Your thoughts on Linux

[danito]

I bet you don't have drunks hitting power poles causing extended power outages either.

I would wager you are running that on server hardware and not desktop hardware.

Running time on my box has been 6 years, only time it goes down is when the power is out for more than 4 hours when my batteries finally die.

[ocabj]

I bet you don't have drunks hitting power poles causing extended power outages either.

I would wager you are running that on server hardware and not desktop hardware.

Running time on my box has been 6 years, only time it goes down is when the power is out for more than 4 hours when my batteries finally die.

So, what facility are you using to update your kernel without a reboot?

[sfwdiy]

If you're looking into this as an occupation, you might want to start with fundamentals of networking before learning Linux or any other OS.

+1. Sysadmin stuff is more about making computers talk to each other than it is about using one OS or another, and computers essentially all speak the same language. A thorough understanding of TCP/IP and network architecture is important.

--B

[Sinixstar]

Myspace is written in CFM, so let's not even go there...

As for SQL, ever wonder why people pick Oracle over MS? Ever read how Post can run as fast as Oracle?

As for efficient queries... Maybe you're used to clicking through your queries, but usually if there's an issue with overhead of a query it's from a badly written sql query.

Generally speaking - a good DBA who knows what they're doing can make MSSQL run every bit as fast and stable as Oracle.

A DBA who doesn't know what they're doing can make Oracle look like a piece of junk.

Much like guns - it all comes down to the nut behind the trigger.
MSSQL has a much lower bar of entry, so there's a lot more mediocre people out there using it. Oracle has a higher bar of entry. Most Oracle DBAs are extremely well versed in the world of relational data. Their systems run better as a result. Take the same DBA - show him the ropes of an MSSQL system - and he'll make the same magic happen.

All things being equal - having used both - I personally prefer MSSQL. Either one will get the job done though.

[locosway]

And what about Postgresql? There's a lot of data showing it's just as fast as Oracle.

[NaughtyMonkey]

I love Linux I've tried all of the top ones. Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Slackware, Mint, Puppy linux, Gentoo, GOS, Saboyon 4, PCLinux, Fedora 9 and 10, OpenSuse, Debian, Mandriva, Macpup, Elive Free, Dream Linux, Open Salaris, Open GEU, and I'm sure I have more discs around here somewhere. Hmmm.

[nemisis1400]

wow the only linux versions i even knew of was ubuntu and debian

[locosway]

wow the only linux versions i even knew of was ubuntu and debian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions

[kapache]

I've been using Unix/Linux since I was 16 years old, although am a SYSADMIN with tons of experience working In many Data Centers providing technical support to small and large businesses. I prefer using Linux for Server applications only and for home use Windows all the way I don't have the patience to deal with drivers or compatibility issues.

Saying all that am tire of this field. makes me wanna rm -fr /kapache

[wilit]

I love Linux. If the wife didn't need Windows for work on the home computer, it'd be a strictly Linux machine.

[shooterfpga]

ive, been running linux since debian 2.2r6. LONG TIME. i love linux, it's always done what i needed. and im glad to see that a lot of distros out there are being born to help convert others to it. i run linux on all my hardware, anything that can run it, i'll put it on it. playstations, cell phones, routers, ANYTHING!!! looking at the poll results im very shocked to see the responses, this shows how far along linux has come. but im still a stickler for the distros like gentoo, where you have to know a lil more than your average user.

[kapache]

Linux is old but not that many people care learning or bother using it.

[locosway]

Linux is old but not that many people care learning or bother using it.

That's an ignorant statement. Entire governments in other countries are running on Linux. I also think that 80% or so of all web servers are running Linux.

The U.S. is slow to adopt Linux in the home, but that's mainly because of marketing. Windows has a strong foothold here, and people are afraid of change in general.

I'd say that Linux would work for most people here in the U.S. with a few exceptions of say hardcore gamers or accountants.

[Sinixstar]

And what about Postgresql? There's a lot of data showing it's just as fast as Oracle.

It's just another SQL based Relational database system.


The problem with a lot of these performance comparisons- is that all of these systems function differently under the hood. A table and index structure that runs well in oracle could be incredibly inefficient in MSSQL - and average in MySQL or Postgre.

That's why I said it all comes down to the DBA - and that person's level of understanding of the system they're working with. If you understand the pros and cons of the underlying functionality, you can design a database that maximizes the 'pros' and reduces the 'cons' so to speak.

Which you choose more often than not comes down a combination of available resources, need, and capabilities.

[Sinixstar]

That's an ignorant statement. Entire governments in other countries are running on Linux. I also think that 80% or so of all web servers are running Linux.

The U.S. is slow to adopt Linux in the home, but that's mainly because of marketing. Windows has a strong foothold here, and people are afraid of change in general.

I'd say that Linux would work for most people here in the U.S. with a few exceptions of say hardcore gamers or accountants.

I've seen the "80%" number thrown around for a long time, and honestly - it's a vastly inflated number. The only people that even try to claim those numbers are linux enthusiasts themselves - and somehow i'm guessing they don't exactly have an unbiased opinion.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10027925-16.html

Granted this article is from '08 - but if the numbers had jumped THAT much over the last 2 years, this wouldn't even be a topic of conversation.

These are much more realistic numbers.

Now - if you wanted to push it - you could fudge the definition of "server". Technically, I have a dozen or so linux "servers" - but in reality, it's one machine that's been virtualized to hell. Is that one server, or 12? really, it's 1. It's set up to act like 12 in order to maintain isolation between client applications. There may be other ways to achieve this - but the way I (or rather, my host) has it set up is pretty simple. I have access to an actual machine. If I need to create a new 'server' - it's a matter of a few clicks. As long as I keep an eye on resource allocation across the virtual farm - I could have as many virtual servers as I want.

Again - in reality - it's still just one machine..