There are many combinations of operating systems and servers that it is often difficult for us to know what to choose. For many beginners, the choice stems down to simply choosing a Windows System since that is what they are running on their home computer. This is ften the worst choice. The two most common server configurations are Windows running Internet Information Server (IIS) or Unix/Linux running Apache Server. WINDOWS (IIS) Contrary to what many people believe, Windows is typically less stable and more complex than UNIX operating systems. In fact, many of the cheaper web hosting companies will not even offer Windows since it will cost more money to simply support. I would only recommend using Windows if you are using a Microsoft products/languages including MS-SQL Server and ASP.NET. IIS comes with full support for ASP, while other servers don't support it without a 3rd party add-on UNIX (APACHE SERVER) Because Unix-based systems don't use as many system resources as those running Windows, it tends to be a more stable and reliable option. Given identical hardware specifications, a Unix system will be more efficient, as it doesn't need the resources that the Windows system would use simply to update and interpret the GUI. If you want more server power for your money, Unix is a good choice: not only does it boast more efficient resource management, but being open source, it's the cheapest option as well! Unlike Windows, Unix, and its many variants (Linux, FreeBSD and Sun) provide the user with more control over the configuration of the server and the software that it uses. By connecting to the server using telnet or SSH connections, it is possible for users to schedule scripts to run automatically (a cron job), edit file and directory properties and permissions, and even debug scripts as they run on the remote server! Of course, to be able to use your telnet access effectively you should know at least the basics of Unix; unfortunately it's a little more involved than Windows, as Unix operating systems tend to use text-based commands as opposed to a Graphical User Interface (GUI).
C'mon, if you're going to post advice, then at least get your facts right. Some of the "facts" your posting are ancient Windows Vs Linux misconceptions that probably never were true, and are definitely not true any longer For the purposes of open-ness, I work for a Windows host. I've been involved in the hosting industry since 1999 and have extensive knowledge of Windows systems, but I also have experience of Linux system from association with other techs and companies. 1. Windows is not less stable that Unix. In fact, I'd venture to bet that since Windows 2003 Windows has been a more stable platform that Unix, and since the introduction of Windows 2008 this is pretty much undisputed but that statement shows a bias towared Windows when a properly managed Linux server is equally as stable and reliable as a properly managed Windows server. It is a matter of scale and relevance. Linux, in all it's flavours, is an excellent platform with many great features. When it comes down to it, it is more a matter of personal choice or experience over one system being more stable or better than the other since a lot of the long-term stability of a server is down to its admins. 2. Windows is definitely not more complex that Linux. While command-line might work for some people, the gui interface of Windows makes it simple to work with for many simple (and sometimes complex) tasks. Scripting has always been available in Windows that gives very precise control of settings. I'd find managing a Linux server complex, but find Windows easy. Again, it's largely down to personal choice and what you know. If Linux was so easy, I'm sure more people would be using it on their desktops - no disrespect to Linux as it is a great OS. 3. Windows doesn't cost more money to support. In fact, given it's stability and range of features, support is pretty easy. It does costs more money to use because it is a software owned by a company who lease it to web hosts who want to use it (as do some versions of Linux) for a charge. Some cheapers hosts don't use it because it does cost money to licence every month, but it also has something to do with the fact that they have to be approved by Microsoft too, and not everyone would qualify - and not everyone would want to. 4. Windows has supported PHP and PERL for years with a simple install of either programme. Windows 2008 has PHP support built-in with extraordinary performance. Windows has the advantage that it does support all the scripting languages that Linux supports (PHP and PERL being the most notable) but also provides full support for the .NET framework and .ASP. Linux does not fully support .ASP or the .NET framework. Windows provides a greater range of scripting language support than Linux, and the performance of php and perl on Windows is comparible with that on Linux. 5. A Windows Server will require more resources for the GUI, but given the cheapness of RAM and CPUs the extra 1GB of ram required to run the OS hardly matters. Now you can choose a minimum install of windows without a gui that is entirely command-line based so that argument is even less relevant these days (great for Hyper-V servers). 6. There are lots of Linux variants, but that fact alone doesn't provide more control over the configuration of the server or it's software. Windows is ultimately configurable and I wouldn't say Linux is "more" configurable. Both windows and linux are easy to configure to your hearts content. 7. With Remote Desktop you can also schedule tasks to run automatically (Scheduled Tasks), edit file and directory properties and permissions, and debug scripts in all sorts of applications. This sort of stuff isn't confined to Linux or any easier in Linux. 8. You say that using Telnet effectively is more involved than Windows. Does that mean you agree that Windows is not more complex after all? 9. If all you ever used on Windows was the GUI then you might struggle to do everything you wanted to. You can use text-based commands to control Windows. In fact, we have a number of scripts (all text based) that we use to configure servers, set permissions, change defaults, alter the registry, create default files and folders, and lock down the server. None of these use the GUI. We can take raw hardware, install 2008 R2, completely secure and lockdown a server with the text-based scripts , and have it available for internet-facing use within 30 minutes of being given the hardware - without once resorting to anything "gui" based. Windows 2008 is a brilliant operating system and definitely the best MS have ever produced. Is Windows better than Linux, or is Linux better than Windows? That answer is, "no", on both counts. What you use should depend on your experience, your knowledge, your budget, and your requirements. Windows and all the Linux variants are excellent operating systems. When it comes to web hosting neither is significantly better than the other in terms of performance, reliabilty, or security. Windows may support more languages natively because it supports the native Microsoft .NET framework, but if you're not planning to use that then the choice is down to what you feel most comfortable with. There might be a viable argument that 2008 is a more secure default installation than Linux but that's only because Microsoft have designed it that way, and at the end of the day both systems will be equally secure with the right server admin looking after the servers. I'm happy using Windows because it's the operating system I know, but I wouldn't knock Linux. The only reason we don't use it is because we couldn't administer it properly as we don't have the experience or knowledge, and many of our customers develop using ASP.NET so we need the support of that platform.
