General discussion

Locked

Experience with Linux AND Windows 2000.

By Samuel C. ·
Has somebody Experience with both Windows 2000 and Linux?
(In a Business Environment)
If so does it make sense to use Linux as a Server OS and Windows 98
or 2000 as a Client with Office and all other Regular Applications
Including Oracle for example on the Server.
Compare also Total Cost of Ownership...

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

8 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Experience with Linux AND Windows 2000.

by Dennis@l In reply to Experience with Linux AND ...

I have worked with RISC 6000 operating AIX with win95 clients and oracle. It worked real well. I know that wasn't the question. The bottom line for TCO is, what is the cost per client access/license for Linux verus other OS.

Collapse -

Experience with Linux AND Windows 2000.

by Samuel C. In reply to Experience with Linux AND ...
Collapse -

Experience with Linux AND Windows 2000.

by lowkey In reply to Experience with Linux AND ...

This is going to depend on your environment. In my experience, Linux takes a little longer to setup but once running, it requires less administration time. Other than reading the logs, you can almost forget about it. So for a static environment (like a firewall or file/e-mail servers that get updated every few months) it is a perfect solution (IMHO!).

On the other hand, if your environment is highly dynamic with configurations changing every couple of weeks (like a lot of software development shops) then the additional administration time will add up and Windows wizards begin to pay off. Sure you can use Perl and other scripts to automate Linux but you need to write most of those yourself.

Collapse -

Experience with Linux AND Windows 2000.

by Samuel C. In reply to Experience with Linux AND ...
Collapse -

Experience with Linux AND Windows 2000.

by jclagget In reply to Experience with Linux AND ...

1) Linux has matured quite a bit in the last few years and with free distribution and support virtually everywhere...it is tough not to see the advantages. However, many users are not ready for the CLI Linux posesses.

2) In a business environmentespecially where remote servers are present, I would highly recommend Linux over any flavor of Windows. We have had both in the field and I can tell you that we have more trouble getting Window servers rebooted. TCO is dropping dramatically with theimplementation of Linux servers.

I would use Windows2000 as a client. Tests in our R&amp dept. have shown that applications tend to work better with 2000 than 98...

Collapse -

Experience with Linux AND Windows 2000.

by Samuel C. In reply to Experience with Linux AND ...
Collapse -

Experience with Linux AND Windows 2000.

by Linuxian In reply to Experience with Linux AND ...

I have done several networks for clients that have both Win and Linux servers running. The ONLY reasons I would consider a Windows server is if the office does not have the staff to support it, and you have a need for PDC/BDC redundancy configurations, something that SAMBA can not do.

Windows is idiot proof, Linux isn’t, that’s the bottom line. I would only recommend the Linux solution if you have the staff to support it. If you have the staff in place, then there is no question, you would be crazy not to do the Linux routine.

Remember, you need a CAL for every win98 client that accesses the Win server in addition to the cost of the server itself—very costly. BUT, that expense can be offset pretty fast if the IT staff doesn’t know Vi from Pico when the Linux box goes down.

TCO is primarily a function of day-to-day support more than initial cost of purchase. If you can support the Linux server in-house then you’ll probably be ahead since Linux servers require l

Collapse -

Experience with Linux AND Windows 2000.

by Samuel C. In reply to Experience with Linux AND ...
Back to Linux Forum
8 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums