Its has all the needy features that we are looking for plus the support and updates for the OS as well. This means we get all the support and updates in the mean time. Also comparing to others, Debian OS helps us with more security features in built which is also updated over …
Though Ubuntu is a derivative of Debian OS, (and I occasionally use resources from Ubuntu on a Debian system), I find Debian OS to be more user friendly and less likely to force me or bother me with upgrades, etc.
When compared to others, Debian runs smoother and faster and has great support for feature set with it. Even installing other supporting tools or IDEs for development work is pretty easier. With few simple commands and a good internet connection all the debian packages from the …
As they are all a Linux distribution with many years of development, they all fulfill their specific function as an operating system, but something that differentiates Debian OS by a lot from the others is its resource management, which is very good, in addition to being safe …
I find Microsoft Windows Server is a much easier OS to deploy and administer. It does require more resources to run, requires more security updates and overall has a larger footprint. Rebooting the Windows Server takes a much longer time than RHEL for example. An administration …
Windows Server blows any of the Linux flavors I've used out of the water. Even after gaining experience with Linux, I'm able to achieve the same results in Windows Server from a command line much quicker than in Linux simply because Windows Server, especially with the …
Windows Server is much easier to work with and it's widely adopted. It have a lot of features and a nice gui. In the other hand linux systems are more robust and often more secure , but the learning curve and technician needed for it are much higher. Depend on the usage you got …
They are different experiences, and while the other solutions offer enterprise-grade stability and, in some cases, address Windows server shortcomings (such as patching), they all do the trick, but the other solutions require a deeper technical background/configuration of items …
It is really all about application support. The only option we really have is Windows Server, and where we can choose we continue to use it for consistency as well as compatibility with the systems where we are forced to use Windows Server).
We've utilized docker and debian for very specific applications and they have been useful - overall Windows Server provides a better package. I would choose VMware ESXi over Windows Server for virtualization as it's far more reliable in our experience. I can't imagine using a …
There are plenty of other server solutions out there which may be better suited for certain tasks, but Windows Server is the way to get a Windows environment going. For simple setups, there are many alternatives, but often there are key features lacking, or a restriction on …
Windows Server is more cost-effective and skills are easier to find to support the products. The deployment and management of the product can be automated with Microsoft SCCM. In my opinion, Linux seems to be more secured but takes more time and effort to learn than Windows …
These are just very different products. They can all have the same functionality but the specific product knowledge with Linux is much higher. This slows down troubleshooting and can leave you with limited options for high end support. There are absolutely good use cases for …
I didn't use any other system which gives the same functionality and I am not aware of any. The full integration between all components and especially the ability to integrate mail via Exchange or even via a hybrid setup with the Ofice365 cloud, including the ability to …
For our more experienced users and for simple web apps we will go the RHEL route but with Windows Server such an industry standard the the ease of use of the GUI it just makes more sense for most applications that use it. It also generally has a lot more interoperability …
Linux is great, but support is harder to come by. You also need to pay linux admins more as it is a much smaller group of people that can support it. Windows is the industry standard with the most support available. Going with another platform just didn't seem to make sense …
I have some basic experience using various builds of Linux and have always found myself coming back to Windows. Perhaps after years of working with Microsoft products they all have a similar feel and configuration options. Microsoft products are my typical first choice where …
We have various servers or appliances that run on various flavors of Linux that do their jobs well, but we configure and manage them very lightly at the OS level. Most of the admin on these devices is sone inside the applications themselves. We don't shy away from new …
All the other products I have used in the past OS2 servers, Novell Netware, Banyan Vines etc don't show up in the search list, which i guess goes to show that the best wins.