You provided really useful information. I can say in few words that the choice of OS mainly depends on the application you are going to host.
Ronbrown posted a good facts. I would prefer Unix over Windows hosting because I do familiar with them more. You may consider reading these two articles. http://www.mybestratedwebhosting.com/best-web-hosting-tips/the-choice-between-linux-and-windows.html or http://www.mybestratedwebhosting.co...-windows-how-to-choose-a-web-host-server.html
For me, I would opt for Linux as it gives me more freedom in term of its coding and programming and its open source. Windows would be good option if you planned to use their developed products such as MSSQL, ASP and etc.
I can tell you that in my experience in 13+ years hosting all kinds of OS's, Windows has had the worst track record in terms of stability. To its credit, a larger number of the issues were self induced/pilot error. Overall, I'd say the 'nix' based platforms have been the most reliable, though not without their share of issues.
Just couldn't resist the temptation to argue the points raised by RonBrown above. Some very interesting points... the key question is why is Windows more popular than Linux? My answer has nothing to do with ease of use, appearance, or anythings else. Its really quite simple. Advertising!! Microsoft has had 20 odd years of success, more than half that time with adds all over every conceivable media (TV, radio, newspapers, Internet, movies, even bill boards in hundreds of countries. This is billions of pounds over the years (or decades). Linux has very little advertising as there is no single company called "Linux", there are many companies offering Linux based products or services. This can also be seen with Apple. In my opinion Apple was well ahead of its time in the 80s. Microsoft was barely offering a graphical OS, and Linux was no where to be found. However, the general public didn't really know of it. Come the early 00's Apple started opening up their own stores, and doing mass advertising and it worked, everyone went apple crazy, despite there being other solutions offing similar services - this was not the case in the 80s. I think you can only compare ease of use between OSs if you have had the same exposure to both environments. Obviously most people in the world have had knowledge/experience of windows for years I wouldn't expect them to go on to an OS they've never used before and be able to configure it straight away. You cannot really compare 5 minutes experience with 10+ years. However, given the same level of experience (with an open mind) surely Linux would be easier for complex tasks....logs are generally in once place (/var/log), services are all in one place (/etc/init.d), config files are all in once place (/etc/) tmp space is in one place (/tmp), think about when you install a random app in Windows, the installer is whatever the manufacturer wants it to be (msi, exe, zip etc), sometimes appears in add/remove programs sometimes doesn't. Most applications need to be updated individually by starting up the app and finding the "check for update" menu option, or by simply visiting the website every so often to see if there are any updates. Config files could be somewhere in C:\ or C:\program Files or System Registry, or even embedded in the app. Tmp files are all over the place - seems to change regularly as does location of home directories. Log files as plain text somewhere or in event viewer, most of the time there's nothing useful anyway. So why does this make Windows easier, or more configurable? Any Linux user can pick up a box from today, or a box from 15 years ago and know where everything is and how it works. It hasn't needed to change. Even now Windows is changing back to text only, after half-abandoning it in the DOS days. Clearly as Mac and Windows are both moving towards text driven interfaces it says something about Linux's success. Windows could be more configurable if it had everything available to configure with. I'm certainly glad that (admittedly a while back) Windows can now natively open up zip files, and has always been able to open up bmp and txt after a fresh install. But there are thousands of file formats in todays world, lots of commands required, lots of applications needed. As I write this, I cannot think of any application that I would need to download for Linux (at least straight away), everything's available from the installation media. From graphics editors, and word processors to code compilers and networking tools. I've worked in some large companies over the past few years, and there are always more support staff for Windows than there are for Linux. Why? Look at how long it takes for Windows to install, and tasks required after installation (drivers, service packs, software installs etc, with numerous reboots in between). With Linux, a quick 10-15 minute install followed by what could be a single command to install what's required. You've mentioned that you can have a Windows 2008 machine fully built in 30 minutes. The equivalent can be done in Linux in half that time, with only about 5 minutes of actually interacting with the machine - rest of the time waiting for it to install/download. Could be much quicker if its automated. Personally my VPS machines are all fully automated and available after 5 minutes of the customer making an order - Internet facing and ready for use. The day this is possible on Windows (without using Ghost, or an extra thousands of $$$ of hardware/developers time) is the day I go back to it. Having said that I don't think Windows is that bad - it has its uses. and to each his own, eh? Have a happy new year!!
