Linux

[Yrrek]

I am writing a paper on Linux vs. Windows OSs in the networking environment, and I would like to hear some of your opinions! Of the network techs/admins, which do you prefer and why? Please be specific! :) Also for the home users that have experience with linux OSs, which do you prefer and why? Thanks!

[vor_lord]

I use Linux at home and at work. But I have no experience administering Windows at work, so I can't make any comparison as far as administration.

At home I have a small heterogenous network. My wife and daughters share a machine that runs Windows. My machine dual boots (although I'll spend all of my time in Linux unless I decide to actually purchase WoW, which is the reason I have been running windows).

We share the printers. I also have a linux server that I run my own mail and web services for my domain. It is linux, but not on a PC. Someone gave me an old HPUX workstation and I put debian on it (pa risc processor).

I prefer linux because I feel like I have way more control over what I have. I've customized my environment to the hiilt. I can't stand actually programming in Windows, but I don't do too much of that at home anyway so that point is mostly moot.

At work I vastly prefer Linux due to the extremely powerful shell, configurable graphical environments, and huge array of freely available programming languages and tools.

At home, things are much closer. Windows XP has proven itself to be extremely stable and well-behaved (I do not allow the use of IE on my network), and clearly gets the edge with gaming, even for games that run on linux (for example, the Doom 3 linux client is pretty good, but uses OSS for sound). And WoW doesn't run on linux (if someone gets it to work with cedega I might by a short subscription just for that reason).

edit: I said homogenous, I meant heterogenous <_<

[yangman]

I currently run a linux server for printing and file-sharing on my home network.

I must say that it was much, much easier getting the Windows machines talking to my Linux server than with each other. (my mother's XP laptop just refuses to talk to the Win2k machine -- I recently found out that 2k's security measures aren't easily compatible with XP) Infact, I had more trouble getting my Linux laptop printing to the network than getting the Windows boxes talking with samba, entirely due to misconfiguration on my part.

Linux is much perfered in a networking environment for me since, well, Windows networking has never worked, in my home, period. Also, the winner is pretty clear when you consider how Unix was intended to be run in a networked enviornment.

The customizations avaliable is certainly a plus when running a *nix system. On the flip side, there's much more experimentation involved, and even people who are fairly experienced has to go digging into documentation and the web to find information on how to perform certain tasks.

[Moldran]

At home, I run a GNU/Linux sytem as my DSL router. On my main computer, I use Windows for gaming and GNU/Linux for anything else. On the same network, there are 2 more Windows systems, belonging to my father and my brother.
I am no professional network administrator, but in my free time, I administrate a small network with a GNU/Linux server, about 12 stationary Windows clients, 1 stationary Mac, 1 Mac laptop, a handfull of Windows laptops, and occasionaly, some more machines. About 3 times a year, I administrate a network for a LAN gaming party with about 40 machines.

Windows networking is a major PITA unless your network consists of Microsoft systems only, and even then, you often run into trouble. Interoperability is not exactly a big strength of Microsoft software ;)
Small example: Current versions of Windows do not support LPD printing. To print on a network printer that understands neither SMB nor IPP, you have to install third party software. Or (which is what I usually do) you attach the printer to a GNU/Linux server and then share it with the Windows machines via Samba.

Generally, Windows' multi-user and networking abilities are very inferior to the ones of any Unix-like system. I mean - Windows does not even offer a SSH server or client out of the box. I simply don't understand how you can ship a 'modern' OS without SSH support. WTF are these guys in Redmond thinking? The DNS implementation is broken (Windows machines continously send out DNS requests that serve no purpose whatsoever). Windows cannot read any file systems except for FAT and NTFS. You can continue the list forever. Windows also lacks many basic, very useful tools that are standard in the Unix World, and it does not provide adequate alternatives.

Once you are used to the <insert your favorite Unix here> way of doing things, administration is alot easier than it is in Windows. At least, that is my experience. Add to this the big advantage of not being dependent on a certain vendor and say 'goodbye' to M$ ;)

IMHO, there are only two actual reasons for using Windows in a networking environment:
1) Your users cannot be taught how to use another OS
2) You depend on a 'killer application' that is only avaiable on Windows.

