I always thought that Windows gave me a super easy to setup server too because of the fact that I don't have to use the command line.
With Linux server setup, if I haven't done something in a while - I must go and hunt down the information on what files I need to configure and commands that I need to run. Sometimes it takes hours of reading. With Windows I can usually take a look at the standard management interface provided with the server software and just figure it out or be guided through it.
I kinda like Windows server, mostly for the stability - both of the runtime and of functionality. Compared to Linux it requires less attention, i can concentrate more on software and less on the system: after two years of not touching i can still find configuration options in more or less same places. With Linux i have to re-learn quite a lot after not paying attention for a while. Missing good ssh/command line but not badly, I don't really need advanced shell scripting.
You hadn't offered any substantive material in support of your own opinion either.
As a sysadmin with 30 years of experience running Linux and Windows servers though, I'll offer my own anecdote - I'd say that Windows is far easier to manage for many common scenarios. It's all point and click and you can basically figure out what to do without looking at any documentation anywhere.
It's so easy, you can teach a monkey how to configure a workgroup, domain, users, dns server, firewall, etc. on Windows.
Also, which Linux distro are you talking about? What with all the fragmentation, nothing is ever the same on every distro.
I'm not talking about just the operating system, I'm talking about the platform and the necessary services you'd need on a server. Configuring a windows server, setting up IIS, mail server, etc, are different from version to version. Linux is much more consistent, editing a few text files in /etc. Sure, you can jump into cmd and execute many of the commands that always worked on windows, but that's a very small set of commands compared to Linux.
I made the switch to Linux a few years ago for servers, only months ago for my primary workstation, and I'd never go back to Windows; though Windows with cygwin is close enough to Linux to make a very nice workstation.
I have to disagree. Windows Server has the illusion of ease, but the same mechanisms that guide your hand in the early days turn into a major hindrance later on. There isn't a Windows server running anywhere that doesn't have event logs jammed full of potentially deadly warnings and errors, and most "easily" setup Windows servers are setup insecurely and wrong.
In my personal experience (and I have a lot of experience with both) I've always found Linux build outs much more predictable and easy.
As to the "counter culture", that goes back to when Microsoft really were the pricks of the technology world. They've gotten much better, but it's hard to shake that.
No. Just that Windows servers are much easier to navigate to find what files and systems are running.
With Linux systems, sure, you can check chron and top and find what is running and where it is but it's a bit more unwieldy than the windows GUI, plus you don't always have a full list of the file and folder permissions and getting a full list of those requirements for whichever softwares are accessing them.
I'm saying Windows Server ties in nicely with the desktop versions of Windows (managing permissions and accounts, AD, email, network resources etc). Its like saying OSX server works great with Macbooks.
And my point was perhaps the reason people are using Windows server is not because Linux is too hard and unfamiliar but because just maybe it's a better fit.
I guess it’s because devs learn unix/linux at university or by their own. I never seen anybody setting up a Windows machine, we are all into linux. I personally know nothing about Windows servers.
This title needs to be qualified: Linux on the desktop is a time killer. I sympathize (which is why I use a Mac), but it's a radically different story for servers.
I run quite a variety of headless servers. In almost every case, it is easier to setup and maintain an Linux box than a Windows box. Almost every software package I need is a command away. And if I were doing this on Windows, I would still have to mess around configuring the software I installed, so there is no gain there.
One command, and all security patches are installed and running - live, and without re-configuring a thing. The only exception is a kernel upgrade, which requires a reboot, but otherwise is trouble-free.
Plus, when things break, it is so much easier to get configs transferred and running on a new Linux box, than on Windows. Re-install the software. Restore DBs. Restore configs. You're good. To a degree this is possible on Windows, but it is a lot harder because there are so many black boxes, binary configs, registry keys, etc.
I like Windows Server more than Linux. I administer both of them, although I am more familiar with Windows Server which definitely plays a big part in my preference. But I think that's going to be the biggest part of anyone's preference.
Everything you complain about Windows Server not supporting is actually supported, but it was your unfamiliarity that was ultimately the issue. "Linux guy who is unfamiliar with Windows Server prefers Linux" isn't particularly shocking news.
I have little experience with servers, but... I must agree with your sentiment. One of the great things about Linux is how simple things are. GUIs are great, but not if I have to start a desktop just to get a network connection!
The shell, for instance. It's much easier to get things sorted out in the command line than on Windows and Remote Desktop is a pain in the back. Once you're familiar enough with the shell and shell scripting, maintaining Windows servers can get very frustrating. I know that there's Cygwin and PowerShell on Windows but in my opinion they really aren't as useful as a native Unix environment.
Another one is the easily accessible documentation in man pages. I don't think the Windows documentation and the KB articles are nearly as well organised as the man pages.
Performance-wise, there really isn't that much difference; the latest versions of the Windows, Linux, *BSD and Darwin kernels are equally capable in my experience. In fact, I wouldn't recommend against NTFS as file storage; we use it to store a very large amount of data on Windows 2008 servers and we are very happy with it.
More recent versions of Windows Server have definitely improved, but this is still pretty accurate. When given a set of tasks to do for Windows and Linux, the latter is always easier. If it takes x amount of time to automate something on Linux, it's 5x on Windows. Every time. Some of this is due to MS themselves, some of it is due to the software vendors, but it's a very real thing.
Btw fwiw I fully agree with you. I really like Windows as a desktop OS (or, more accurately, I dislike it the least), but the idea of using a GUI based server is just super weird to me.
Even pre micro I preferred Linux for servers, for this reason primarily. I understand Linux way less well than Windows but I navigated down that insane ISS config panel once, a decade ago, and decided that once was enough :-)
Given Windows' low popularity as a server OS these days it seems to me that plenty devs-who-use-Windows have a similar opinion.
I choose Windows for my home and business because it's got the most logical and stable desktop experience. It's simple, utilitarian and it works extremely well as evidenced by it's world-wide usage in homes and businesses of all sizes.
I choose Windows Server for my business because it's by far the easiest network server system to setup and maintain while still offering me the absolute best experience for maintenance and control of my enterprise.
Clicky-clicky-click in the free UI-admin-tool that is included and I've got a new IIS web site up. Click...I've got a new SQL Server database built. Click...I've got a a new Virtual Machine, etc. Click...I've got a .NET app and developer workflow already built and scaffolded without having to memorize one single command.
Unix operating systems including Apple's don't offer anything even close to the experience that you get with Windows. That's why people choose Windows over Unix when they actually think about it. After that, they choose Windows simply because everybody else is using it, making it the default choice. (This is all in my highly experienced opinion of course.)
This. When it comes to serious use I wouldn't trust anybody who doesn't bother to invest a lot of time to actually learn the system anyway. IMO Windows servers are not easier to learn than Linux servers, quite the contrary actually, but I'm a bit biased since my personal computer runs Linux too.
In my experience the choice is usually made by the familiarity rather than ideology. Windows server can definitely be a better choice if they already successfully use it. And that's the case even if a Linux based server would be actually better for their use case based on some arbitrary metrics. Some are so ideologically challenged that they use both and see no problem.
I spend a good portion of my day remoted into Windows servers and I perform exactly zero system administration. Having only a command line would make my job impossible because of the software we need to run on these servers.
What you claim might be acceptable if you were only running Windows Server out of the box or solely Microsoft software, but that is not the case for much of the industry.
With Linux server setup, if I haven't done something in a while - I must go and hunt down the information on what files I need to configure and commands that I need to run. Sometimes it takes hours of reading. With Windows I can usually take a look at the standard management interface provided with the server software and just figure it out or be guided through it.
reply