Hello, Nice post i like it When you are trying to decide what web hosting company to go with you may see that one of the hosting companies is offering Unix web hosting and another is offering Windows web hosting. There will even be times when you can choose one or the other from the same web hosting company. So what are the differences between Unix and Windows and which should you be using? Thanks
linux is everybody's choice i wonder why there are still windows hosting? maybe because someone wants to run asp? or asp.net?
No problem. Nice to see a well thought out and intelligent answer. I don't disagree with your general points about installing programmes on Windows with files all over the place. Things have definately improved recently. I guess it's my own fault for mentioning desktops when the crux of the issue was about servers, but I think it has more to do than advertising. Sticking at the desktop level, Windows is easy for the computer-illiterate to use. You don't need to be an expert to use it, it is easy to learn the basic commands for opening programmes and using them. The self-installation of programmes (even if it isn't neat and tidy with regards to where files end up) makes it simple for anyone to learn. I know many Linux installations have a gui now, but I don't think the ease of use, or range of applications that people trust and are familiar with is available on Linux yet. The main thrust was about server OSs, so I'll go back to that I agree, but you've obviously not installed Server 2008. I hated installing 2003 from scratch which is why we ended up making our own installation disks with programmes and configuration streamed into a single install disk that we could boot up and leave, but server 2008 is a breeze - even when starting with a raw install disk. Scripted configuration after the install is just a few minutes, most of the rest of the time is waiting for Windows OS to install - it's a hefty programme. So, while you're OS takes 15 minutes to install, Windows takes 15-25 (based on hardware), with the last 5 minutes being used to run config scripts - pretty much on par I'd say. While I'm talking about the use of Windows as a hosting platform I'm not saying it would be quite so simple if an office with lots of desktops to maintain. I can't speak for Macs, but Windows isn't moving towards a text-driven interface in response to Linux. It's always been possible to configure Windows with text-based tools but the new text-driven interface you're talking about is the hypervisor installation which is mostly a response to VMWare and Xen and the need to provide a minimal installation to manage virtualisation without the need for all the bulk that goes with providing a gui. Nice and easy to use and only takes up a tiny bit of drive space on the host server. Maybe it's just your unfamiliarity with Windows. Nothing more than notepad is required to write the scripts we use to configure the server. Again, I'm talking about server configuration where you aren't really "installing" anything other than the operating system, the rest is just configuration. A good knowledge of VBScript is required to create the scripts, but it's dead simple to manage. Again, an domain-controller environment with a mixture of desktops and servers isn't what I'm comparing here. I can beat you there with VPSs ready instantaneously that are fully configured - thanks fo Hyper-V R2, templates, and System Centre Vitural Machine Manager. It's just the time taken to copy the required file from one server to another that can take time. On the whole I can't disagree with some of the points you've made but Windows has moved on and Server 2008 is definately a major step forward. Server 2003 brought great stability and reliabilty, 2008 built on that and improved the installation, configuration, and general ease of use. Virtualise your platform and it's all there for you....right now. Cluster servers, move VPSs from one server to another with no downtime, create new VPSs from templates immediately, convert physical servers to virtual servers, create templates from currently running or configured servers so they can be used over and over again. Welcome back to Windows Server 2008 R2 and Hyper-V R2!!! ;-) You too.
The main "advantage" or distinction of Windows servers is that they can run Microsoft software such as Access and MS SQL databases. Windows servers also offer web developers the use of Microsoft's programming environments such as Active Server Pages (ASP), Visual Basic Scripts, MS Index Server.
Hi We are using windows 2008 server from last 9 months it is working fine without a restart. lots of site running windows works fine. so stability is not a problem now. If u r comfortable with command line then linux is good Thanks
Hi, Windows Server O.S. license is very costly as Linux web server popular distributions like CentOS are free, Linux is robust , stable also you can configure Linux server as a router, with popular dynamic routing protocols like OSPF. Thanks.