Fedora Linux vs. SUSE Linux Enterprise Server vs. Windows Server

For experimental use, test lab situations, or very special-purpose tasks, Fedora [Linux] is an excellent choice. We are almost exclusively a CentOS shop for our production stuff, but in labs, we take more risks with things like Ubuntu or Fedora. It's not as appropriate as CentOS for production level endeavors, but it lets us know "this is where we could be going" when we engage in r&d tasks.

Incentivized

We use it for every linux service we need to have running. It really works great and is easily manageable with the SUSE Manager, which helps a lot with the updating process. Although it is not stressfull on the CMD itself, it really does simplify things. Besides that, we are really happy with working with SUSE Linux Enterprise Server.

Windows Server and Active Directory is very robust and stable, it has been a staple in every IT environment I have worked in during my career. Junior to Intermediate admins can learn Windows Server easily, the user interfaces make administration tasks very easy as well as the documentation available through a vast amount of resources. There are other Operating Systems available with no GUI which has a smaller attack surface, faster update installation and reboot time. Windows Server does have the ability to remove the desktop experience, however it is not something I have had experience with and I believe most administrators choose not to remove it.

Incentivized

• frequent updates
• DNF as the package manager
• strong focus on security

Incentivized

• Consistently performs well across various CPU architectures.
• It's very well supported both by the parent company, as well as SAP and other third-party companies.
• It is upgradeable across versions. We've performed upgrades from version 10 to 11 and from 11 to 12 without any major issues.

Incentivized

• Backup of workstations & itself - reliably, consistently, with Bare-Metal Restore and deduplication
• File management and Security on a per file/folder/user basis is simple and fully done through an easy GUI
• DNS, DHCP server functions are easy to configure using the built-in GUI

Incentivized

• Stability. It's good, but it's not anything like CentOS for stability
• End-user usability. It has a few glaring holes here and there with UI/UX

Incentivized

• The support window for service packs after a new SP is released is too short.
• Community engagement is low.
• There are times when supported packages fall too far behind and create compatibility issues with applications. The Open Build Service usually provides a way around this, though.

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized

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.

This is a personal preference based on working with hundreds of client projects, I prefer Ubuntu over Fedora Linux.

Incentivized

We've been using this OS for about 8 years in a productive environment. During this time, we have never run into any problems that stopped or impacted our production environment. We have been able to solve any problem we ran into using either common sense, suse documentation or suse support.

Anyone new to IT could easily use the familiar Desktop Experience (GUI) version because we all know how to use Windows, whether a client or server version. Once an IT user is more comfortable with the operating system, they can move on to the Core version, which is the way to go in almost all situations.

Incentivized

some times server hungs and user sessions were busy to connect

need to improve the performance more

Support personnel are helpful and fairly fast to bring resolution to non-emergency issues. Patches are created and posted in a timely fashion. We so far have not had any major problems that needed support

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.

Incentivized

it was my senior who trained Windows Server features and i was satisfied

Third party training was fast but mostly unnecessary as we were already Unix trained and Linux familiar

it was recorded session and useful

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.

Incentivized

We are an all-CentOS-shop, but we've done a number of things with Ubuntu and Fedora. Most of the production CentOS machines are only there because prior to that Fedora helped to blaze the trail to get there. It's been a very good platform for testing our new ideas. Ubuntu is similarly positioned in our organization, but Fedora stacks up well in our environment.

Incentivized

We went straight to SLES when we initially started migrating oracle to hana since at that time, HANA came on a pre-installed server that had to be purchased from an official vendor, and SLES was the only allowed OS. We stuck with SLES after we became certified to do our own installations because so far, SLES was a good fit for us.

Incentivized

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 at the command line, which some people are not fully comfortable with.

Incentivized

need to reduce a lot

We have successfully deployed on physical servers, VMs and in cloud all over the globe from templates of our own design

yes i completely agree multi deployment

i like the professional service but need to improve

• Shorter LTS means more administrator work
• Security patches help reduce vulnerabilities to help save money

Incentivized

• Compared to others, use is more stable and scalable; easy to manage.
• The administration tools are very useful in helping the staff performance.
• SLES proved to be a very extendable product, supporting all of our infrastructure.
• The major reason I chose to use the product was the extensive enterprise peripheral support.

Incentivized

• Ability to keep all files in one place and give access to users makes file management easy to control.
• VPN Access to off-site users is a plus.
• Secure access to on-site SQL data from our accounting and estimating data is a plus.

Incentivized