OS Wars: Microsoft vs Open Source

Database serving


Databases often replace many of the low-level functions of the operating system, and some databases don't offer a choice of OS. Keeping this in mind, does OS matter?

Kevin McIsaac: As a DBMS (DataBase Management System) server, Windows 2000 will be suitable for 90 percent plus of all application scalability and availability requirements.

This will render Unix (other than Solaris) a legacy platform by 2004 or 2005, despite its more robust partitioning, workload management, and clustering.

Unlike the Web or app server tiers, the database must be run on a single image system, not a farm. This means that high availability and scalability must be built into the hardware and the operating system, which are Unix's traditional advantages.

However we believe that for 90 percent of the applications, Windows 2000 on an 8-way Intel system will provide sufficient scalability. While Windows 2000 fail-over clustering is still much weaker than Unix, it will suffice for those applications that required 99.5 percent availability, all but the mission critical apps.

Today, Linux is not a suitable operating system for a database server as it has very limited scalability and poor fail-over clustering support.

Dean Thompson: Databases can prove to be one of the most important assets that a company can have, and day-to-day use in the general operation of the organisation requires high performance.

The most suitable operating system for a database is Unix. DBMSes at the best of times are very resource intensive and are therefore not suited to operating in environments such as Windows NT or 2000 which are also resource hungry.

Database servers can commonly be found operating in a Solaris environment although there are a number of installations using them with Linux. Solaris is normally the recommended platform both for its reliability and for the hardware it runs on.

This combination proves to be very attractive to companies starting out with middle sized databases and which anticipate future growth. They can easily upgrade components of their database server, or there is the option of a "fork-lift" upgrade.

One factor that goes against Solaris is the cost of the hardware. There is a growing trend to consider Linux as a cost effective OS for database systems. Oracle has helped by offering a version of the Oracle DBMS server for Linux, allowing the use of commodity hardware to build systems with a reasonable level of performance at relatively low cost.

Both Solaris and Linux solutions are aimed mainly towards organisations with a vast amount of information to store.

Although not highly recommended, other solutions do present themselves to smaller companies that don't require all of the complexities that can be found in the commercial DBMS products.

Systems such as Microsoft Access or Microsoft SQL Server can provide small-to-medium-sized organisations with DBMS support, but their performance is also governed by the hardware that they are running on and any other software running on the same server.

Geoff Halprin: Microsoft's SQL Server serves the needs of small businesses well, but it does not scale to corporate needs. It is not industrial strength.

I am not aware of any large businesses using SQL Server beyond the workgroup environment.

< Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next >

Like this article? Click below to send it to your mobile for free!

Talkback 28 comments

  1. I find the comments about Unix versions other than Solaris becoming considered "legacy" systems rather funny. I believe it was Solaris that recently announced they would no longer be developing a version for Intel... Furthermore; the Anonymous -- 06/02/02

    I find the comments about Unix versions other than Solaris becoming considered "legacy" systems rather funny. I believe it was Solaris that recently announced they would no longer be developing a version for Intel...

    Furthermore; the only reason there is an "OS War" is because Microsoft is more interested in making money and increasing their market share than meeting the needs of their customers. Linux is not the one with the "secret" protocols and undocumented "standards."

  2. I wish you'd research stats before publishing them. Im referring to Meta's claim that Apache has a lesser market share than IIS. As of Jan 2002, Apache has a 63.69% market share and IIS 26.07% (source Netcraft survey) One would think that Meta has be Anonymous -- 06/02/02

    I wish you'd research stats before publishing them. Im referring to Meta's claim that Apache has a lesser market share than IIS. As of Jan 2002, Apache has a 63.69% market share and IIS 26.07% (source Netcraft survey)
    One would think that Meta has been paid off by Micro$oft to publish such figures.

