>> Just remember that Gentoo takes longer to install than a binary >> distro. > > How is that relevant? Comparing my Linux server, and my Windows server > (from memory, I don't have any anymore). Windows was faster. >
Because you aren't compiling windows 2000 when you install it. If you want to compair a Gentoo install to a win2k install then you need to get the source code for win2k form Microsoft and compile it before you install it. I guarantee you it will take days to install win2k that way. :) >>Upgrading packages in Linux always takes less time that in Windows. >> Whether it's apt, up2date, urpmi, or YOU it is just a matter of telling >> it to upgrade and off it goes, d/ls all the packages and installs them. >> It took me 3 hours to upgrade a Win 98 box since I had to reboot after >> every upgrade, and once the system came back up there would be an >> upgrade for the upgrade I just installed. That alone is reason enough >> for me not to want to use Windows. > > Samba needs an upgrade before it can be installed. Binary Distros are > old, and Compile-on-the-fly need to be DLed and Compiled. Windows has > no such need. Same with Email, Bind, Apache, etc. Closed source > doesn't allow that kind of tuning, so it simply doesn't happen. > It would take me 15-20 minutes to configure Samba, Qmail/Postfix, Bind and Apache put together. It would take me probably around an hour/hour and a half to upgrade IIS if you are using that on the windows server as well as all the other updates just because you need to reboot after all of those major updates. Windows 2000 is just as old as a binary Linux distro. Plus you will need to promote the win2k server and setup Active Directory, depending on the hardware this could take a long time. Plus promoting a win2k server (Which you need to do *before* you install things like service pack 3, if you need PDC functionality) will add around 30-45 seconds to the boot time on most servers once they are configured. This slows down the update process. > How much configuration needs to be done to get Samba running as a PDC? > What about Windows? Windows IS faster at some things. > >>I don't have any problems with printers. Modern versions of Red >>Hat/Mandrake/SuSE always seem to detect and configure my printers at >> home and at work. Samba on the other hand can be a bitch, but once you >> have it setup for your network you can just copy the config. file to >> any new installs and it will work fine. Mandrake is pretty good about >> setting up a simple samba server. You just tell it to let users share >> files, and with the GUI any user can share a folder in their home dir. >> just as easily as in Windows. > > Ummm, connected to the box, maybe. But not network printers. I'm not > saying it's hard, I'm just saying that it takes longer on Linux than on > legacy. > > Regardless, this isn't a good or bad thing. It just is. Initianl setup > is irrelevant. I care about the "once it's moved into production" and > forward timeframe. Linux easily wins there... > > Kev.
