New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
There is a reason most desktop is powered by Windows.
LXDE.
Also I remember back in the day I used to play with DSL (Damn Small Linux), where 256MB of RAM is considered big.
Can't, never had an Apple system and never will have one.
E.g. jwm. And under 500 MB? Plenty; almost all except the Windows-like ultra fat monsters (e.g. KDE might need 500 MB). 1 GB like Windows? None that I know of.
Yeah right, Microsoft themselves also have a SQL "database" system, although I don't know why anyone would use that when there are (even free) real SQL DB systems.
AFAIC I can take (non-IT) Windows users seriously but not developers or other self-respecting IT professionals, the poor souls who have to admin and/or support Windows to earn their living excluded.
Real men dbadmin use Oracle or better.
Anyone remember/used Opal? Ironic that EDS seems to now 'own' it, whereas it was with one of its' great rivals (CA).
I was unfortunately in that position for far too many years.
@jsg opinions.
Let's just say that big corporates use everything Microsoft because is the standard and for very important reasons such as compliance (a big one). Is for the same reason they choose AZURE over any other cloud provider. Also convenience.
The vast majority of health IT systems that run and dominate across the globe are developed in C# (ASP.net, Web API, Net Framework, Core, etc), MSSQL and other Microsoft stacks.
I understand why in this community we would say things like "Microsoft ew" but the norm worldwide is Microsoft and their supported frameworks.
The same is said about banking systems.
MSSQL is preferred over MySQL or MariaDB. C# is preferred over any other language for back-end. Net framework and Core are solid. Remember companies have the budget to buy these licenses (even thought these are available for free too) .
Before anybody mention this: yes Angular, React, vanilla javascript, bootstrap all these are used because these are mostly employed as front-end, the back-end can be C#, MSSQL, Reporting Services, PowerBi, etc.
Try streaming chart site such as TradingView.com on any browser in any Linux based desktop. Check if the memory utilization is anywhere even remotely close to 500 mb.
Also check the cpu percent utilization
@Hxxx
That's all nice and dandy but the topic here is "What are the advantages of using a Windows VPS?"
I'm not generally fervently against Windows. In fact there were cases where I advised a company to use Windows rather than linux for quite a few office use cases.
But here the context is VPS.
... also vulnerable, insecure, virus plagued ... and on LANs with Unix boxes between them and the WANs. Probably there are reasons why Windows is rarely found on routers and switches ...
They can run Windows programs - that’s about it,
I worked at a large energy company on a team patching 1000’s of Windows and ’nix servers every quarter. Windows is always an issue. It was a miracle if some of them would even turn on
.
Then you must really suck at your job. I'm at a company right now that regularly patches over 6000 windows based workstations and several hundred servers, and there are very rarely any problems.
I'm not taking sides or anything, I really do not care what people run as long as it works for them, but if Windows was even half as bad as some people claim there is no way it would be the by far most commonly used os.
A de facto standard not borne from its' technical competency.
(Look up Betamax vs VHS)
That is very much true, but if it was totally useless it would not be so widely used.
Windows is by far "good enough", and in many cases even the best fit, for a majority of users.
This.
FYI - Windows ain't my favourite OS (it's not even my primary OS).
You are making a bunch of ignorant assumptions - one being I'm doing the work, and the other being the time is technical in nature. But I'll forgive you for it none the less.
My assumption is you are doing a piss poor job, and patching wrong then. Clearly you are not taking backups for restoral, archiving anything, arranging user approvals for downtime or doing any kind of user testing - which means it's bullshit servers not used for anything meaningful OR you really are just a shit person at your job. And instead of doing due diligence you just assume everything works because you don't give a fuck about other people.
I suspect wherever is desperate enough to hire you, a quick walk through a business team (assuming your servers are actually used for anything) will result in a lot of shit talk about your process.
So, I guess we both now have made some assumptions. What's next?
Who makes the choice? The users or management?
Yes, agreed - but some big fat "buts" like e.g. the fact that most Windows users have no say in the decision nor any basis (like knowing other OSs), or the fact that Windows was basically forced upon them, oftentimes even since school as the "standard".