  3. This Kevin Mclsaac is simlply ignorant. Linux is not scalable ? and windows is ?!? Kevin - have you gone over the edge ? fail safe and scalability in Linux are far greater than in ANY MS platform (did you hear that ellison in moving oracle over to Li Mark Veltzer -- 06/02/02

    This Kevin Mclsaac is simlply ignorant.
    Linux is not scalable ? and windows is ?!? Kevin - have you gone over the edge ? fail safe and scalability in Linux are far greater than in ANY MS platform (did you hear that ellison in moving oracle over to Linux ?).
    I'm sorry that Microsfot doesn't have that capability but Micorosft simply do not know how to program operating systems. Go home MS. You're done here. Billg - it's time to find a real job (try a fast food place).

  4. Apache has had approximately 60% market share over the last 12 or 18 months. If IIS had 47% as you say, the total market would be: 60 + 47 + (iWS share) + (others) > 117% Are you sure your math is OK? Anonymous -- 06/02/02

    Apache has had approximately 60% market share over the last 12 or 18 months. If IIS had 47% as you say, the total market would be:

    60 + 47 + (iWS share) + (others) > 117%

    Are you sure your math is OK?

  5. META Group want to consider whether having a "program director for server infrastructure strategies" who seems to only consider a single vendors products, and dismisses all others is really providing the best possible service to the group. Anonymous -- 06/02/02

    META Group want to consider whether having a "program director for server infrastructure strategies" who seems to only consider a single vendors products, and dismisses all others is really providing the best possible service to the group.

  6. Applications: LTSP absolutely hammers any of the Windows-based Application Servers for efficiency and reliability, and offers a wide range of completely open development environments using well-proven tools, so anyone developing a custom app - particularl Leon Brooks -- 06/02/02

    Applications: LTSP absolutely hammers any of the Windows-based Application Servers for efficiency and reliability, and offers a wide range of completely open development environments using well-proven tools, so anyone developing a custom app - particularly if using existing computing infrastructure is helpful - would find it an expensive option to ignore.

  7. Networking: Active Directory can easily become a rolling disaster unless - and sometimes even if - (1) all participants are 100% Microsoft and (2) you do everything exactly as Microsoft tells you to; a better solution which doesn't look as pretty on organ Leon Brooks -- 06/02/02

    Networking: Active Directory can easily become a rolling disaster unless - and sometimes even if - (1) all participants are 100% Microsoft and (2) you do everything exactly as Microsoft tells you to; a better solution which doesn't look as pretty on organisational charts but is a lot more robust and flexible is a blend of Samba (if you must support Windows clients), LDAP and BIND.

  8. File and Print serving can be done in a variety of ways. One reason why many people don't use the NT security features is because they're slow, and making extensive use of them makes them even slower. The MindCraft fiasco was done on a FAT (correction, ma Leon Brooks -- 06/02/02

    File and Print serving can be done in a variety of ways. One reason why many people don't use the NT security features is because they're slow, and making extensive use of them makes them even slower. The MindCraft fiasco was done on a FAT (correction, many FAT) filesystem(s) for a reason. If you're supporting Windows clients, Samba is the answer to your prayers. It is infinitely more flexible than the Windows file shares, and if you want ACLs they are available on a choice of filesystems, many of them truly journalling (ie replays are rare and they actually work when you do them). Otherwise, pick from a plethora of distributed filesystems. For printing, choose lprNG for highly robust or CUPS for fancy. Your boxes will handle heaps more jobs per unit, and you don't lose the bells and whistles like automated printer driver installation etc.

