[mdlug] OT: Microsoft Monopoly

[Robert Adkins II]

> 
> --- David Lane wrote:
> 
> > Recently I was informed that a Linux server is being replaced by a 
> > windows 2008 server.  I started to think about “Microsoft Monopoly” 
> > case. MS must have a very good legal team.
> 
> The problem is not the "monopoly", it's the flawed perception 
> that, somehow, Windows severs are easier/cheaper/better than 
> *nix servers.
> The fact is that Internet-facing Windows servers are MUCH 
> more vulnerable to attack than Linux/BSD/Mac-based servers.  
> I don't have the exact statistics in front of me, but from 
> what I have seen, WAMP servers (Windows/Apache/MySQL/PHP) are 
> more vulnerable than LAMP servers, with the Win/IIS server 
> stack the most vulnerable of all to attack.  This means that 
> Windows servers cost users TWICE (or more)--once for the OS, 
> once for the added security and (to a high
> probability) even more to clean up the mess after a 
> successful attack; not to mention the down time needed to 
> reboot the system(s) after the endless cycle of updates (that 
> often cause more problems than they solve).
> 
> You may find more about this here:
> <http://uptime.netcraft.com/ex/pass/pass-faq.html>
> 
> ~~ Michael Rudas
>    My home page: http://MRudas.2Ya.com
>    My software blog: http://FaveSoft.blogspot.com
>    My Protopage links: http://TinyURL.com/protop
>    http://www.Facebook.com/ScienceMikey


  When it is said that it is "easier" to Administer a Windows Server than a
Linux server, what they really mean is that there are more people out in the
wilds of the job market that are "knowledgable" about Administrating Windows
than Linux systems. It has absolutely nothing to do with the actual
configuration or maintaining of the resulting systems.

  Modern Linux distros are in many ways as easy or easier to setup and
configure than comparable duty Windows servers/systems.

  -Rob