As I said, I myself have sometimes advised companies to use Windows at least at the front (but not at the back end) due to the above mentioned facts. It's simply cheaper and less trouble to let stupidized (by Windows) employees use what they know than to force them to learn something new.
But I think we also must recognize that not everything is perfect and nice in the open source world. One major problem is GPL and friends; in fact I often had a hard time to "sell" open source software at all to companies due to the immense damage created by GPL fanatics. It took time, patience, and efforts to convince manager that there are also foss licences like BSD, MIT, etc. Another major problem is the fact that while foss does offer good, and sometimes even excellent, solutions, it sadly also offers utterly sh_tty solutions unfortunately in areas where it often counts most. I do remember cases where companies were willing to try e.g. OpenOffice and their experience was horrible.
I guess at the end of the day it pretty much boils down to Windows being the less painful of two ugly options (as seen by managers).
So instead of swarm bashing Windows the foss people should recognize that we are responsible too for a lot of Windows installations.
Remember what happened when Dell tried to sell computers with Linux on them?
Familiarity and blinkers are the main causes for the persistence of Windows, though.
Here's an example:
So why the prevalence of relational databases rather than object-oriented, which is the logical integration to use? Could it be that Windows-blinkered developers are too used to using MSSQL?
You get to help the NSA and GCHQ by allowing them to spy on you.
Well, my assumptions were based on this:
I would not call it too far fetched to assume based on above quote that you were the one doing the patching, and that it did cause problems. If one considers it a miracle that a server turns on, you have the bar set pretty low.
Your assumptions on the other hand was totally pulled out of your ass since you got butthurt by my comment.
But just to give you an idea, the 6000 workstations are used at hospitals. The hundreds of servers are running x-ray machines, catscans, medical laboratory equipment, stores medical records constantly accessed from all over the country, and probably a thousand other similar things.
They are constantly backed up. Not because we want to, but because we have to. We are required by law to be able to restore any data at any point in time.
Similarly, we have to patch them. We are not allowed to run unsecure systems. If we do, we get a hefty fine by the government.
User approval for downtime? Ha, we are not allowed to have downtime, period. And testing is done in the test environment, not in production.
We put millions into SIEM every year, so we assume pretty much nothing. If something does not work, we know about it already.
And this is just one of my customers that is "desperate" enough to hire me. They are so desperate that they pay pretty much whatever I ask for, and have done so for almost 9 years. So far, "my process" have successfully passed monthly government inspections for 9 years straight and resulted in no major problems at all. The only "shit talk" I've ever received has been from you, and seeing that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, I don't really put much weight to it.
For once, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Claiming everything foss is superior just because it's foss is just ignorant.
In a lot of cases, Windows is the better choice because it is just what the user needs, simple as that. We might find it rewarding to tinker around with configurations and being able to read and even modify the source code, but a majority of users do not want or need that.
I am by no means a Microsoft fan. To be honest, I think most of their products are crap. But as much as I would like to be able to claim otherwise, Windows is really not a bad os. In an environment where you need guarantees and compatibility, it's really hard to beat. Sure, it has limitations, but those limitations are nothing but theoretical situations that 99% of the users never will be affected by.
I do love foss, I would not own 20 or so personal VPS's all running linux or BSD and hang around this place for hours each day if I didn't. But does that not mean that I have to hate Windows and trash talk it every chance I get. I tried that when I was like 14, it didn't really get me anywhere and it probably did not make me look as cool as I thought it did.
1 User friendly
For owners with limited technical expertise, Windows-based servers are regarded as very user-friendly, because Windows VPS has a graphical UI, and it is suitable for newbies. The controls and interface for managing, publishing, and altering websites material are simple to use and administer.
2 Greater Site Control
Because a VPS is separate from other tenants, you have more control over your website. You can use VPS hosting to access all of the available resources and files. You can have a server tailored to your needs with Windows VPS hosting. You may also install additional software as needed. As a result, you can experiment with advanced levels of coding with ease.