I have used/administered several servers using systems like Ubuntu, Debian, and CentOS. While these systems are great in their own rights, you are typically using a command-line interface or shell in order to administrate the system. This requires a lot of commands to be …
For our purposes it came down to picking between Windows and Linux and at the end of the day we picked both. We use Windows for 80% of our server needs to run our Web, File, Print, DHCP, Internal DNS, Active Directory, SQL, Web and other windows based servers. We use linux …
Windows Server has become one of the industry standards for providing file and directory services for the majority of users because of the ease with which it interacts with the common desktop OS, as opposed to needing to provide esoteric support for users to be able to work …
About any linux distro can be setup to handle services that a Windows Server can do, except I have not personally found anything nearly as convenient of a replacement for Active Directory, Group Policy, or an RD Gateway. There are alternatives to those services, they just …
Windows Server is by far the easiest server option to get started with because they offer the same kind of interface with windows that most users are already familiar with. Plus, it's the most graphically friendly option, so it is easy to navigate. Lastly, it is the most …
Debian is very well suited for application servers, web servers, file servers, hypervisors (personally, we use Proxmox for some hypervisors and this is based on Debian), and much more. It can run on various CPU architectures and scales well from large to small. We have Debian DNS servers running on Raspberry Pis, and large application and database servers running on powerful Debian installs in our racks.
If you want an OS that is rock solid, easy to manage, and predictable, Debian might be the OS you're looking for. The official packages are generally far from being bleeding edge versions, but this means that you are using packages that are battle tested and will not break compatibility at any point during its life-cycle. This, to me, is one of Debian's core strengths and a good reason for recommending it to others.
On the flip-side, the lack of up-to-date versions of various packages may be an annoyance if you actually do need to be using the latest version of such a package. If you need to be using more modern versions, you will need to remedy that yourself or look at an alternative distribution. Ubuntu may be worth a look, in this case, being that it is basically Debian with newer packages and some minor differences here and there.
Personally, I would not recommend Debian for a graphical desktop OS. You'll nearly always be better off with one of the Ubuntu flavors for a modern desktop with all the bells and whistles you'd expect with a GUI desktop.
Anytime I need a server for something, whether to test a new platform or app, devote a server to hosting something, etc., Windows Server is my go-to choice. Recently I needed a new server to host a web server and web application, so I spun up a Windows Server 2025 VM and was up and running in no time at all.
Microsoft needs to minimize the update frequency by making the product more secure. It can become very exhausting trying to keep updated if you don't have a dedicated support team. It can become challenging where the business is unable to allow downtime for reboots as part of the update process.
Prone to security and audit vulnerabilities.
The operating system needs more CPU and memory resources compared to other options such as Linux.
Understanding the licensing model can be abit confusing.
Comes with a standard firewall, but not the most secured one available. Would suggest using a more secured firewall as part of your antivirus software.
Due to the number of vulnerabilities and the operating system being a target for hackers, anti-virus software is a must.
I've carefully reviewed the servers and services currently running on Windows Server 2012, and given the opportunity would renew them as is going forward. There are two systems I currently have in place, one is a very large Linux implementation for a large ecommerce site, and one is a very large backup solution front ended by FTP servers running Linux. Neither are well suited for Windows, but the overall network infrastructure is and will be Windows Server for the foreseeable future.
Debian is one of the most well-thought-out, logical, and intuitive Linux operating systems you can use. Configuration, package management, file system layouts, etc, are all based on many years of usage, and it's very rare to find anything surprising or confusing in everyday usage. Package management and updates are handled by APT in such a way that once configured, you can almost guarantee your system will behave as expected for the lifetime of its service. Top-notch system integration provides all the tools you'd expect from a modern Linux system, with all the stability you demand from a demanding server OS.
There are simply too many different parts of Windows Server to make it a cohesive piece of software. While some of the newer features found in Windows Server 2012 and 2016 have nice UIs that are logically laid out, there are enough parts of the system that is still based on old code with clunky UIs and confusing options to make Windows Server a particularly user-friendly experience.
Microsoft's support is hugely wide-ranging from articles online to having to contact them directly for the more serious issues. In recent years when I have contacted them directly, I have found the support o be excellent as I have found myself connected to very knowledgeable people in the field in which I needed the support. The online support available is vast and I tend to find most of the time that there is always someone out there who has had the same issue as me in the past and knows something about how to resolve it! This is the advantage of using industry standard and long-established systems such as Windows Server.
Make sure that you have detailed processes in place for every server instance you plan to install/upgrade, if possible get the base OS loaded and Windows Updates applied ahead of time, and if using a VM take a snapshot prior to installing each role, as well as along the way.
I find Microsoft Windows Server is a much easier OS to deploy and administer. It does require more resources to run, requires more security updates and overall has a larger footprint. Rebooting the Windows Server takes a much longer time than RHEL for example. An administration task such as expanding a drive in Windows can be very simple, however in RHEL it is not.
