I hope I am posting this in the right location, I couldn't see a real good place to post this.

But all I have really seen is linux hosting advertised - what is the real difference between linux and windows? They both use Apache and PHP - doesn't windows use more resources with it's GUI?

Sorry for the novice questions, but I'm trying to learn!

Thanks

Usually, webhosts tend to use linux more than windows because it is free/open-source, while windows costs a license. Linux is believed to be more secure from windows, with minimal tweaking.

Windows is usually used when you need ASP , SQL server, MS Access support...

Web hosts who do Windows do not run Apache, that would be pretty much pointless. Starting with Windows 2008, the huge differences between hosting on linux and windows are starting to dissipate.

On Windows 2008, you can run all of the same open source programming languages such as PHP that you can on the Linux side. Thanks to the partnership between Microsoft and Zend, the performance of PHP on Windows is now the same as it is on Linux. So, you can run all of the Linux apps you love, plus you get the power of the proprietary Microsoft software such as ASP.NET, which you can't have on the Linux side.

Security wise, IIS 6 (shipped with Windows 2003) has not had a single critical security vulnerability. They've come a long way since the terrible, terrible Windows 2000/IIS 5 server.

Licensing costs isn't a big deal since Microsoft introduced the SPLA. It allows a hosting company to get Windows 2003/2008 for less than $20/month. Definitely a fair price for what you're getting.

If you take a look at the trends, you will see IIS gaining market share. It's going to continue that way, especially once people start to see the really cool stuff you can do with IIS 7. ASP.NET will also continue to drive up the IIS market share.

Within the next 1-2 years, I think that you will start to see tons of Linux hosts start to offer Windows plans due to customer demand. Then that leads to the issue how good their support will be. Administering and supporting Windows systems is very different than Linux systems, and a lot of sysadmins will bring their preconceived biases to the table which will stop them from being really solid windows administrators.

Web hosts who do Windows do not run Apache, that would be pretty much pointless. Starting with Windows 2008, the huge differences between hosting on linux and windows are starting to dissipate.

Windows Server 2003 was pretty solid as well and had very comparable performance with Linux.

Windows Server 2003 was pretty solid as well and had very comparable performance with Linux.

Indeed it is. I was specifically talking about Apache and IIS differences. For instance, IIS 7 is very modular, just like Apache. They also added in the ability to control IIS web site configuration through the web.config (like .htaccess in Apache).

LInuX top Strengt is
No virus can spread in linux.:D

Very interesting, so if you were to make the switch (as a customer) from Apache to IIS7 on Windows Server 2008 you would not notice much of a difference? Other than being able to run .net and stuff?

Very interesting, so if you were to make the switch (as a customer) from Apache to IIS7 on Windows Server 2008 you would not notice much of a difference? Other than being able to run .net and stuff?

There may be little configuration changes, but 99% of it should work exactly the same.

LInuX top Strengt is
No virus can spread in linux.:D

That's a bit of an overstatement isn't it? If it's a computer, and it's turned on, then a virus can spread.

Hello

From a user of both Windows & Linux,

Windows is good for clustered hosting and ASP/ASP.net/MS SQL.

Linux is good for PHP/MySQL

although you can run PHP/MySQL on windows, if thats your primary use, usually Linux will be cheaper than windows.

If you want to use all of them features, then windows hosting is probably better for you.

Another major difference is the cost of software licenses. Linux can be deployed with minimal costs whilst Windows requires purchasing a license. For the end-user this may mean paying slightly more than a Linux based hosting subscription

As the previous posters have said, with both Linux and Windows offering a similar feature set these days, the difference between the two is minimal for the average user. Of course, if you're looking for a particular programming language then I suggest sticking to the native OS. ASP/ASP.NET = Windows, PHP, MYSQL etc = Linux.

I have always been a Windows guy. MCSE the whole ball of wax. I tested a few Linux/Apache boxes recently and they seem to be more stable and more cost effective. Just harder for me to configure.

My company is currently a Microsoft partner (whatever that means). We have just about all the software Microsoft makes here at our offices. I trained (and passed) as a CCA, which involved writing a challenge exam for the (then equivalent) MCSE. I have worked with Microsoft stuff since before DOS 2.0. We run mostly Windows workstations of various stripes at our offices and I build/test our PHP/MySQL stuff on my Windows XP Workstation.

I am programmer and have done (still do) a lot of VB programming under Windows and I did OS/2 programming (including GUI) back when MS was involved. I have worked for MS (contract) before. I have friends there.

My company offers both Linux and Windows hosting and I have one test site under Windows.

Here at our office, our main file/print server is Linux Ubuntu. All of our production hosting is on Linux or (one box) BSD.

Going forward, it is my plan to continue with Linux based hosting for all of our sites. We will, as a rule, actually turn down people who want to host with Windows.

Nobody here mentioned the 'long term' or the 'big picture'. By going with Microsoft Servers, you leave yourself and your clients open to the shifting sands of Microsoft licensing regimes. It is not good.

I once built networks of OS/2 boxes with MS SQL Server and (3COM, then MS) Lan Mangler servers. I did it because they were supposed to support transparent peer-to-peer networking and one could have unlimited users attaching from one machine to another. That was the theory, anyway. MS changed the rules and I suddenly found myself explaining why we were deploying this expensive thing. No more.

It would be a shame to watch your entire business go up in smoke because some company decided to remove or change a feature. Things that come to mind are the demise of Win2K, VB6, etc. Production systems should go in and stay working for years. This is not possible in any practical way with an MS platform. Things I built under Win2K and even XP simply die under Vista due to arbitrary changes that have nothing to do with the program.

Hosting is marginal enough, without introducing that dangerous wild card. Honest, I have plenty of Windows experience, but I stick strongly to Linux for anything I have to support going forward.