not pointing to any specific companies.. i'd like to hear the pro and cons and unix server vs. NT server. thank to your all experts for teaching me :)

better say Unix Vs Win. There are better version of windows than the NT. (ex windows 2000)

Originally posted by klisis
better say Unix Vs Win. There are better version of windows than the NT. (ex windows 2000)
Well, but Windows 2000 is basically based on NT :).

Alexander

There has been a thread about this recently.

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24867

Alexander

And NT is basically based on windows. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by zoid

Well, but Windows 2000 is basically based on NT :).

Alexander

Originally posted by klisis
And NT is basically based on windows. :rolleyes:

Actually it isn't. If you look at the NT internals -- as much as you're able without working at Microsoft -- you'll find that the GUI is bolted on about as tightly as xwindows is bolted on to linux... ie, not at all. NT really was a suitable name: In terms of what Microsoft had done at the time, NT was completely New Technology (yes, that is where the name comes from).

Not to go deep, here is my explanation.

Windows XP
Windows ME
Windows 2000
Windows NT
Windows 9x.

All based on windows. :stickout

Originally posted by klisis
Not to go deep, here is my explanation.

Windows XP
Windows ME
Windows 2000
Windows NT
Windows 9x.

All based on windows. :stickout

So I suppose you'd also argue that OS X is based on MacOS? The name and GUI are the only connection.

Nay, I don't know any knowledge over Macs.
Anyhow, according to your information, I should also call winXP win NT, no?

Originally posted by cperciva


So I suppose you'd also argue that OS X is based on MacOS? The name and GUI are the only connection.

Originally posted by klisis
Not to go deep, here is my explanation.

Windows XP
Windows ME
Windows 2000
Windows NT
Windows 9x.

All based on windows. :stickout
You forgot.....

Windows for Workstations 3.x
Windows 3.x
Windows 2.x (Windows/386)
Windows 1.x


Alexander

There are more viruses for windows servers than *nix servers.

Originally posted by rewdog
There are more viruses for windows servers than *nix servers.
Well, its true that the Windows platform has the larger range of viruses. However, since a usual server system should not be a "oh-lets-just-download-and-install-it" system, the usual viruses and worms should not be a big threat. If you are refering to the "Code Red", then its not really OS platform related, but rather webserver platform related.

Alexander

I was referring more to nimda

Originally posted by rewdog
I was referring more to nimda
I see. Well, this is actually rather webserver related, since it exploits the same security leak as "Code Red" did. The other "bad" functions use applications which should usually not be on a server system (Outlook Express).

Alexander

I've hosted on both, I prefer Unix/Linux servers.

i heard NT has more security holes than unix?

Aloha
well do a search you will find a lot of dif answers first off
what are you trying to do ??
run ASP pages use WIN box
run PHP run Linux box
a mostly email box run Linux
build apliacations that integrate with uploading and handling of office docs use win2k box

as far as security goes I have said it all the time a unsecure box is an unsecure box

redhat has many many vulnerable thigns in it as do win2k both have to be patched up and constantly patched up to run safely
I would dare anyone to run redhat without installing one fix and not have it vulnerable same as win2k

most people get there win boxes hacked as they are a target and that they do not know what they are doing.
same reason most linux boxes get hacked

so decide what you want to do and then deicde the OS to use

Honu, very true!

I also want to add: with Windows normally you have to pay for features like SQL Server. You can use MS Access + DAO but that's obviously not for a big application with lots of hits.

Also if you are using Windows and eventually ASP down the line, you will probably need to buy some 'Objects' (I forgot the more proper term).. Most hosts come with some standard and helpful objects like Mail component and Upload component for trivial purposes. Other than that you'll have to purchase. Also beware that your host might not want to install the object for you (due to various reasons).

With Linux, you normally get MySQL db pretty much as a standard. PHP comes with a very vast array of functionalities and additions / expansions are easy with either php classes or php modules. Your host has to compile your requested module into their copy of php, but most of the time the standard can already do a *lot* of things.

I guess you can also use these facts to consider which platform and toolkit to use, as costs come into play here as well.

Linux/ FreeBSD =

+ low cost, almost free software
+ you may be able to modify the kernel
- not_so_easy to administer

Win =

- high cost software
- need more hardware resources
+ easier to administer (for most ppl)

Hmmm I recently had the pleasure to install windows 2000 server, boy do I wish to use FreeBSD instead. I am not an MCSE or even had much experience with Windows 2000 Server but I know the basics. However in my opinion, FreeBSD is much easier to set up and control.

Also we had to buy email server on win2k whereas in unix it comes free with several alternatives to choose.

Not to mention the installation process of Windows 2000 Server took a very long time / slow. This is on P3 933 / 256MB / 40GB HDD.

My FreeBSD at home runs on P3 450 / 128 MB with ease (nothing to do except being a firewall and apache/php testing stage).

On the contrary, if someone doesn't know anything about either O/S, it is much easier to do some clicking on Windows and look like he knows what to do :D

I read somewhere about "To NT or not"
they installed Win2K and plugged it to the net to download the patches, and before it was finished, it already got hit by Nimda :)

I guess the only way is to download the patches to another server then copy it off there instead of going live boldly facing the big jungle naked :)

deleted