  9. Web Services: IIS offers no advantage over Apache, and Apache has several distinct advantages over IIS. ChilliSoft will let you run ASPs if you want to (I don't recommend VB, particularly for server apps), there are three different FrontPage implementatio Leon Brooks -- 06/02/02

    Web Services: IIS offers no advantage over Apache, and Apache has several distinct advantages over IIS. ChilliSoft will let you run ASPs if you want to (I don't recommend VB, particularly for server apps), there are three different FrontPage implementations, you can script in a gazillion different languages without touching FrontPage or anything Microsoft, you can tune, balance, rewrite, redirect, proxy, reverse-proxy and manner of other server magic and this is all just with the standard server. Add PHP or the like and if it can be done with a webserver, it can be done here. There are also Open webservers available for raw speed (TUX2), from-the-ground-up object orientation (Zope), over-zealous security and all manner of other specialised functions. Open means that you don't have to wait for a megacorp to (1) feel the pain (2) decide that a fix is worthwhile (3) plan the fix (4) write the fix (5) make the fix available and (6) advertise the fix; if necessary, you can even fix things yourself on the spot (or hire someone to). And when things do break, the flaw is often difficult to use and offers limited scope for damage, contrast this with the public access installed by CodeRed and Nimda.

  10. Database services very rarely require anything more complex than PostgreSQL, in fact seldom more complex than MySQL. If you're going to bleed to death through your hip pocket the ride's more fun with Oracle than with MS-SQL server. And there *are* other h Leon Brooks -- 06/02/02

    Database services very rarely require anything more complex than PostgreSQL, in fact seldom more complex than MySQL. If you're going to bleed to death through your hip pocket the ride's more fun with Oracle than with MS-SQL server. And there *are* other high-end options ike SAP-DB. It's insane to entrust mission-critical data a DB whose makers and purveyors recommend clusters *for*reliability*, a clear indication that either or both of the DB and the OS supporting it are broken. Oracle's not as unbreakable as they'd have you believe but it's orders of magnitude safer than MS-SQL Server. If you're going to cut corners with your DB, PostgreSQL does stored procedures, hot backups, yadda yadda, just like MS-SQL but without the OS, licencing, and security trauma, and without the breath-taking price tag.

  11. Email can be done simply, securely and flexibly with PostFix. I don't do truly large enterprise sites, but have talked with people who do, and there's rarely a job that PostFix can't do. And once it's doing it, it does it forever. It simply does not break Leon Brooks -- 06/02/02

    Email can be done simply, securely and flexibly with PostFix. I don't do truly large enterprise sites, but have talked with people who do, and there's rarely a job that PostFix can't do. And once it's doing it, it does it forever. It simply does not break. Outlook+Exhange, OTOH, is a cracker's dream. To illustrate, on Thursday I gained a new client. Before we got down our checklists to ``make sure the installed virus checkers are working'' or installing Sophos on their mail server on Friday (we like to use two different scanners), their trial-version licence expired on all of their virus checkers at Thursday midnight. By 8AM Friday, one machine had been virus-bombed and had no less than 67 different viruses (so says Leprechaun), and every machine in the office was enthusiastically bombarding everyone they knew with the company's private documents. They're now switching to Mozilla for mail and looking at Linux+StarOffice for most of their workstations. Exchange itself is intrinsically insecure (I know of very few other MTAs which give messages carte blanche on the whole email database) and very resource-hungry. Oh, and did I mention expensive?

  12. A staggering amount of personal bias showed in these interviewees. One was clearly a Microserf, another loved Solaris, and so on. I'm a pragmatist: I use whatever works, I use whatever's safe. Consequently, my basic message is ABM (Anything But Microsoft) Leon Brooks -- 07/02/02

