Windows vs Linux

[WebHost Admin]

There are a number of different operating systems that can run on a webserver.

The most common configuration is for a server to be running Linux with Apache, though the flavour of Linux used can vary extensively.

Servers running Windows comprise around one-third of the total servers in use.

The main reason for the greater use of servers operating with Linux is due to the extended programming development of open source community projects such as Linux and Apache.

However, because Windows offers a more support-centric solution, many medium to larger businesses will opt for a Windows environment, because they know they can rely on Microsoft to provide support as and when required.

In the general webmastering environment, however, most people will see little difference between which type of operating system is used.

However, a big common question is as to whether go with Linux or Windows.

The simple answer to this is that it depends on what your actual software requirements are - most basic websites can be hosted fine on either, but once you start using third party software, there may be development issues that prefer one operating system environment over another, or else offer greater advantages in one and not the other.

A big misconception to make is to believe that Windows servers have any more security issues than Linux ones - ultimately, a server is only ever as secure as the competence of the systems administrator.

And whilst Windows servers may be prone to an additional number of viruses (there are no known viruses that specifically target Unix/Linux), Linux servers are commonly hacked through various exploits, not least through third-party software applications, especially through SQL injection vulnerabilities.

Most competent system administrators will keep on top of all the necessary updates and patches to close known vulnerabilities where they are known. After all, unpatched machines will always be open to easy exploitation regardless of the operating system used.

Other than that, general performance will vary not so much according to the operating system used, as much as the server hardware configuration itself.

Ultimately, asking which is the better type of operating system to use - Windows or Linux - depends entirely on your personal needs: if you have specific software development needs, such as a heavy reliance on PHP, then a Linux/Apache solution is almost certainly required.

However, for applications that rely on ASP, a Windows solution may be preferable.

Otherwise, many webmasters who run basic HTML sites are unlikely to be able to tell the difference in terms of site performance.

[kelkat]

I need some clarification please. Linux and Windows both run on a PC, right? So wouldn't it then be smarter to go with the Linux if it has less virus problems. Either system is going to have to be watched no matter what, right?

[monaghan]

You're correct - any server needs a sysadmin to "watch over it".

Linux is not the only answer though, for general hosting it's probably the most popular as you can drop something like cPanel on top and have a full hosting environment in an hour or so.

Many customers require to host their Windows sites using things like ASP, ASP.Net, need to use Access databases and so on, this is only going to be possible with an OS which supports these (presently only Windows, although much generic .Net is now supported on Mono). One of our resellers only writes Windows apps!

For general hosting it usually makes no difference which OS you're hosted on.

[kelkat]

That's what I figured. Now for the magic question - which one is more cost effective. Since in the long run we are all in it for the money, which way does that take us?

[monaghan]

Cost effective to offer or to purchase ? I presume to offer to your customers.

Linux is free, Windows requires a license fee. If you provide a control panel, then there's a license fee for this. If you lease a server from a big datacenter, then you can usually benefit from a license fee saving as the DC will buy the control panel and / or Windows licenses in bulk.

Many things are standard on a Linux box or freely downloadable, often Windows apps require licensing, however there's a good deal of GPL stuff available on Windows now.

At the end of the day, you need to decide on the customer base you're wanting to attract and decide on that basis or as we do provide a choice between Linux and Windows

[penguinmama]

Really the main difference would be ASP vs PHP ... except the virus thing that kelkat pointed out.

We chose Linux... partly because of security (yes, they both have to be watched, but Linux doesn't have to have an antivirus always running like Windows does, if I understand correctly) and partly because of price... Windows Server software is not free, while Linux is (or can be)

(and what Monaghan said... I started answering before the other answers were here hehehe)

[kelkat]

I want to offer a quality site to my customers, but I want it to be free for them and inexpensive for me. Linux sounds like it is definitely the direction I want to head.

[ale_jrb]

For small businesses, Linux is usually ther answer - as it is cgheaper to run which means you can offer more competitive prices.

The OS you run on a server will change you are attrcated to your hosting. Generally, Linux attracts smaller companies/home users, and Windows attracts larger businesses who are prepared to pay for the extras that a Windows server can offer.

