Windows2000 Server vs Linux server

What are the pros and cons?

[Blelisa]

Hi everyone,
Just looking for a little personal input today.My boss is looking to have our company start hosting our own sites, the server he is looking at is a Linux server. We currently use a hosting company that is using Wondows 2000. What do I need to be aware of for the change, as far as my webdeveloping jobs? I use alot of .asp, VBScript, JavaScipt, and XHTML with CSS plus some Flash. Is there any limitations that Linux has? Is one more preferable than the other? Any info would be helpful!
Thanks, and looking forward to some great responses!

[encyclo]

If you are using ASP and VBScript then you will need a Microsoft server. There exists an ASP environment (Sun Java ASP [sun.com]) which will run under Red Hat Enterprise 3.x, but it is pretty limited and costs more than a Windows license anyway - especially as you would need to license RHEL too.

You should be looking to use Windows Server 2003 - there are several versions including a specific web version.

Your only other option is to re-code everything in PHP, Perl or Python before making the switch to Linux.

[txbakers]

Generally speaking, a Windows server is easier to setup and manage for the layman.

[hanuman]

and be prepared for huge number of unexplained 500 errors on any window server. linux is my choice......

[GaryK]

You should be looking to use Windows Server 2003

I second this suggestion. Mainstream support for Windows 2000 ends on June 30. There will be a Windows 2000 Update Rollup, the final security patch for the five year old operating system in about a week. After that the product will enter its extended support period for another five years. After that it will not be supported by MS.

[txbakers]

and be prepared for huge number of unexplained 500 errors on any window server. linux is my choice......

This is bogus. 500 errors are for bad scripting. If you turn off "show friendly http error messages" you can see what the error is. It has nothing to do with a windows server by itself.

[Matt Probert]

Linux has proven itself more robust for hosting the Apache http server than has Windows, particularly for busy sites where Window's memory management is notoriously leaky.

That said, Linux is far more complex than Windows, and is case sensitive for file names - something that often causes problems for the inexperienced developing under Windows for hosting under Linux.

Matt

[Blelisa]

Thanks everyone for your input, it has been extremely helpful.........Windows it is.

[Receptional Andy]

I've found Windows 2003 much better than 2000 on the management side too, if user-friendliness is important.

[Romeo]

From the technical approach, if you would start fresh, perhaps most people (including me) would tell you Linux should be the way to go.
However, besides the theoretical discussion "which is better, Windoze or Lunix?", the following aspects may be part of your decision in your situation.

Economical aspects should count most, as well as perhaps political (is there a new strategy of your company to dump Windows in favor of Unix, do you want to get rid of your present applications anyhow?).

So, politics aside, it is mainly about costs:

-- worth of your present applications: how many days would it cost to dump your ASP and VBscript applications and start a new development cycle (recursive design / coding / testing / deployment) from scratch?

-- skill (both administrative as well as programming): if your staff don't has Linux skill, how long would it take to build up the skill, and how less productive would they be during that time (in 'cost speak': what would it cost to build up that skill and to leverage the lower productivity?)?.

-- platform costs (most say, Windows is more expensive to run), but platform costs are usually far outweighed by applications costs.

Overall, a change of the platform may be a risk or a chance, it is always expensive and the costs have to be justified.
So keep having fun with your Windows ...

Regards,
R.