    A staggering amount of personal bias showed in these interviewees. One was clearly a Microserf, another loved Solaris, and so on. I'm a pragmatist: I use whatever works, I use whatever's safe. Consequently, my basic message is ABM (Anything But Microsoft) because most other solutions are secure and reliable, and more importantly because Microsoft have demonstrated times without number that they'll do absolutely anything to get the sale, rules and morality be damned if possible. No matter how many times they say it and how nicely it's phrased, corporately THEY NEVER HAVE YOUR BEST INTERESTS AT HEART, THEY ARE EAGER TO CHEAT AND MISLEAD TO GET YOUR MONEY. Yes, this is typical of many corporations, but Microsoft are singularly effective at it. What this means in practice is that YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO USE MICROSOFT SOFTWARE. People have been saying this for years, and still we have USS Yorktowns, we have Spyglasses, we have Stackers and Blue Mountains happening today, to say nothing of the occasional internet tragedy when Goner or whatever the next Microsoft Worm Of The Month is comes past. Can you imagine what will happen if .NET becomes popular, and some meathead writes a virus that totals Microsoft's .NET servers? Or one that spreads through .NET? Amongst other things, they'll tell the US Gummint that it's in their best interests to help fix things - and if the past is of any value as a predictor, the US Gummint will buy it hook, line and sinker. Clearly, Microsoft are still not planning for anyone else's best interests but their own, and even then only in the short term. On the other hand, you can put in a box running Novell, Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, OS/2, name it and it will tick along nicely for years and years without attention (except that Internet-exposed boxes will need security updates), without 'phoning home with your private business information, and without funny licencing plans nickel-and-diming you to death. You hear of Novell and *BSD servers being cemented into walls for years (we had one of those at the Uni of Western Australia not long ago) without anyone noticing because It Just Works, but you never hear of that happening to a Microsoft box.

  13. Thanks, good night. (-: Leon Brooks -- 07/02/02

    Thanks, good night. (-:

  14. I guess some people don't know how to read ... The article clearly states web servers among Fortune 1000 companies. This means that at the most 1000 people said what web servers are used at their respective companies. This of course is quite dif Anonymous -- 07/02/02

    I guess some people don't know how to read ... The article clearly states web servers among Fortune 1000 companies. This means that at the most 1000 people said what web servers are used at their respective companies.

    This of course is quite different then the netcraft results which are obtained through some form of automated global probing.

    Which one has more value? Netcraft results, I say. However, for some entrepise tech puppet manager the META group survey holds more value then the netcraft survey.

  15. Windows versus the world. A key point no one made in these articles is that Unix, in general, is like one big OS with lots of flavor options. I.e. I can build a J2EE platform on Linux or BSD, tune it, test it, and then roll it out on HPUX or So Scott Marlowe -- 07/02/02

    Windows versus the world.

    A key point no one made in these articles is that Unix, in general, is like one big OS with lots of flavor options. I.e. I can build a J2EE platform on Linux or BSD, tune it, test it, and then roll it out on HPUX or Solaris. They're pretty much the same. The same is true for much of the underlying stucture like databases. Oracle on Linux is pretty much like Oracle on Solaris.

    Use apache with PHP or mod_perl and you get the same kind of portability.

    This allows for easy and fast switching when necessary. Linux on a Dual PII isn't fast enough, then maybe a 16 way Ultra Sparc is the answer, or maybe a mainframe running Linux, or maybe a medium sized HP Superdome. I can test all of these systems running the same (or very nearly the same) software and decide.

    If Windows can't handle the load, how do I switch my .net / vbscript / C# stuff over to bigger iron? Short answer is I can't, long answer is I can, but the cost of conversion will kill me.

    Oh, and if you think MSSQL is a match for Postgresql version 7.1.x or the soon to be released 7.2.x versions, you haven't much experience with real databases. Postgresql is fast, reliable, feature rich, and strives for SQL92 compliance. We've been running dozens of database instances on one server for years with ZERO downtime or failures.

  16. Exchange is NOT easy to setup, configure, and secure. Dean Thompson seems to think that it is. Well, I guess if your idea of easy is building a jet engine from spare parts you found in your basement on a saturday afternoon, than sure! Exhange would be eas Walt Reed -- 07/02/02

    Exchange is NOT easy to setup, configure, and secure. Dean Thompson seems to think that it is. Well, I guess if your idea of easy is building a jet engine from spare parts you found in your basement on a saturday afternoon, than sure! Exhange would be easy.

