PureBasic Forums - English

I'll take the Commodore 64 over Windows/Linux any day.

Reasons:

(1) Boots up and shuts down INSTANTLY.
(2) 100% virus-proof now and forever.
(3) No way for trojans/spyware to exist.
(4) Secure (just lock up your floppies/HD).
(5) Easy to program (no different specs).

Think I'm joking? Not at all. Given a big HD, mouse (which exists),
and just a Pentium CPU, it'd kick some serious butt!

Which begs the question ..

.. why then is everything moving to greater complexity?

sorry windows doe's not cost more than any other OS
and what hidden cost are you talking about

There is no fixed price for Windows server OSes, you buy licenses. You might pay $2,000 for your license for Windows 2003 Server, I might need to pay $20,000. It's hard to tell.

lets see at my comp. Windows NT Admin get starting is 40K a year
and max at 65 or 70K and a linux Admin starts at 70K and maxes at 120K

Wow, I'd love to live in that world.. Where is that world anyway? I've lived from Michigan to Arizona in both large and small cities all during the "dot com" boom and I never met a Linux admin making anything close to $120,000 per year. $40-50k was fairly typical back then, though.

a year thats why my comp removed most linux servers and yes you are right it was not the OS but some of the compents we needed to run that was not free sorry again i am a NT guy and only cought some of what my manager was saying and thats when he got rid of Linux and the over priced admins

I guess you guys had to make the decision best for you. There are several valid reasons to switch from Linux to Windows, I don't think saving money is one of them!

I'm running a whole ISP using nothing but free software. I don't see how it could get any cheaper than that.

as far as stability my NT servers have been up for years and the Linux server have crashed more often then the NT servers it all depends on how well the admin knows there system cause the linux admins couldn't beleive it when they say how long my NT boxes had been running without any problems

Point me to an IP and I'll crash it for you

Using total server uptime as a test of stability proves only one thing - that your server is severly outdated and just waiting for someone to compromise it. This applies to Linux and Windows both. If your server has been on and booted for 2+ years and is doing anything more than acting as a coffee table you REALLY need to update that OS!

I'm not going to get into the arguemnt og NT vs *ix for stability, as I never really knew there *was* an argument there

and what hidden cost are you talking about

Scurrier,

I talking about the cost of dealing with complexity.

Setting up and running servers is a complicated business, especially on the internet. If an OS makes it look simple then there are a lot of issues you should understand, but don't. There are a lot of decisions you should have made, but didn't.

In the long term you're going to pay for those!

I've been running ISPs (in Michigan, Alabama, Arizona, Kentucky) for over 10 years now.... Successfully, I might add

All my servers and all the other servers I am in charge of are running some form of a Unix-like OS. I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about when I voice opinions on Internet servers, operating systems and such.

Is Windows easier to set up than most *ix OSes? Yes, it is. Now does that make it better, or worse as a server OS? Ease of installation is barely a concern when talking about servers. Either way, I can install FreeBSD in about 3 minutes

I'm not arguing Windows is better or worse, I'm trying to clear the air about it being a cheaper alternative to something. Like I said - Windows has a lot of merits but it's price tag NOT one of them!

Windows is in no way cheaper to own, operate or use. Does that mean you should choose *ix over Windows? No, it doesn't. Choose for yourself, use what is best for you, but don't base your decision to go with Windows because you think it is cheaper.

Mitch,

My earlier comment should have been addressed to Scurrier, not you. Sorry if I caused any confusion.

Your comments regarding ease of set up are spot on. Unfortunately this is not how many companies make there decisions. Short term thinking abounds.

P-J wrote:

`When you say "I wrote a program that crashed Windows", people just stare at
you blankly and say "Hey, I got those with the system, *for free*".'
(By Linus Torvalds)

Interesting.

Windows users give Linux a chance, but not the other way round.

For me, Windows NT 5.x (2k and XP) are uncrashable. I'm unable to crash it. Why do Linux fanboys insist that it's so easy to crash? Inability to use it? I imagine so.

I try Linux every six months or so, and in my opinion (which I'm entitled to), Linux is still the fragmented piece of crap it was ten years ago.

