Webhost Deathmatch: Linux Vs. Windows

When you choose a desktop operating system, there is a pretty significant difference between Windows and Linux. The user interfaces are vastly disparate, many applications are designed for one OS or the other and the underlying kernels are worlds apart. The same concept applies for Linux VPS hosting and Windows hosting. While the differences in user experience tends to be lessened because you’re typically working through control panels, and not the operating system proper, you still have features, scripts and technology that one server OS supports that the other doesn’t. Here’s what you need to know.

Script Support

The script languages supported by Windows and Linux differ greatly. Perl and CGI are both difficult to support on Windows, while Windows technologies aren’t supported on Linux servers at all. While the latest Windows server operating system supports PHP, you aren’t guaranteed to have that version of Windows on specific hosts, so confirm the OS version if you want PHP scripts to work properly on a Windows server. Always keep essential script support in mind when you choose the server operating system. Scripting really is the primary decision maker for choosing Windows or Linux, as the two operating systems don’t share a lot of cross-platform scripting support.

Pricing

Linux distributions are generally free and are all open source operating systems. Some distros do require a paid commercial support package, but the pricing and overhead is less expensive than comparable Windows servers, due to Windows’ licensing costs. Windows also depends upon more hardware resources to run properly, requiring a more powerful server than you would otherwise use. Keep your price point in mind, and be aware of the capabilities you’ll get with Windows compared to Linux.

Microsoft Technologies

If you’re using FrontPage extensions, ASP, ASP.NET or .NET, you are essentially locked into a Windows server. Microsoft doesn’t make it easy to use this technology on Linux, BSD or OS X servers, although some emulation is possible. However, performance is not optimal, and it tends to take a lot more time and energy than just getting a Windows server on hand.

Database Technology

Database-driven scripts are common in web applications, and Linux database support covers MySQL technology. It does not, however, cover Access databases or Microsoft SQL. Enterprise-level applications use extensive database technology, and Access is great at handling high volumes of fields and information. If you need a specific type of database, confirm it is compatible with the server operating system you are choosing.

Security

Linux is widely considered a more secure operating system than Windows, mostly because the Linux architecture is not as easy for virus creators to program for. The lack of executable support in Linux prevents standard viruses from working, and security holes are plugged up by the many programmers looking at the open source code. Windows gets attacked by hackers on a consistent basis, and users have to wait for Microsoft to develop and deploy patches.

Which do you prefer for web hosting: Linux or Windows? Tell us in the comments.

Gregory Adams

Greg is a technology and mobile trend freelance writer with a penchant for rollerblading.

Linux will never have a Virus, Some say!

I got an Interesting Comment yesterday:

Wouldn't you bet that this topic is very popular with the linux community at a whole but that isn't what makes it interesting.   I got a comment that I must talk about in parts.

It’s not a question of whether Linux will get viruses. There are already a number of worms and other malware that have struck Linux services. As for a virus or other malware attacks against Linux as a whole, it can’t happen the way it can for Windows and Mac OS X. It’s a question of homogeneity vs. heterogeneity. Windows and Mac OS X have two flavors, 32bit and 64bit essentially [this is an over-generalization, but it's generally true]. Linux is so balkanized, that it’s difficult to think a virus could be written that could affect every distro out there, since none of them run the same versions of various system software [like services, filesystems, etc.], so it’s not likely that the same type of flaw will exist everywhere. Also, with distributions like Debian so many architectures are supported, and it’s difficult to imagine some virus author to put in the effort to make the virus able to infect so many disparate systems. The law of diminishing returns applies here.

This argument is something that is near and dear to my heart for several reasons.    Having seen Apple getting hit by a virus and malware, who thought they were educated also never once thought about getting a virus.   Now lets face it this isn't like a major system to some but there are more and more of linux users out there because of the fact this is a free system and many people would argue that they can't afford to buy a new version of Windows every 2 or 4 years and some of us will not buy Apple due the Apple tax.   So there we have it, more and more people are turning to Linux because of this worldly recession and that means more and more people are using Linux and the eyes of the malware writers will start to find holes and other ways to infect users.

Just because it is unlikely doesn't mean it won't happen!

We have seen in the past that there are Unix viruses and that was never really popularized as Apple having a Virus.   Now just because the Linux community is fragmented into many different flavors doesn't mean they don't have something in common to all of them.   The Kernel alone has to have something in common with all flavors to be considered viable.  That in such means that the flaw that you suggest could and probably does exist everywhere.    When someone says law of diminishing returns applies here, I have to imagine that you do not know that with any web surfing instance, I can easily find out which Linux you might be using and thus create a script for it.     Which in my Mind that sounds oddly like your using the old argument of Security through obscurity and we already saw how Apple got hit by a virus because they thought this same thought for several years.

Segmentation is everything to Malware:

So I agree, it’s possible that viruses for Linux will be in the wild sooner than later, but they will target specific distros/architectures [like Debian, Red Hat, SuSE, and derivatives, or even Android, and all the architectures supported by them]. Also, this means that the target markets for Linux viruses will be segmented and segregated, and thus much less profitable than markets as huge and contiguous as Windows or even Mac OS X. Until there’s no more low hanging fruit like this, virus writers won’t have the economic incentive to target Linux in general, except maybe to prove it can be done. But then again, the returns won’t ever be as spectacular as they can be on relatively homogeneous systems like Windows and Mac OS X. Thus it will always be possible to write Linux viruses, but not nearly as probable as with other commercial operating systems.

Segmented Linux distributions makes it just that more probable of getting a virus.   Most writers will love to have segmentation and they have used it in the past.  The Market segmentation would make it just that much harder for any one Linux Distro to remove the virus.    If you have several different flavors of Linux, you would have to remove the virus or malware a certain way with each and every version of the flavor.    Not everything is about economics, most of the writers have in the past did not want to segment because of the need to infect for ransomware, thus creating a way for income.   With the development of Antivirus Companies for Windows, they have alternatively changed tactics.   One of there new tactics is to spread to as many systems and use those system to send out spam, to redirect, infect other systems, and also pop up advertisements.    This is why they would love Linux because of the fact that there are so many segregated communities that it would be much harder for a system to be cleaned and thus the user would have no other option but to re-install Linux or live with the problem.   I for one have fought off viruses in the past with my clients so I know that some customers do not know anything about virus removal and thus will live with the virus until someone comes to fix the problem.   That is why I believe the Linux community as a whole should start developing a Virus database and work at stopping the problem before it starts.

What do you think?  I'd love to hear your comments?  Feel free to leave your comments at tell me your thoughts!

Only Time Will Tell!

Paul Sylvester

 

Related articles

• Linux Rant (just this once) (donatoroque.wordpress.com)


• Does Linux need an Anti-Virus? (paulstechtalk.com)


• 30 Days With...Ubuntu Linux (pcworld.com)


• The battleground of malware no longer just Windows as Android users get hit (inquisitr.com)


• Can Mac OS X Get A Virus? (brighthub.com)


• Antivirus For Linux (zerinsakech.wordpress.com)

Why you should use Linux!

I've been using Kubuntu 11.04

Hey let's