    In fact, for someone not familiar with exchange, but who may be an expert of all other aspects of Windows, exchange is a Major learning curve. You must learn many new concepts such as X.400, the "message store", discover all the hidden depths of configuration options, etc. Exchange is one of the most (if not THE most) complicated products microsoft makes. For an exchange first-timer, I would allocate at least a week or two of time to learn and configure exchange.

    Being complicated is not always a bad thing, but for a small business it may be. I would NEVER reccomend exchange to an organization with fewer than 300 people as exchange pretty much requires a 1/2 time person to manage it. For the typical small business (under 100) I find it totally inappropriate. At about $70 / person, the license cost is high for many small companies. This does not include the costs of all the add-on products needed such as virus scanning, spam filtering,
    etc.

    While the base install of exchange isn't all THAT difficult, configuring it for your business and securing it agains spammers, hackers, and viruses IS.

    For someone with even a relativly small amount of experience in Linux, setting up a Linux mail server is an afternoon project. It's simple to administer as the concepts are simple to understand. RedHat's configuration only requires a couple minor edits and you are up and running.

    Frankly, I have yet to find a "small business" where more than a couple "power users" utilize the advanced features of exchange such as integrated shared calendaring. Most just use simple email. Exchange is MASSIVE overkill for that.

    From an administrative perspective, the "black box" nature of exchange and it's message store are quite frustrating. There are no tools to automate user management such as creating / deleting / altering hundreds of accounts at a time, exporting / archiving a users mailbox, etc. These tasks are trivial under Unix.

    In conclusion, the only time where I feel exchange is appropriate is where the majority of the user base has a demonstrable need for the highly integrated featureset of exchange, and a large budget to implement and manage it. In any case, I would NEVER EVER put an exchange box directly on the internet - ALWAYS front end it with a UNIX relay (or 3) for both in and outbound mail (the reasons for this are complicated, and would take a while to explain, but trust me on this one...)

  17. Strange, I got the feeling, that aricles like this one are sponsored by Microsoft lovers, but are usually read by Microsoft haters. Sasun Pundev -- 07/02/02

    Strange,
    I got the feeling, that aricles like this one are sponsored by Microsoft lovers, but are usually read by Microsoft haters.

  18. RE: Mail Servers The folks commenting seem to couch MS Exchange as the only alternative on Windows. Lotus Notes is an excellent Mail Server and still the groupware king. It too is immune to viruses that affect Outlook/Exchange. It is available Laurence Wagner -- 07/02/02

    RE: Mail Servers

    The folks commenting seem to couch MS Exchange as the only alternative on Windows. Lotus Notes is an excellent Mail Server and still the groupware king. It too is immune to viruses that affect Outlook/Exchange. It is available on Windows, Linux, Solaris, AIX, and even MVS. Its application development platform for databases is documented as twice as fast as with MS toolset, and application development is highly integrated to the mail functions.

  19. Who would have thought people's opinions could be biased? Idiots. Anonymous -- 07/02/02

    Who would have thought people's opinions could be biased? Idiots.

  20. SQL Server a low end option? You're joking. Check http://www.tpc.org and look at the transaction benchmarks by top ten performers. SQL Server tops the lot at over 11,000 TPS. Kelley Johnston -- 07/02/02

    SQL Server a low end option? You're joking. Check http://www.tpc.org and look at the transaction benchmarks by top ten performers. SQL Server tops the lot at over 11,000 TPS.

  21. What about a "One box does all" solution? In such an instance, Unix (including Linux) wins hands-down. And you don't have to be a Linux guru to set one up! An example is the E-Smith server. (http://www.e-smith.org) As proven Anonymous -- 07/02/02

    What about a "One box does all" solution? In such an instance, Unix (including Linux) wins hands-down. And you don't have to be a Linux guru to set one up!

    An example is the E-Smith server. (http://www.e-smith.org)

    As proven multiple times, Linux can be deployed on "junk" hardware. In my business, with a network of 11 computers, I have been able to deploy it on an old P100 with 32Mb of RAM.

