# windowsserver/compare



## RCuber (Sep 18, 2007)

Look Look .. microsoft comparing windows with Linux/Unix  and I beleive this is in the right section.

Some quotes from the site.


> *Total Cost of Ownership*
> *Red Hat Enterprise Linux*
> How can “free” be this expensive?
> Red Hat’s business is based on annual subscriptions for OS support—you pay a subscription for every server, every year. And, if you want 24/7 support, you’ll pay more.
> ...






> *Security*
> *Red Hat Enterprise Linux*
> Empirical evidence that the ‘everyone can see the code’ approach to software security doesn't work for Red Hat
> Over the first 650 days of product life for Windows Server 2003, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, Windows Server 2003 had 75 percent fewer published vulnerabilities.
> ...






> Interoperability
> *Red Hat Enterprise Linux 	*
> 
> *Open Standards ≠ Open Source*
> ...



Link

windowsserver/Compare


----------



## shaunak (Sep 18, 2007)

Um, if you did not notice, that comparison is on microsoft's site. Obiously they are not going to include their negetive points like:

 What they they never tell you:
1> A significant % of system resources will be used to power windows, the OS. Linux/unix servers  are inherently more  efficient.
2> A windows server is only good for very large sites which are maintained by trained professionals, so obiously the do not need 24/7 tech support. That cost becomes virtually 0$.
3> Besides, for start ups/SOHO's the initial cost of a liscense on the OS itself is the biggest hurdle, coz you have just spent $$$ on your hardware. If your not a small bussiness than a> you will have much more qualified advisors and you will not be reading this b> read 2
4> Security.......ha ha ha.
5> The comparison is old. Fortunately Linux evolves faster than windows does; so the shootout is virtually obsolete.

Necase, most servers on the web run linux. 
So, if a fly flies,  then it must be flying.


----------

