: Office machines
These are used for what you think. Office apps, email, internet, and our inhouse costing software.
They're all Celeron 1.2 256MB Ram, 10GB HDD, Intel Gigabit ethernet, and onboard intel-extreme graphics.

Class 3: Design PC's
These are the high powered machine that actually get used
They're all PIV 2.4, 512MB Ram, 40GB HDD, Intel Gigabit ethernet, and ATI Radeon 9600.

Class 4: Macs

These are all the machines that need to run all the in-house software, but also heavily rely on commercial software. They run MOL for all the MacOS apps.
They're all Dual G-4 1.2GHz, 512MB RAM, 60GB HDD, Onboard gigabit, and Some radeon which I can't remember at this point.

We have other machine that are running Windows and MacOS aswell. It makes for a hell of a time trying to support all these platforms just because someone says we have to run {insert junk software here}.
 
The other remote option is to use MS Terminal Server. No transferring of profiles and you get the same desktop anywhere. The only problems are a single point of failure (reduced with some data copying to a backup TS that is a slower machine) and some apps can give you grief. The benifits though of a single point for patches, software installs and such greatly outweigh some of the headaches. For a small business, you can run several users off of a ok machine. I run 20 users off a dual P3 1.3 Dell server with 2gb of ram. No complaints...
 
Originally posted by deuce868
The other remote option is to use MS Terminal Server. No transferring of profiles and you get the same desktop anywhere. The only problems are a single point of failure (reduced with some data copying to a backup TS that is a slower machine) and some apps can give you grief. The benifits though of a single point for patches, software installs and such greatly outweigh some of the headaches. For a small business, you can run several users off of a ok machine. I run 20 users off a dual P3 1.3 Dell server with 2gb of ram. No complaints...
Click to expand...
The initial cost benefits of running linux are negated by running terminal services.

Remember, win2k comes with built in TS licenses. However, if you run linux with rdesktop, then you have to pay for those license...which cost ~100 bucks a pop.

However, this would make administration a bit easier, and from the end user perspective, you can make the linux box automatically start rdesktop, thus fooling the user into thinking windows is installed on the local machine. :)
 
Originally posted by NewBlackDak
That's only if your tech is up to supporting it though. Mine help can't. Neither of them knows a thing about Linux, and instead of a bonus this quarter I'm paying for them to go learn.
Click to expand...


...and are you currently hiring? :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top