Note: This thread is not intended to start an argument about features, stability, and what not about Linux vs Windows, so don't go there.


I would like to get some information about Linux and Windows on the professional level. For instance, what platforms are used more often in corporate businesses and when Linux is used and Windows is used. Also, why businesses typically use other platforms over others in different situations or all together.

Grok? ;)

I see about half and half. At my job, it was Solaris (not, technically, Linux) on the servers and Windows on the workstations (although I used a Linux workstation, but that's just me).

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=7287;start=0#msg65569 date=1087444529]
I see about half and half. At my job, it was Solaris (not, technically, Linux) on the servers and Windows on the workstations (although I used a Linux workstation, but that's just me).
[/quote]

Which version of Windows? Just curious...

[quote author=Mephisto link=board=2;threadid=7287;start=0#msg65561 date=1087438514]
Grok? ;)
[/quote]

Yes, I immediately thought Grok as well.

iago is just about right.

It depends on the environment.

Windows leans more towards the consistent administration with a strong user interface. I don't know the average situational reasoning for selecting windows, but I surmise that it is because of the operating system *contents* rather than performance/ability.
IE - Windows 2k3 has awesome GUI's for everything...and...ADAM!
Active Directory Application Mode...heh.
google it. ;)
Furthermore, it's generally Windows 2000/2003 if they're in workplace environment where the employees require the use of computers. (On average, people know/get/understand/able to work with Windows twice more than any *nix w/ X windows variant.)

*Nix is usually for higher-end users, particular forms of development, and server administration/mail administration/etc.

Stuff like that.
And I deleted the stuff ranting about unix vs windows :p

[quote author=Mephisto link=board=2;threadid=7287;start=0#msg65574 date=1087446925]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=7287;start=0#msg65569 date=1087444529]
I see about half and half. At my job, it was Solaris (not, technically, Linux) on the servers and Windows on the workstations (although I used a Linux workstation, but that's just me).
[/quote]

Which version of Windows? Just curious...
[/quote]

Various. My workstation was Windows XP which was dumb, since it was 300mhz/128mb ram and ran like crap. My partner's was NT 4.0, on a similar computer, and ran decently.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=7287;start=0#msg65597 date=1087475765]
[quote author=Mephisto link=board=2;threadid=7287;start=0#msg65574 date=1087446925]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=7287;start=0#msg65569 date=1087444529]
I see about half and half. At my job, it was Solaris (not, technically, Linux) on the servers and Windows on the workstations (although I used a Linux workstation, but that's just me).
[/quote]

Which version of Windows? Just curious...
[/quote]

Various. My workstation was Windows XP which was dumb, since it was 300mhz/128mb ram and ran like crap. My partner's was NT 4.0, on a similar computer, and ran decently.
[/quote]

Interesting. I'd expect them all to be the same operating system on the same kind of machines...

[quote author=Mephisto link=board=2;threadid=7287;start=0#msg65613 date=1087481756]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=7287;start=0#msg65597 date=1087475765]
[quote author=Mephisto link=board=2;threadid=7287;start=0#msg65574 date=1087446925]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=7287;start=0#msg65569 date=1087444529]
I see about half and half. At my job, it was Solaris (not, technically, Linux) on the servers and Windows on the workstations (although I used a Linux workstation, but that's just me).
[/quote]

Which version of Windows? Just curious...
[/quote]

Various. My workstation was Windows XP which was dumb, since it was 300mhz/128mb ram and ran like crap. My partner's was NT 4.0, on a similar computer, and ran decently.
[/quote]

Interesting. I'd expect them all to be the same operating system on the same kind of machines...
[/quote]

Why would they get rid of their old crappy machines and buy brand new ones for people who use nothing but ssh? I sit down, log in, and ssh to our test server. Then I open Internet Explorer and connect to our site, and everything else is working through ssh and refreshing.

On the other hand, other people I work with use Microsoft Office (which is pretty bloated, you need a high-end machine) and other modern windowsey applications, and they need something better.

It wouldn't make much sense to use the same computers for people who need clearly different things.

Typically we'll try to put unix (FreeBSD, if that counts) on the machine that provides the services to everyone, and Windows CE (Windows terminal) on all of the machines using the services. So basically you try to make the front-end as user friendly as possible for the employees which usually requires Windows. Microsoft is getting better at making the back-end proprietary though, and I see a lot of organizations leaning towards Citrix clusters.

About half of vL are computing professionals, so there's no need to single me out. I don't have time to give a proper reply to this question, though it is a good question. Note that you shouldn't rely on one person for your information. This is a broad subject. Accept replies as knowledge building. Even so, today's answer could be very different in a year or two.

A brief treatment:

Small companies act differently from medium and large companies. Small companies are typically guided by a single programmer or network technician. He is the guru of the company and does everything, from wiring closets to desktop shortcut icons to the customer service applications. His recommendation to use Window or Linux is usually absolute and followed. Especially if he can do something for "free", it will be done.

Medium companies are more likely to be involved in software development of the company's line-of-business applications. Like insurance, financial, medical, and such programs which when not available out-of-the-box, programmers write for a given platform. It's far cheaper to program for a single platform than for multiple platforms. So if they pick Windows, or Unix, or AS400, they tend to stay with it for many years. There is great resistance to changing platforms, even for a given solution/need, due to the possible cost of personnel needed to support the additional platform.

Larger companies can afford to have a variety of skilled experts on payroll. There is less resistance to platform variety so long as the applications work. Getting Unix servers or Windows servers comes down to an analysis of the software availability and costs, including ongoing support. It all goes on a spreadsheet and they look at the bottom line. Even the hours/week required to support a box is looked at. Backup time, too. A computer professional's recommendations are just that, recommendations. The final say typically is with the CIO and/or CFO, and they often have lots of questions before deciding.

What do you see for the most part in larger companies compared to smaller companies on frontends and backends? Particular reasons why? (Anyone can answer this btw)

well where I work its not that much use of comp, its just our 'register', at least from the end im at and its more used as a chat terminal by ppl on AIM (trillian myself).

but anyways this terminal is WinXP Profesional and the server is Windows Server (NT or 2000) I know I say the server NT CD but I thought I saw server 2000 accually running on the server comp

but its a small place and doesnt need Linux's massive load handeling abilitys (As far as I know)