carl_legere
asked on
Best commercial UNIX/LINUX that is modern?
I suppose what I'm looking for is concise pro's and con's reguarding commercial (paid for) modern linux/unix for business. What has the potential to outperform windows on intel hardware for normal office needs.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Memphis is a very nice distro from the presentation perspective.
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/RedHat/rhel-forks.html
gives a number of RHEL forks - I recommend either CentOS, LEL, Whitebox as they are direct clones of Redhat Enterprise Linux and are excellent candidates if you are looking for a Linux server distro as they benefit from the stability and the extended support provided by Redhat as binaries are interchangeable.
http://distrowatch.com/index.php
is an useful link if you'd like to have a look at what distros are out there.......or of course you could always create your own?;)
Comment from pjedmond
Date: 07/04/2006 08:33PM BST
Your Comment
Normal Office needs? Server or Workstation?
Workstation:
The key thing here is staff familiarity. They are more likely to be familiar with windows. Ubuntu and Lindows and a few other distros are becoming more friendly, but gaining familiarity costs time (and hence money)
Open Office and other applications are available 'free' for *nix, but are not always as fully integrated and fully featured. Then again very few people use the full office functionality.
Specialist applications are available on Windows only platforms. Wine and Crossover will enable you to run some, but not all applications, but some may still need to run on a Windows Application Terminal Server.
Overall, I think that at the moment, windows wins in this area due to the retraining requirements, and the fact that many custom/specialist applications are tied to windows.
Server:
Costs of server software make a significant impact in any companies IT budget. Here Linux is a clear winner if open source software is used.
Performance of many applications is can be made better on a *nix platform than a Windos platform as the GUI can be disabled. An exception that I've found here is that 'default' IIS performs better than 'default' apache. However apache makes up for this when flexibility is required.
Cost of sysadmins - Apparently *nix sysadmins are more expensive than their M$ counterparts...but I'm sure that we make up for it in respect of our greater skill set;) Most of us...well at least I can....look after Windows servers as well.
Unless you have at least 4 or 5 *nix servers, you can't justify a dedicated *nix sysadmin.
Insurance - Some insurance firms dislike 'non-standard' operating systems such as linux. Going with RedHat EL may satisfy them, but personally I dislike the thought of paying a huge maintenance contract. - I'd rather get paid it:)
For standard (Webserver/mailserver/file
I'm sure that many people will post costing whitepapers comparing windows with linux. I will not, as there is almost always an ulterior motive behind the study. In my experience I'd consider Linux to be the better server in most cases where it is suitable, and Windows to be the better client in most places...but Linux is starting to catch up on the desktop
( (()
(`-' _\
'' ''
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/RedHat/rhel-forks.html
gives a number of RHEL forks - I recommend either CentOS, LEL, Whitebox as they are direct clones of Redhat Enterprise Linux and are excellent candidates if you are looking for a Linux server distro as they benefit from the stability and the extended support provided by Redhat as binaries are interchangeable.
http://distrowatch.com/index.php
is an useful link if you'd like to have a look at what distros are out there.......or of course you could always create your own?;)
Comment from pjedmond
Date: 07/04/2006 08:33PM BST
Your Comment
Normal Office needs? Server or Workstation?
Workstation:
The key thing here is staff familiarity. They are more likely to be familiar with windows. Ubuntu and Lindows and a few other distros are becoming more friendly, but gaining familiarity costs time (and hence money)
Open Office and other applications are available 'free' for *nix, but are not always as fully integrated and fully featured. Then again very few people use the full office functionality.
Specialist applications are available on Windows only platforms. Wine and Crossover will enable you to run some, but not all applications, but some may still need to run on a Windows Application Terminal Server.
Overall, I think that at the moment, windows wins in this area due to the retraining requirements, and the fact that many custom/specialist applications are tied to windows.
Server:
Costs of server software make a significant impact in any companies IT budget. Here Linux is a clear winner if open source software is used.
Performance of many applications is can be made better on a *nix platform than a Windos platform as the GUI can be disabled. An exception that I've found here is that 'default' IIS performs better than 'default' apache. However apache makes up for this when flexibility is required.
Cost of sysadmins - Apparently *nix sysadmins are more expensive than their M$ counterparts...but I'm sure that we make up for it in respect of our greater skill set;) Most of us...well at least I can....look after Windows servers as well.
Unless you have at least 4 or 5 *nix servers, you can't justify a dedicated *nix sysadmin.
Insurance - Some insurance firms dislike 'non-standard' operating systems such as linux. Going with RedHat EL may satisfy them, but personally I dislike the thought of paying a huge maintenance contract. - I'd rather get paid it:)
For standard (Webserver/mailserver/file
I'm sure that many people will post costing whitepapers comparing windows with linux. I will not, as there is almost always an ulterior motive behind the study. In my experience I'd consider Linux to be the better server in most cases where it is suitable, and Windows to be the better client in most places...but Linux is starting to catch up on the desktop
( (()
(`-' _\
'' ''
Sorry - cut and paste went a bit wrong there!
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
You can now install a Linux server as well on Windows Virtual Server 2005.
Which is also free.
I guess Microsoft is catching on to some Open Source benefits.
Which is also free.
I guess Microsoft is catching on to some Open Source benefits.
>You can now install a Linux server as well on Windows Virtual Server 2005.
>Which is also free.
Pity that you need to get a Windows server Licence first in order to run it!
( (()
(`-' _\
'' ''
>Which is also free.
Pity that you need to get a Windows server Licence first in order to run it!
( (()
(`-' _\
'' ''
The virtual server is free, I don't know if you have to be running Windows Server to install and use it, never looked to see.
But the Windows Server license costs less than most Linux Servers do to build [experience].
I finally bought some Windows Server licenses after many years of their providing them for free.
:)
But the Windows Server license costs less than most Linux Servers do to build [experience].
I finally bought some Windows Server licenses after many years of their providing them for free.
:)
ASKER