Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux

[Hammer]

For those who are interested in the 'Windows VS Linux' saga...

Statistics from Netcraft

quote]A number of sites were seen to be switching to Server 2003 before its official launch but, in the three months since the launch the number of active sites has increased by over 300 per cent, Netcraft reckons, and now stands at 88,400. And around 6,000 of these have sitched from Linux, - quote from 'The Inquirer' [/quote]

[KennyR]

I'm not sure what to make of these statistics. Virtually every web site I visit is running on Linux, some flavour of BSD, or Solaris. I've only encountered one that uses IIS - Microsoft.com itself.

I really don't blame them, either. The Windows system arcitecture is totally unsuitable for running a long term server. It may have protected memory, but it still has the old shared address system problems. Windows users might be lucky to run some weeks without downtime. Linux users regularly report uptime in the years. Add to this that Linux is extremely powerful and open-source, meaning you can make whatever fixes or modifications that suit you. (Insert usual Linux vs Windows blah here, but you know it makes sense.) I know that if I ever needed to set up a router or a server, Windows wouldn't even be an option.

The only advantage Windows has is that its easier to use. Linux is not a system for ease of use and never will be. But apart from that, a company would have to be crazy to opt for Windows - unless "coerced" by Microsoft. I guess you all know M$'s tactics by now.

[DethKnight]

[qoute]I'm not sure what to make of these statistics.[/quote]

ditto
and what proof do we have that netcraft is a 100% unbiased and independent source of this information....

pasted from the Inquirer link...

looks like it has had to re-boot every day since switching from Linux to Windows Server 2003.

curious example I'd say

[Hammer]

…

The Windows system arcitecture is totally unsuitable for running a long term server. It may have protected memory, but it still has the old shared address system problems.

Shared memory architecture is only applicable for Windows 3.11/Win16 and NT kernel level services.

Different sides will argue different points of view.  

As this link illustrates http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Uptime+Windows+2003&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N

[Belial6]

While I do believe that Linux stability as well as MS instability is generally exagerated, and I have run across hundreds of sites that are run from windows boxes, here is how I interprete the statistics presented...

The vast majority of small web sites don't care what platform they are running on as they are just putting up a few static html pages.  The 8k sites that "migrated" from Linux to Windows are primarily of that nature.  Sites where the creators neither know or care their platform, and just want an http server for their static html files.

[Hammer]

and what proof do we have that netcraft is a 100% unbiased and independent source of this information....

To keep things into perspective refer to  http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/07/12/nearly_2_million_active_sites_running_freebsd.html

[Hammer]

@KennyR, regarding uptime for the top ten servers, refer to
http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/reports/performance/Hosters?tn=june_2003&reverse=0

Linux and WinS2K are fairly close in regards to uptime. Personally, I’ll use FreeBSD as my server OS.  

Refer to http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/07/12/nearly_2_million_active_sites_running_freebsd.html
(For the rise of the quiet achiever FreeBSD)

[opi]

a) holly wars are boring
b) since it's first raport, and w2k3 is new product it's easy to gain 300%
c) i won't trust company that trusts microsoft
d) windows won't work on Pegasos/Amiga. Linux/*BSD will.
e) ;-)

[norm]

I don't think these stats are much good. Hosts like Fasthosts with 11,978 active sites running Win2003 is just crap. Fasthosts own ukreg.com (a domain name registrar & host) which means most of the sites listed are forwarded/redirected to other sites  running whatever os.

EDIT: Like any stats these things can be distorted and may not reflect an accurate picture. /EDIT

Cheers,

Norm  :-)

[bhoggett]

I love it when people scream "fix" every time they see someting they don't like.

As has been pointed out, Windows Server 2003 is relatively new so it's relatively normal for it to make big gains quickly. It also happens to be the first Microsoft Server solution that's actually affordable, which may well explain some of those 8k or so switches from Linux.

As for the Netcraft stats being "biased" or "inaccurate" it would be nice if people actually did some research before making those accusations. As far as I can tell, Netcraft simply polls the servers and determines what they are running. It doesn't matter if the domain name is registered with a company that runs IIS or whatever, because it's the web server itself that is polled.

It's too early to say if these stats represent a trend marking a turnaround in Microsoft's server fortunes.

[Hammer]

@opi
a. No one has forced you to read the news topic.

b. Via Linux/MOL, one could run SoftWindows 95. SoftWindows uses the official MS’s Windows source code. Careful with any of the generalisations.

[opi]

@hammer

  re a) sure, noone can.
  re b) it's emulator, not the real thing(tm)

[Hammer]

Not after my experience.. I really doubt i could manage over a year uptime even if i let that box stand there doing nothing...

Don’t forget the sample size...

[ikir]

I don't think these stats are much good. Hosts like Fasthosts with 11,978 active sites running Win2003 is just crap. Fasthosts own ukreg.com (a domain name registrar & host) which means most of the sites listed are forwarded/redirected to other sites running whatever os.

Silly Microsoft :-D

[Hammer]

re b) it's emulator, not the real thing(tm)

Note the use of the official MS Windows source code i.e. recompiled for the PowerPC processors i.e. for Win16/Win32 API acceleration.  The said product is not quite like SoftPC (classic whole box JIT emulator).  

The techniques involve with SoftWindows 95 is better than Amithlon/ AmigaForever/WinUAE (which is just a classic JIT emulator). SoftWindows 95 is fundamentally similar to MorphOS’s Abox (i.e. native APIs layers with emulated CPU).

SoftWindows 95 is a fully licensed Microsoft product(specifically targeted for MacOS users). Note that the late MS Windows NT 4.0 Alpha Edition includes DEC’s FX32 (X86 layer)…