Oh man, that's just wrong!

That's funny.

Not at all what I was expecting, but that's hilarious.

Your joke is funny. But Linux the most powerful OS in the list of Linux, PC, Mac. The fact is that people are slowly realizing the power and reliability of Linux.

I was expecting something else, but its hilarious

Pwned!

Originally Posted by nilesh.3892

Your joke is funny. But Linux the most powerful OS in the list of Linux, PC, Mac. The fact is that people are slowly realizing the power and reliability of Linux.

No offense but I think that's just your opinion. I'm all for linux, but there's just times when I have to boot into windows, and not because I don't know how to use linux. Every OS has its strong points.

As for how linux is actually doing... I read on slashdot earlier that the $200 linux PCs have sold out:

http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl.../11/12/2235200

Linux is a great OS. Mac is a great OS. Windows is an OK OS. All for different reasons.

Linux is amazing for customizing - the source code is open for any guy off the street to go modifying and the software that comes with it is usually always free. Linux security is the best there is - there are viruses for Linux, but due to well-configured file permissions, they rarely spread around. You need to be logged in as the root user to send viruses on in most cases, and Linux prompts you to login as a normal user in most cases, meaning viruses may not be able to be executed and therefore sent on.

Mac (at least 10.4) is very reliable and has a fantastic interface. It's very fast and it's reasonably secure. It's a great starting point for people wanting to migrate to alternative OS's - I moved to a Mac but now I've started experimenting with Linux too.

Finally, good old (well sort of) Windows. Vista is fairly rubbish according to a number of people in my college form who have tried it - I don't want to go there XP has a lot of vulnerabilities but supposedly not as many as Vista. Windows is best at gaming and compatibility though - with such a large market share most people develop for it.

By the way, nice cartoon Not sure if it's entirely accurate though!

Originally Posted by whym

Linux is a great OS. Mac is a great OS. Windows is an OK OS. All for different reasons.

Linux is amazing for customizing - the source code is open for any guy off the street to go modifying and the software that comes with it is usually always free. Linux security is the best there is - there are viruses for Linux, but due to well-configured file permissions, they rarely spread around. You need to be logged in as the root user to send viruses on in most cases, and Linux prompts you to login as a normal user in most cases, meaning viruses may not be able to be executed and therefore sent on.

Mac (at least 10.4) is very reliable and has a fantastic interface. It's very fast and it's reasonably secure. It's a great starting point for people wanting to migrate to alternative OS's - I moved to a Mac but now I've started experimenting with Linux too.

Finally, good old (well sort of) Windows. Vista is fairly rubbish according to a number of people in my college form who have tried it - I don't want to go there XP has a lot of vulnerabilities but supposedly not as many as Vista. Windows is best at gaming and compatibility though - with such a large market share most people develop for it.

By the way, nice cartoon Not sure if it's entirely accurate though!

Nice Post Dude. A List of merits and demerits of each OS.

As a developer, I've got to disagree. I haven't touched Vista so I can't speak to that one, but Windows Server 2003 is pretty incredible. Speed and reliability tests I've seen show it neck and neck with Solaris 10, followed by Linux. Between IIS as a web server, and just the core Win32/64 functionality, the amount of applications and services available for Windows, and the developer support that makes those last two circular logic, Windows is a very compelling platform.

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

As a developer, I've got to disagree. I haven't touched Vista so I can't speak to that one, but Windows Server 2003 is pretty incredible. Speed and reliability tests I've seen show it neck and neck with Solaris 10, followed by Linux. Between IIS as a web server, and just the core Win32/64 functionality, the amount of applications and services available for Windows, and the developer support that makes those last two circular logic, Windows is a very compelling platform.

If Windows was too good then why 60% of servers run on Linux ?

If Windows was too good then why 60% of servers run on Linux ?

Because linux runs well with a few maintenance for many things, but is not an option for many things.
When it goes to corporation, the "free" argument is not a real argument.
What is the only thing to look at, is what soft/hard-ware solutions are supported, and what support is available.

For a majority of business, price is not the real matter, just a variable in a global equation.
I work into a oracle developer team.
I think oracle is a great application, and can do a lot of things, but if you want or need support from oracle on a particular issue, you need to have an approved chain of computer hardware and software that can be particulary hard to achieve with open source.

I run an linux server for mail, postrgesql, mysql, spam filtering and php/web pages but i would not recommend to anyone to run an oracle server on a linux server if they have the choice.

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

As a developer, I've got to disagree. I haven't touched Vista so I can't speak to that one, but Windows Server 2003 is pretty incredible. Speed and reliability tests I've seen show it neck and neck with Solaris 10, followed by Linux. Between IIS as a web server, and just the core Win32/64 functionality, the amount of applications and services available for Windows, and the developer support that makes those last two circular logic, Windows is a very compelling platform.

You have to look at who conducted the tests and how they were performed. I work for one of the largest computer outsourcing companies in the world, and for the vast majority of projects, neither us nor our clients choose windows server. Even Solaris is fast losing ground to Red Hat.

And Oracle works just fine on Linux.

Yes oracle works fine on linux, but a my workplace for instance, we run 3 clustered DELL servers with a fiber channel SCSI array bay.

When a problem rise up, we must have a specific driver version with specific hardware configuration to be eligible for support.
On linux, this include the distro choice, the kernel version and patch level, and so many parameters that it's really a pain in the ***.

For that configuretion we run, I even remember that for the bay to work on linux, we needed to upgrade the kernel to a newer version, but that if we where doing that, the server would not be certified for support anymore.
And as this supprt means a lot for our clients (mainly universities and schools), we had no choice but run windows on the server.

I'm a 100% linux supporter, I even use it exclusively at home and on my servers for 6 years now.
But in that particular case, I recognize that windows was the best way to go.

We have many clients running Oracle. None on Windows. Red Hat or Solaris. I am not saying it doesn't work on Windows. But we install regular patches on the operating systems and database with support from all vendors.

I agree, the problem was not linux. The problem was that the hardware in the server was not supported by the distros (at that time, it surely have changed now, but as I'm only a programmer there, I don't know much of the dba worries) approved by oracle.

Thierry, that has certainly been an issue for Linux. But it helps to choose the hardware in sync with os and db. Here we have a list of standards that list hardware vendors, operating systems, databases, etc.

I personally like linux, but I can see why neither Microsoft nor apple would like linux because it gives users the option not to pay for software therefore severly hurting either businesses profit margin.

Originally Posted by tripy

I agree, the problem was not linux. The problem was that the hardware in the server was not supported by the distros (at that time, it surely have changed now, but as I'm only a programmer there, I don't know much of the dba worries) approved by oracle.

Now such kind of thing is rare and a special case. Not with everyone such things happen.