[kandrathe]

I am writing a paper on Linux vs. Windows OSs in the networking environment, and I would like to hear some of your opinions! Of the network techs/admins, which do you prefer and why? Please be specific! :) Also for the home users that have experience with linux OSs, which do you prefer and why? Thanks!
[right][snapback]59388[/snapback][/right]

I would convert my Windows users to Linux if I could, but our killer app is Outlook, voice mail and fax mail integration with our phone system. The biggest problem with Unix that I see is the mindset of Unix afficianado's that think vi is a good editor. GUI's are easier to use than command line interfaces(CLI). Windows errs on the former, and Unix errs on the later. More vendors are offering administration in GUI form, but as an example it takes me a day to build and Oracle server, and 30 minutes to build a SQL Server server. The difference is not the OS, just the difference in Oracle vs SQL Server.

[[vL]Kp]

The biggest problem with Unix that I see is the mindset of Unix afficianado's that think vi is a good editor.&nbsp; GUI's are easier to use than command line interfaces(CLI).&nbsp; Windows errs on the former, and Unix errs on the later.&nbsp; More vendors are offering administration in GUI form, but as an example it takes me a day to build and Oracle server, and 30 minutes to build a SQL Server server.&nbsp; The difference is not the OS, just the difference in Oracle vs SQL Server.

vi is a great editor, blasphemer! I suppose you could be forgiven as long as you don't start promoting emacs.

On a more serious note, GUI administration can be a good thing if you're doing the configuration once or just a few times, but when you need to do the same operation several dozen times, an easily automated interface is far preferable. That's one of the things I find desirable when trying to manage a Unix network of any size: I don't need to go sit at each individual console and click through a bunch of prompts just to upgrade a service. Instead, I can remotely shell to the hosts from a central system and start the upgrades in parallel. Applying any serious Windows patch will either require extra software to automate it (e.g. PC Anywhere type stuff (which still forces you to use a GUI) or a custom remote shell (at which point you've just duplicated the Unix advantage at the price of extra work for you)) or a lot of hiking to go visit each of the terminals and start the patch, or a lot of users who you can trust to patch their own systems. None of those prospects appeal to me. :P

Also, Unix systems have a much lower rate of infection (when was the last time you heard of a worm that infects Apache?). Being able to trust that stupid users won't compromise my network by reading their e-mail is good peace of mind, which I just can't get with Outlook. :)

[Walkiry]

vi is a great editor, blasphemer!&nbsp; I suppose you could be forgiven as long as you don't start promoting emacs.[right][snapback]59916[/snapback][/right]

Emacs is the best editor ever. You can even play tetris or nethack in it while waiting for some code to run or compile.

I <3 emacs.

[kandrathe]

vi is a great editor, blasphemer!&nbsp; I suppose you could be forgiven as long as you don't start promoting emacs.

On a more serious note, GUI administration can be a good thing if you're doing the configuration once or just a few times, but when you need to do the same operation several dozen times, an easily automated interface is far preferable.&nbsp; That's one of the things I find desirable when trying to manage a Unix network of any size: I don't need to go sit at each individual console and click through a bunch of prompts just to upgrade a service.&nbsp; Instead, I can remotely shell to the hosts from a central system and start the upgrades in parallel.&nbsp; Applying any serious Windows patch will either require extra software to automate it (e.g. PC Anywhere type stuff (which still forces you to use a GUI) or a custom remote shell (at which point you've just duplicated the Unix advantage at the price of extra work for you)) or a lot of hiking to go visit each of the terminals and start the patch, or a lot of users who you can trust to patch their own systems.&nbsp; None of&nbsp; those prospects appeal to me. :P

Also, Unix systems have a much lower rate of infection (when was the last time you heard of a worm that infects Apache?).&nbsp; Being able to trust that stupid users won't compromise my network by reading their e-mail is good peace of mind, which I just can't get with Outlook. :)
[right][snapback]59916[/snapback][/right]

Well, I'm specifically thinking of a problem I'm having now in trying to move my Windows trained ops to job scheduling and automated operations with Linux machines. Cron anyone? Oh, you want them to write shell scripts? Huh?

[vor_lord]

Well, I'm specifically thinking of a problem I'm having now in trying to move my Windows trained ops to job scheduling and automated operations with Linux machines.&nbsp; Cron anyone?&nbsp; Oh, you want them to write shell scripts?&nbsp; Huh?
[right][snapback]59958[/snapback][/right]

It all has to do with past experience. I have absolutely no idea how to do job scheduling and automated operations on Windows (our Windows IT uses batch files (ack, vomit time!)). Usually on windows if I need to do some task like moving or renaming a bunch of files, I reboot into Linux and do it there, or use cygwin's bash. It's what you know.

And of course whatever you know is superior, even when it isn't :P


Oh, and for the record: I used emacs for 5 years (one of them in viper-mode), then switched to vim for the last 2. vim is an incredibly useful and powerful editor, as was emacs (even though I'd never go back). I can still remember the first time emacs came up... I couldn't figure out how to even quit--I hated it! But once you learn a powerful editor it is very hard to work in something else.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Kp,Nov 10 2004, 05:13 PM]vi is a great editor, blasphemer!  I suppose you could be forgiven as long as you don't start promoting emacs.
[right][snapback]59916[/snapback][/right]

Well, emacs is a great OS, it just lacks a text editor ;)

--Pete

[Vornzog]

Hi,
Well, emacs is a great OS, it just lacks a text editor ;)

--Pete
[right][snapback]59985[/snapback][/right]

Point proven by the fact that you can get a vi mode for emacs...

Seriously though, I've used both for quite some time, and while the learning curve for vi is steeper, I have ended up liking it better in the long run.

Back on the original topic:

I run a mixed windowsnux environment at home, and pick the best environment for the job.

If I am planning to serve anything, I'll use linux. If I am planning to program anything, I'll use linux. My girlfriend is the software engineer, and she is even more rabid about it. I don't even think she'd know where to start with a windows based programming problem, but she's darn good in *nix.

I will be redesigning the home network here shortly. Due to some issues with how the cable modem comes into the house, I'll be setting up wireless on a linux box that I can use as a firewall/file server. Here, iptables blows anything I can get for free/cheap on windows out of the water. I define my rules, the way I want them, to control incoming and outgoing traffic, and I can log everything.

I still use windows, but I don't do any more of the networking with it than I have to. If the windows box can connect to the internet, that's usually good enough for browsing/email/diablo. I have also traditionally used it for the Office suite, but I recently tried OpenOffice, and found it much to my liking. We'll see how much longer I keep using with MSOffice.

At the lab I work in at the University, I have appointed myself the systems admin. This is because I am the only one who pays any attention to security. Most of my labmates are somewhat computer savvy, and can handle connecting windows to the campus network and sharing files among the various machines, but are clueless about locking them down so that they don't get hacked. When two of our computers were hacked, I reformatted one (it was time anyway), but spent a *large* chunk of time cleaning up the other, as it belonged to a company that was letting us demo an instrument, had custom boards to interface to the instrument, and I had no drivers. I have managed to firewall all the general use machines and the instrument controller machines that I work with, and have converted those machines over to using Firefox so that I spend less time chasing down viruses and spyware.

Prior to my arrival the lab network was strictly windows machines. I now run a linux machine on it, for my use as a server, desktop, network security scanner, and programming environment. It is completely transparent to the rest of the users - they cannot see my machine on the windows network, but I can see the computers I need access to from it. It is the only machine that is on a static IP address, and again is heavily firewalled with iptables - univeristy linux machines are a favorite hacker target.

The primary difference, I think, is that Windows is written for the lowest common denominator. That makes some tasks very easy, but it usually leads to horrible security, and prevents easy customizations. For tasks like networking and serving where security and customizability are the most important factors to consider, linux wins out every time.

-V-

[Yrrek]

Thanks all! :)