Couldn't agree more
Thinking about creating a fan club just for you

Karbon wrote:
Is Windows easier to set up than most *ix OSes? Yes, it is. Now does that make it better, or worse as a server OS? Ease of installation is barely a concern when talking about servers. Either way, I can install FreeBSD in about 3 minutes

I'm not arguing Windows is better or worse, I'm trying to clear the air about it being a cheaper alternative to something. Like I said - Windows has a lot of merits but it's price tag NOT one of them!

Windows is in no way cheaper to own, operate or use. Does that mean you should choose *ix over Windows? No, it doesn't. Choose for yourself, use what is best for you, but don't base your decision to go with Windows because you think it is cheaper.

Hi Karbon,

I can't agree more with you (and all your previous posts!)
I've been using FreeBSD since 1994, and there's simply no match
No wonder Yahoo runs FreeBSD, and Hotmail (Because Microsoft's OS simply can't handle the load )
I've used FreeBSD commercially, with uptimes of over 2 years. This is on heavy loaded servers (+200 telnet sessions) 24/7 (call center operation).
So in reality, I use FreeBSD, and I sleep in peace. I'm sure many sys amins that run huge M$ network farms have nightmares, or at least the people under them that are "on call" for emergencies
BTW, NetBSD and OpenBSD are also VERY good
Linux just doesn't come close, and probably never will

@Fred,

Where's the PureBasic version for FreeBSD
We really need it

-Karl

Yes, Unix HW is more expensive to maintain than Intel. Day to day management costs of Unix systems are much less than Windows and reliability is much better (my Desktop AIX server has been running without a shutdown for 8 years - can anyone out there beat that? I've applied 6 major SW updates to it in that time and one security patch. I have never applied any antivirus SW and have never bothered with a firewall. Yes, I've had a couple of attacks (without success). I had a disk crash a couple of years ago but thanks to hot-swappable disks I didnt have to bring it down.

Oops - my mistake, I just checked <CODE>uptime</CODE> and its 3348 days (about 9 yrs).

My WXP Laptop Blue Screened twice last week.

(BTW AIX=IBM Unix)

For desktop I use Windows because of the Office Applications - they're undeniably bettern than Linux or Unix equivalents.
For Servers I use Unix (well AIX) and Linux if pushed because Windows just isn't up to the job unless you cluster them - too complex, too time-consuming and too unstable.
I'm not a UNIX/Linux/Windows biggot, I just prefer to use the right tool for the job

- like my mate Steve says "when the only tool you know how to use is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail" lol

naw wrote:Oops - my mistake, I just checked <CODE>uptime</CODE> and its 3348 days (about 9 yrs).

8O
You beat my record, which was at one of my customers, running OpenBSD for ~634 days

For desktop I use Windows because of the Office Applications - they're undeniably bettern than Linux or Unix equivalents.

Try OpenOffice
http://www.openoffice.org

-Karl

personally, I think Linux stinks... Let me explain why:

Last year, I moved my company to its new premises. The old Linux router/firewall had been hidden in a closet somewhere and was almost forgotten when it was time to move. Apparently, someone had already pulled the power plug, so there was no need to shut it down... It had had an uptime of about 3.5 years.

In its new location, everything was connected and the thing booted o.k. Everything went well, until I had to enter root's password. I couldn't remember it. I couln't retrieve in my old notes, mail messages to myself, whatever. No way to get on board and reconfigre the thing. In the end, I had to reinstall the whole lot.

So now you know why I hate stability & uptimes like that! Linux stinks, take my word for it...

I detect a hint of irony there

dell_jockey,

Don't think Linux or Unix in general is not hackable ... it is just because you maybe don't remembered how to jump start but stability is not the rgith word in my humble opinion.

I have been teached and teacher about Unix high level systems either from SGI and Sun Microsystems and ... well, not so much people knwos about what is possible to do on such environments and this is probably the reason why most people think it is different.

I do not have any good thoughts to MS founders; are they really reacher because of I code more MS ?, but one thing is sure for me, I can do much good work for MS users because MS is more, more open that anything else, and more, more spreaded around our blue planet.

Make easy fast, small and nice apps with Purebasic and Win32API is a grateful way to work. No more. Platform does not make more than giving you, as a coder, a user interface, and some more paths, and lacks, ... just no more than that.

MS Windows just remote place you on the Moon easily to walk there as Armstrong did first, but you would also be able to wak on the Moon using an Amiga.

That's it.

Nomen est omen: GeoTrail is on the right track...