4 ms·
> From an administration standpoint they are much easier to setup and use thanks to their GUIs. Windows is very standardized and has very good management tools
by nkohari 14y ago
> From an administration standpoint they are much easier to setup and use thanks to their GUIs. Windows is very standardized and has very good management tools and interfaces.
Having managed both, I have to disagree very strongly. A GUI works fine when you want to manage one machine (although it's kind of a pain in comparison to SSH), but when you want to manage dozens, you need sharper knives. The tools available for automating devops (chef, puppet, etc.) are very oriented towards UNIX-based OSes. We have around 70 Linux machines in our production system today, and if I had to manage them through RDP and GUIs, I'd probably quit and become an alpaca farmer.
- Supermighty 14y agoDisclaimer: my personal experience is managing Linux machines. I think it's easier to manager a service on Linux that has one, or maybe two, text files for configuration. They often ship with every option available, even is commented out, and a little note detailing exactly what the option is for. My only real experience with Windows Server was having to add a new mime type for .fla files for IIS. The .fla were downloading instead of playing. The option was buried deep in in multiple configuration windows and dialogue boxes. It took forever compared to what a simple AddType would have taken in an Apache text file.
- Supermighty 14y agoActually, I really love the annotated text configs. It's like I'm talking directly to the developers.