PC or Mac?

At the end of the day linux still has a LONG way to go before it can replace windows for many. Its still nowhere near as easy to use, nor does it have the same level of support. I remember a guy i work with about 5 years ago tried telling me that in 2 or 3 years time linux would be more or less taking over from windows. Its never happenned, and in all that time, it doesnt seem to me to be any closer to happenning.

In the end, people recognise windows does what they want it to do, its easy to use and they'll put up with a couple of small niggles just to get the job done. Linux for me is a long way off being that good.

 

Bollox, but as you said "IMO" I let you off. Some of us here are old enough to remember what various versions of Windows reminded us of

Some of my former collegues use Linux and are able to do virtually everything that they can with Windows. There will always be some exceptions but apart from Visio I personally cannot think of any apps that I use that I can't run in SuSE 10.0 for example. For Networking people it offers far more than Windows does. Ubuntu seems as easy to install and use as any OS I've come across.

While I agree to a certain extent with your comments about Linux desktops at home, you may be surprised by just how many Linux servers are there on the Internet.

 

MS are catching up though, I can't remember the stats but 5 years ago I think 90% of servers were to Linux, now its more like 60%. I do think Linux/Apache/PHP is more stable than IIS and ASP.NET though.

I really like the MS programming platform but I always use Linux/PHP for web work as it is much cheaper.

 

What like this you mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Xerox_star_desktop.jpg

But to be honest, I am glad I am not that old, thank you very much

 

Ymmv

It is sometimes all too easy to look thought rose tinted glasses at the early incarnations of windows but some were rather good

 

Actually a really good example of this type of window can be found in Wilton of all places, where the carpet comes from. The church stands out by virtue of the fact its huge and the town is small.

 

All due to the hugh wealth brought about in olden times by wool I expect.

 

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/apple.php

 

'A propos', my wife's PC is in trouble - since today...

 

I don't think your stats are particularly accurate. Unix variants (as opposed to Linux in particular) accounted for the majority of web servers - not to be confused with 'servers' in general, but I believe the figure was arguably fairly close to half of all web servers. W+IIS accounted for the majority of the remaining half, though the issue is clouded by the possibility of running Apache on Windows (don't forget that these surveys usually consist of a mixture of specific sampling from a reduced population (as per TV viewing figures) combined with actual statistical sampling (most probably reading HTTP header strings, which would result in some false positives for Apache).

Additionally, you fail to account for the majority of corporate intranet servers which are IIS based. I know we have a drive toward a huuuuge investment in IIS-based W2K3 boxen, even though the odd rogue LAMP box exists (normally as a result of 'someone going it alone (good on 'em)').

Anyway, LAMP isn't necessarily any more stable than W2K+/IIS, despite my earlier arguments that the desktop Windows offerings are unreliable. I've been running my own dedicated web servers since 2000, originally NT4/AS+IIS, now W2K/AS+IIS, and they have been rock-solid reliable. WHich points to Windows desktop apps being uneasy bedfellows in the reliability stakes.

FWIW, I think Apache is where it's at, but I am more experienced in developing for, and working with, W2K+/AS based IIS infrastructures, and I personally find them very dependable. In terms of security, well, that's well publicised and I reckon most security breaches are a result of users' interactive use of Windows machines, rather than direct hacking as such (assuming that any server is living behind at least a basic firewall, and has ports locked down and the latest MS patches).

The desktop Windows OS', on the other hand... well, I don't want to get back into my wrangling with my good ole buddy Greg on this point. Let's just say that I think Windows in general has a way to go as a 'user platform' whilst their Server products are a lot better. Security concerns to one side, of course - but that's also true of LAMP, just not so widely publicised.

I will shortly be regaining possession of an old web server (W2K/AS, dual Xeon 3GHz, 2Gb RAM, 15K SCSI U320 drives in RAID 1) which I intend to turn into a LAMP box. Probably...

 

Obviously discounting Exchange Server, which is the most effective global virus delivery system known to man concealed within a barely average messaging system. A trojan horse.

Tony.

 

But the desktop NT/Win2K/XP "professional" series (now just plain XP) are based on the same code stream, kernal and services so here your argument appears to contradict itself.