What I always find weird is that many people believe Linux to be invunerable. The only real reason that no one makes viruses for it is because it isn't used enough to make it worthwhile. When it becomes more widespread, viruses will be more common for it.

My thoughts.

[monaghan]

Linux is not always cheaper to run than Windows, Microsoft have done a lot to address this issue

Whether Windows or Linux you require an experienced sysadmin and a well setup box will take about the same admin time, the costs are about the same therefore for operating the box. Obviously if you don't have admins for the platform you choose, then there is a training cost.

Windows has a higher purchase cost (about £10/month on SPLA), Linux has many free distributions.

As this is a webhosting forum, we'll assume the primary use of the box is shared web hosting and that we need a control panel.

Working on the basis that both Windows & Linux would be setup with GPL or other system / distribution service software to provide email, DNS, web server etc...

Using list figures...

Helm 4 monthly leased license £30
or
DotNetPanel monthly leased license £25

cPanel monthly leased license £30
Most cPanel's have Fantastico - Yearly license £60 - £5/month

Naturally different server providers will have better deals than others and the end user price is probably less than this. You can also select different control panels, different licensing options - Helm & DotNetPanel have limited domain licenses which may work out cheaper than cPanel. Direct Admin is cheaper than cPanel.

The base license costs for a shared web hosting system using the popular control panels works out about the same for both platforms

Potentially you could in fact offer more hosting options on Windows as you can run Perl, PHP, Python, ASP, ASP.Net, Ruby on Rails (and probably many more) and offer MySQL, MS-SQL and Access databases all on the single Windows box.

You should select the hosting platform based on your needs and what your customer requirements are rather than that of cost or simply duplicating what another hosting company does. A well maintained Windows box will be just as good as a well maintained Linux box.

[MasterMind]

I like PHP and it only runs properly on Unix based servers, as ASP is only fully functional running on Windows Servers.

My first steps on the Internet were developing sites on ASP, language available through ISP webspace.

Over time I had to switch to PHP but hating the MySql annoyances, I prefer continue developing websites running on Windows-based servers when it comes to work with databases.

[monaghan]

So what does PHP NOT do on Windows? I've not had any issues and the later releases come with full Windows installers.

What are your MySQL annoyances?

[MasterMind]

well, the main problem I have found using PHP on Windows Servers is that the include function returns blank pages instead of content, but I guess there are a few others that right now are escaping from my mind.

[TWD_Tony]

Originally Posted by ale_jrb

For small businesses, Linux is usually ther answer - as it is cgheaper to run which means you can offer more competitive prices.

The OS you run on a server will change you are attrcated to your hosting. Generally, Linux attracts smaller companies/home users, and Windows attracts larger businesses who are prepared to pay for the extras that a Windows server can offer.

What I always find weird is that many people believe Linux to be invunerable. The only real reason that no one makes viruses for it is because it isn't used enough to make it worthwhile. When it becomes more widespread, viruses will be more common for it.

My thoughts.

I would just like to clear up one thing here - Linux is not more secure because people "can't be bothered" to write viruses (virii?) for it but because of the permission system that is uses - it is simply not possible to infect a linux machine.
Windows tends to use a "user has access to everything" type of approach to file permissions and user authorisation whereas Linux has strict rules as to which users can change settings / modify files and install software...

The new Windows (Vista) was supposed to address this problem but as far as I am aware it falls a long way short of the rock solid system that Linux uses.

[monaghan]

Originally Posted by MasterMind

well, the main problem I have found using PHP on Windows Servers is that the include function returns blank pages instead of content, but I guess there are a few others that right now are escaping from my mind.

Never had that problem myself, probably a permissions issue.

[monaghan]

Originally Posted by TWD_Tony

Windows tends to use a "user has access to everything" type of approach to file permissions and user authorisation whereas Linux has strict rules as to which users can change settings / modify files and install software...

The main issue with Windows is that the out of the box install is often not very secure, Win 2003 did a lot to sort this. A properly setup Windows server can be secure, however years of bad practise along with daft default settings has lead to Windows being seen as insecure. In fact the Windows NT security model brought with it much of the good stuff from the VMS security model and if correctly applied can give a far more granular degree of control than *NIX The real issue is that it's far easier to add someone to the Administrators group than to create a new group with the desired granular rights