On 22/12/2010 14:03, Big Steel wrote:
Different people use different systems, and for different reasons.
Linux doesn't put money in my pockets - but it /does/ save me money (or
rather, it saves my employer). It's not really a matter of the cost
price - I happen to use zero-cost Linux versions because I'm used to
them, but others happily pay more for RHEL than they would for Windows
One of the big differences is that you don't have to worry about client
access licenses. I haven't had to think about these for years, until
this discussion. When I set up some new servers a few years ago, I
estimated that if I choose Windows for the servers, I would spend more
time learning about CALs, figuring out what we needed, figuring out the
rules for virtual servers, and figuring out how to buy them than it
actually took me to install and configure the Linux servers. This was
one of the key points in the decision to go for Linux.
Now when someone wants a new server (database server, file server, web
server, whatever) I can set one up in minutes (openvz virtual machines
in Linux are very lightweight) for zero monetary cost, with no concerns
about the number of users or licences, and typically with negligible
resource costs on the server.
Of course, this sort of thing is highly dependent on experience - other
people might have known all about CALs but had no idea about Linux
server installation and setup.
And there are plenty of situations when Windows is the best solution too
- one size does not fit all. But for servers, it would take outstanding
circumstances before I'd consider using Windows.