 

Trojan, Virus. . we are talking about Server Transmitted Diseases aren't we?

 

spot on.

 

Tony, I was meaning their IIS server.

Greg, my argument doesn't contradict itself if you read carefully my caveat that I'm talking about Windows server OS' and their use FOR OPERATING AS SERVERS - i.e. without interactive user sessions.

In other words, no Word. No Outlook. None of the crud, such as MSN Messenger. Locked down (to the extent that it would be somewhat difficult to use as a desktop machine anyway).

IF one does those things, and restricts the use of the Windows boxen to carefully configured services (as opposed to applications) and puts the latest patches in place, and IF AND ONLY IF the normal crud isn't installed, or is removed or disabled, and a firewall is in place, and ONLY IF one knows exactly what one is doing from a security configuration standpoint AND SUBJECT TO THE CAVEAT that one ensures said services are running with only the appropriate privilege contexts and not a jot more, then and ONLY THEN can one relax and feel that the W2K+/AS server system is reliable and dependable.

In my case, I believe my own servers are, and my work servers most certainly are, but here's the rub:

Stick the self same OS on the desktop, allow the user to actually install software (which more often than not only operates in an administrator context), and actually interact with applications (as opposed to more constrained services) then it all starts to crumble.

I agree that XP is a big improvement over things like 98 and even W2KP, but in many respects it is still far from approaching the stability of a modern, well designed unix. Whether your average Linuxware distro falls into the 'well designed unix' category or not depends on the distro. And OSX certainly does.

John

 

PS. Point about Exchange well made. I've never been responsible for an Exchange server in my line of duty, only a 'consumer' so to speak, and I can't speak for the details, but what Tony says would certainly appear to be true. However, I wouldn't *dream* of sticking Exchange on a web server...

 

John - I'm no Microsoft vanguard. Far from it. We make our living promoting, installing and developing IBM database and middleware products and we encourage our clients to use Linux server OS where possible. I'm not taking an anti-Apple posture, I'm simply recounting our experiences of Windows regards reliability in contrast to your statements of undoubted unreliability. Note I would be saying quite different things prior to 2000.

The subject of the software apps which run on Wndows and their relaibility is a whole different subject. I would agree with you that lots of Windows software is sloppily written and unreliable. I think we are lucky in that the majority of apps we use seem to be pretty well written and reliable. But this isnt much to do with the OS they run on. Note: we dont do much in the way of multiple accounts on single PC's.

 

It would be a very bad dream.

 

My issue with Windows is that when an application goes down, it often takes the system with it. Applications aren't effectively 'sandboxed' and so any one rogue application can cause serious stability issues. Which is why my dev experience points to lots of crashes - if you get your dev app in a pickle, you'd better start thinking about a reboot and go grab a cuppa.

On a properly designed multiuser OS, such as OSX, the very worst that tends to happen is that the application fails, but the machine never needs rebooted. Or, if it does, you have bigger issues (e.g. a hardware issue which has caused a 'kernel panic' (pretty rare these - I've never seen one myself in almost two years of OSX use)).

Putting all of this to one side, the other thing that OSX offers that Windows has yet to offer, is a consistent user interface that is geared around workflow and interoperability. MS would like to claim that Vista will offer improvements in this area, but in my book transparent windows aren't really that useful, and eye-candy for its own sake is nice but doesn't help me become more productive. In OSX, everything looks good but that's only part of it - it has to be functional (in the main, dock delete 'puff of smoke' and the minimise animation aside). Things like the dock 'magnification' is very useful and works beautifully - documents in the Dock have proper representations of their content (e.g. webpages) which scale up and down as I move my mousepointer over them. Exposé allows me to see all windows at the same time, without affecting their running (e.g. a video playing in one remains playing but in a smaller version), and it's reliable, scalable to multiple monitors and once you get used to it (say, firing it off a spare mouse button as I do with my Logitech) it REALLY makes a positive impact on your productivity. Exposé and a usable Dock makes my job so much easier and I am therefore more productive. Sadly, the benefits to me are curtailed by the fact that I spend a lot of time in RDC into Win boxen, and so Exposé can't help me there

 

You're making more sense to me now. Interesting points.