    It currently serves the following roles: (Ordered along with the above review)

    1) Mail Server - QPop. Setup via "templates" (Wizards to MS users)

    2) Web Server - Apache

    3) Database Server - MySQL

    4) File & Print Serving - Samba. (Currently serving a Canon BJC3000, an Epson Stylus Color 740 and a Mita Copier (with printer interface - running as a 22ppm laser!) With tweaks, you can even set up a standard printer as a Postscript printer via software!

    5) Not an Application Server... Yet... However, the moment that WINE can run MYOB Premier with decent speed, I'll be throwing on X and doing away with the Win2K Terminal Server, that's for sure! I disagree with comments that Linux will not make it as an Application Server - the framework is there. If you don't use Windows Apps, you've already got it! Otherwise, WINE may be the key, or perhaps Win4Lin Server? A perfect TS-killer...

    6) Network services:
    Directory Services via OpenLDAP
    DNS via Bind
    Proxy via Squid
    Firewall (Duh!)
    Remote Access via Telnet, SSL or WebAdmin.
    Also supports AppleTalk & IPX out of the box.

    7) Staffing Issues: What staffing issues? There's a wizard setup on the box itself (which is set and forget) and then all admin is done via any html client. Using Windows on the desktop? You can use IE to configure and administer your server. Point and click stuff.

    Being Linux, you can modify it. I've added a fax server, virus scanner and MP3 jukebox and Email to SMS gateway to it personally.

    Uptime is incredible, speed is incredible, cost is nothing. (P100 was lying around as a doorstop.)

    Bigger enterprises (1000+ computers) have reported fantastic successes with the same product by using a higher performance computer. I'd drool for a dual AthlonMP 2000+ on this sucker!

  22. >Strange, >I got the feeling, that aricles like this one >are sponsored by Microsoft lovers, but are >usually read by Microsoft haters. Has it occurred to you that the article isn't "sponsored by" anyone? T Anonymous -- 07/02/02

    >Strange,
    >I got the feeling, that aricles like this one
    >are sponsored by Microsoft lovers, but are
    >usually read by Microsoft haters.

    Has it occurred to you that the article isn't "sponsored by" anyone? There's fashionable cynicism and then there's knee-jerk paranoia. Want to guess which side of the line you're on...?

    Keep living in your X-Files world, buddy, they'll come and get you soon enough.

  23. What a load of crock! I could pick up a second hand PowerPC for $100, put the free SIMS (Stalker Internet Mail Server) on it, connect it to an ADSL service with a static IP if you want, and you would have a virtually free setup that is bullet pr James -- 07/02/02

    What a load of crock!

    I could pick up a second hand PowerPC for $100, put the free SIMS (Stalker Internet Mail Server) on it, connect it to an ADSL service with a static IP if you want, and you would have a virtually free setup that is bullet proof, with an almost unhackable and virus proof (Mac OS; you can’t have it both ways!) mail server that would suit up to @300 clients.

    Small upgrades would epxnad it nicely (e.g.: EIMS - Eudora Internet Mail Server, or WebStar etc.).

  24. There's numerous things about this article that catch my eye. For smaller companies, MSFT Exchange is just too complex a beast. If you don't have someone at nearly full-time capacity to manage it, all those bells and whistles are worthless. Lo Anonymous -- 07/02/02

    There's numerous things about this article that catch my eye.

    For smaller companies, MSFT Exchange is just too complex a beast. If you don't have someone at nearly full-time capacity to manage it, all those bells and whistles are worthless. Lotus Notes too (as one commenter suggested). Ipswitch Softare's Imail server on Win2k is a much better solution until your needs grow where you can afford an Exchange Admin.

    For companies (like my employer) who do large volumes of email (8+ million per week, some days 3+ million), I'd forget about MSFT-based systems. Those proprietary systems on the Windows platform that do perform well have been either originally developed for *nix or ported to *nix. There's no reason to use MSFT servers for this (and many reason no to).