3 Cost-Effective Solution
As your company grows, so will the traffic on your website, which may necessitate an upgrade. Upgrading your current shared hosting plan to Windows VPS will be ideal as when your website has outgrown shared hosting can be a bad idea. But you also don't want to overspend by hosting your website on a dedicated server.
4 Increased Security
If one of the sites on your server becomes infected with malware or suffers from a security breach, it can have an impact on your site as well.
On the contrary, each virtual server in Windows VPS hosting has a private environment. As a result, the data on the server is kept separate from other users, making it difficult for infections to spread between users.
5 There is no resource sharing.
A slow-loading website also reflects poorly on your company's image.
Your resources are not depleted by other websites hosted on the same physical server when you use cheap Windows VPS hosting. Because each website is hosted on a virtual server that operates in an isolated environment, your website runs without interruption and provides an excellent user experience for your visitors.
Nice spam!
Now I see it, you mean the sig?
Not just signature.. the whole content posted is a blob from some cheaply paid writer with keywords glaring!
Actually that’s common after an evening of waffle wrestling with yo mama, I’m not sure what comments you made or are referring to and she has me a tad drunk at the moment. That woman eats the whole damn chicken - and really gets into the kink. I think she lost the TV remote up there —- also, why do you guys still have an old CRT style TV in your trailer home?
And it's funny too, especially point 5.
I used to run Windows build boxes for open-source software, for languages that didn't support cross-compiling or that needed to have their test suite executed on a real Windows machine.
Microsoft SQL Server is a really solid product though. Their query profiling and optimization tools are unmatched by any other DBMS. The best "profiler" built in to MySQL and Postgres is running the query with
EXPLAIN, which is fine but is nowhere near as powerful as Microsoft's tools.AFAIK they have a Linux version now.
You need to compare like-for-like, whereas you're comparing Windows with a GUI to Linux without a GUI. Windows Server Core or Nano Server is a better comparison. Not sure how much RAM a bare install takes, but their minimum recommended RAM for a standalone system is only 512MB (admittedly double Debian's 256MB minimum, but lighter than Windows with a GUI), and the minimum RAM for a Hyper-V container is only 40MB (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/windowscontainers/deploy-containers/system-requirements) as AFAIK it shares the kernel with the host, like LXC and OpenVZ do.
I am running SQL Server for Linux on one of low end VPS.
I am a data architect for living. PostgreSQL is super solid RDMS and runs quite well on CentOS. For financial industry, SQL Server is preferred due to its integration with SSIS, SSAS, SSRS, and PowerBI. In production environments, I have not seen anywhere SQL Server for Linux. Windows Server OS is the widespread choice.
Regarding the “core” (or GUI less) version of Windows Server 2019 OS, it runs perfectly well on 512MB memory. Powershell script is to be used to perform any operations.
PS - Windows Server 2012 (desktop experience) runs fine on 1GB memory.
I can run Unix VPS even on 64 MB. But thanks anyway (I really mean it) because thanks to your post I learned that Windows can run without a GUI.
Maybe interesting side note: I have a client who needs tiny BSD installations and I've just brought down /boot/kernel (kernel plus all modules) to about 50 MB. I guess if I let go "omni-usability" e.g. (diverse hypervisors supported, only one of which is relevant for the clients use case) and some nice but not used (in that case) features like e.g. CloudABI it can be brought down to 40 MB or even less. Also the 'world' (~ total install size) has been brought down very considerably (from an already relatively low value).
I'm very confident that that client will be able to comfortably run his stuff (some of which I'm developing) on 128 MB VPS with 5 GB disk.
TL;DR Windows does have its reasons to exist and its advantages but there are - by no means unimportant - points where Windows can't even enter the playing field.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administration/server-core/what-is-server-core
I use SQL Server at my day job and everything else for hobby projects, and I must say SSMS and the Profiler has been the best thing since sliced bread.
Plus, it being available on Linux is very helpful for us migrating away from Windows VMs