    MSFT SQL (arguably MSFT's best product) does indeed find use beyond the "workgroup." MSFT's own web site attests to that (20 million page view a day http://www.microsoft.com/backstage/inside.htm) with an SQL 2000 backend. If Halprin isn't aware of this, he must not get out much. There's a long list of people using MSFT SQL at the enterprise level at http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/casestudies/alphalisting.asp

    Borenstein's comment: ("NT/Netware specialists increasingly have Unix experience") - well, that's certainly correct, but somehow it came across strangely in my mind (in that context). One thing that's widely known within the IT field is that virtually all Unix admins have vast knowledge of MSFT Windows, in many cases more expertise than your average MCSE. Yet huge numbers of Windows admins don't anything about Unix.

  25. The organisation I work for have moved away totally from the Windows environment to the Apple platform. Gone are the headaches and downtime and huge money in support being spent. Now we have no problems and more money in our IT budget. Staff are more p Anonymous -- 07/02/02

    The organisation I work for have moved away totally from the Windows environment to the Apple platform. Gone are the headaches and downtime and huge money in support being spent. Now we have no problems and more money in our IT budget. Staff are more productive and happy with a computer network that works!

  26. Unix easily integrates with Windows For those who are not aware, the new winbind feature in samba 2.2.3a allows one to easily integrate unix (incl linux) servers into a windows-only network. Thus, after setting up a linux (with winbind) box runn Buchan Milne -- 12/02/02

    Unix easily integrates with Windows

    For those who are not aware, the new winbind feature in samba 2.2.3a allows one to easily integrate unix (incl linux) servers into a windows-only network. Thus, after setting up a linux (with winbind) box running something like postfix and courier IMAP, any user who is in the Windows Domain will have working email, without any further configuration. File service (with ACLs on filesystems that support them, such as XFS) is also available of course, out the box.

    Samba 2.2.x also support print driver downloads (as Windows NT has for a while), but CUPS blows MS printing out the water. Configure one CUPS server on the network, and all unix boxes (that have CUPS) will instantly be able to print to the new printer without any driver worries. Any samba server will be able to spool documents from windows clients to the CUPS printer spool, and will only need drivers for Windows clients installed.

    For companies without an investment in Windows NT or Windows 2000 servers, LDAP + Samba provide the same functionality as Active Directory.

    The only feature available in Windows software which has no free equivalent on unix is calendaring, but that you have to pay for on Windows anyway (in both $ and uptime - Exchange).

    The best thing about linux is that it means you can use any client to connect to it, from unix to Windows to Mac.

  27. What I think some people fail to realize is that UNIX based servers have been around for quite some time. What ran web/archie/gopher/ftp sites prior to the advent of Windows? UNIX. What ran mail servers prior to Windows? UNIX. Why should I instruct a cust Stephen M. KUhn -- 21/02/02

    What I think some people fail to realize is that UNIX based servers have been around for quite some time. What ran web/archie/gopher/ftp sites prior to the advent of Windows? UNIX. What ran mail servers prior to Windows? UNIX. Why should I instruct a customer to purcahse several thousand dollars of software and hardware for their Windows network when I can easily and cheaply implement a LINUX on a low-end machine to serve as the mail/web/ftp server without the hassles and harrassments of worms, viruses and software bugs - all for under $1000?

  28. Many portions of this entire "story" were so laughable, it was incredible. But then when I read that Dean Thompson (my name too) wrote that "Systems such as Microsoft Access or Microsoft SQL Server can provide small-to-medium-sized organis Anonymous -- 19/04/02

    Many portions of this entire "story" were so laughable, it was incredible. But then when I read that Dean Thompson (my name too) wrote that "Systems such as Microsoft Access or Microsoft SQL Server can provide small-to-medium-sized organisations with DBMS support, but their performance is also governed by the hardware that they are running on and any other software running on the same server. " and Geoff Halprin wrote "I am not aware of any large businesses using SQL Server beyond the workgroup environment.", they both showed that they had no idea of what is going on in the real world.

    As an example, Compaq runs the largest SAP installation ANYWHERE on SQL Server. How about Verizon's multi-terrabyte SQL Server database? Or Unisys' multi-terrabyte database, again on SQL Server? Or Microsoft's own TerraServer? Nasdaq? A quick check to SAP and PeopleSoft will show that SQL Server not only competes in the real world, it is beginning to dominate.

    Not to mention that Oracle cannot even touch SQL Server's TPM/C on TPC.org. Oh, you might also check on a per CPU level too. Notice that Oracle won't compete with SQL Server there either.

    Simply put, these people merely exhibited their own personal biases. One of whom is a graduate student, gee who'd have guessed he would have a Unix bias?

    This entire article only illustrated that their induhvidual pannelists were not chosen for their real world accomplishments.

Add your opinion


Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Alex Serpo Will the NSW Govt put Linux in schools?
    The NSW Government's release this week of an expressions of interest tender to give low-cost laptops to every senior public school student in NSW is a big step, but will these systems be Windows or Linux?
  • Array Naked Mac versus protected PC: What wins?
    What's easier to manage — 200 Mac OS X systems without antivirus or 200 Windows systems running a leading antivirus package?
  • Array Dear Telstra: pack up your toys, go home
    Rejecting Telstra's proposal, after all, is the only conclusion Conroy can reach: as someone whose entire philosophy is built around transparency and process, he simply cannot keep Telstra as part of the NBN bidding process anymore.
  • More blogs »

Tags

  1. 449 articles are tagged with 3g
  2. 1182 articles are tagged with apple
  3. 495 articles are tagged with australia
  4. 10 articles are tagged with basslink
  5. 162 articles are tagged with blackberry
  6. 1201 articles are tagged with broadband
  7. 60 articles are tagged with careers
  8. 160 articles are tagged with ceo
  9. 558 articles are tagged with cio
  10. 61 articles are tagged with commander
  11. 118 articles are tagged with conroy
  12. 51 articles are tagged with cuts
  13. 478 articles are tagged with dell
  14. 150 articles are tagged with developers
  15. 156 articles are tagged with eds
  16. 51 articles are tagged with filter
  17. 968 articles are tagged with google
  18. 875 articles are tagged with government
  19. 167 articles are tagged with hardware
  20. 718 articles are tagged with hp
  21. 149 articles are tagged with iinet
  22. 960 articles are tagged with intel
  23. 112 articles are tagged with internode
  24. 276 articles are tagged with iphone
  25. 248 articles are tagged with isp
  26. 670 articles are tagged with jobs
  27. 23 articles are tagged with kevin rudd
  28. 112 articles are tagged with layoffs
  29. 2048 articles are tagged with linux
  30. 1302 articles are tagged with microsoft
  31. 1040 articles are tagged with mobile
  32. 279 articles are tagged with mobile phone
  33. 37 articles are tagged with national broadband network
  34. 80 articles are tagged with nbn
  35. 724 articles are tagged with optus
  36. 32 articles are tagged with president
  37. 48 articles are tagged with redundancies
  38. 421 articles are tagged with search
  39. 2575 articles are tagged with security
  40. 17 articles are tagged with simon hackett
  41. 62 articles are tagged with social networking
  42. 1239 articles are tagged with software
  43. 66 articles are tagged with stephen conroy
  44. 71 articles are tagged with steve ballmer
  45. 137 articles are tagged with sydney
  46. 66 articles are tagged with tasmania
  47. 2010 articles are tagged with telstra
  48. 43 articles are tagged with terria
  49. 51 articles are tagged with trujillo
  50. 19 articles are tagged with twitter

Back to top

Featured