OS X Server vs. Unix vs. Windows Server

[MikeLaRiviere]

I'm curious as to the respective advantages of OS X Server, Unix (including Linux, excluding OS X), and Windows Server (NT, 2000, 2003). I will be so bold as to ask which platform is the best.

Where I work, the server guys hate the Mac platform. They say that OS X provides a stripped-down version of Unix and fewer open-source applications than other flavors. The GUI, of course, is unnecessary on the enterprise level because, they point out, Unix is Unix. We have a mixture of Unix (different flavors) and Windows servers, but no OS X servers.

Which platform is best in the small business, medium business, and, most importantly, enterprise/large business?

Mike LaRiviere

 

[jsw]

Which platform is best in the small business, medium business, and, most importantly, enterprise/large business?

At the risk of being crucified, Windows Server is best for enterprise/large business. Why? They all run MS software, and Windows Server works best with it.

That isn't to say that Windows Server is the best server software. Just the best choice at that level.

 

[7on]

Well, unless they're Mac based - which is rare.

OSX is just as good as Unix in most circumstances. I'd even venture to say most if not all Unix programs can be executed from OSX. Maybe needing a re-compile for the PPC or something - but most should work.

Need a to run an Exchange server? See Microsoft.

 

[superbovine]

7on and jsw are both right. it depends on the application. certain situation call for specific servers. sometimes a mixture of server may even be the best solution.

 

[edesignuk]

I've worked at several large banks over the past few years. And they all have the same kinda setups. The comms rooms are full of hundreds of Compaq/HP servers (WinNT/200/2003), & Sun Microsystems (Solaris). Why? Well, it's all industry standard stuff. Xserve and Mac OS X just isn't, it's as simple as that.

Active Directory makes managing a Windows enviroment so simple it's crazy, it's fantastic! The Sun kit is used for heavy duty processing (most belonging to fixed income/equity/sec lending, trading business units) when speed and reliability is paramount.

 

[matthew24]

In large enterprises, Windows2003 has the (only-) advantage of a huge installed-base. In small enterprises OSX server is going to be a hit, because Apple is making every effort to have a very easy gui/adm-tools that will make an IT-admin unneccasary.

 

[superbovine]

In large enterprises, Windows2003 has the (only-) advantage of a huge installed-base. In small enterprises OSX server is going to be a hit, because Apple is making every effort to have a very easy gui/adm-tools that will make an IT-admin unneccasary.

hahhah

 

[bux]

Why? They all run MS software

hahahahah, that was a good joke!
Any OS is better then MS OS because they can't run MS software

 

[garybUK]

Id say Windows 2000 server is the better of the MS operating systems for servers. In our implementation 40,000+ MS Workstations and a couple of Mac's but only for cartography departments, they found that Windows 2003 pretty much breaks any co-existing active directory / permission based server.

Can I throw in the ring Novell Netware server? Novell is the original inventor of the Active Directory idea called NDS (Novell Directory Services) its sooooo muc better than activedirectory and works pretty much with any platform its very efficient as well.

But most large corporate networks are MS based and i fear NT/2000/2003 will stay the default for userland servers for a while.

Backend ms suck, we use a mixture of Sun Enterprise 100k's + HP Superdome 128 Processor systems running HPUK + around 10 ICL Mainframe systems from back in the arc.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Id say Windows 2000 server is the better of the MS operating systems for servers. In our implementation 40,000+ MS Workstations and a couple of Mac's but only for cartography departments, they found that Windows 2003 pretty much breaks any co-existing active directory / permission based server.

Can I throw in the ring Novell Netware server? Novell is the original inventor of the Active Directory idea called NDS (Novell Directory Services) its sooooo muc better than activedirectory and works pretty much with any platform its very efficient as well.

But most large corporate networks are MS based and i fear NT/2000/2003 will stay the default for userland servers for a while.

Backend ms suck, we use a mixture of Sun Enterprise 100k's + HP Superdome 128 Processor systems running HPUK + around 10 ICL Mainframe systems from back in the arc.

The nice thing about current versions of Novell Netware is that they don't need a client - perfect for mixed environments (Mac/Windows/Linux).
Aren't those backend systems running HP-UX? You said they are running HPUK, which I've never heard of.

 

[garybUK]

The nice thing about current versions of Novell Netware is that they don't need a client - perfect for mixed environments (Mac/Windows/Linux).
Aren't those backend systems running HP-UX? You said they are running HPUK, which I've never heard of.

Sorry yeah HPUX

 

[MikeLaRiviere]

Ah, it's great to see frankness here and the lack of "OS X Server rules." I am surprised, though, at the amount of people who use Windows Server. I'd figured more people would use Unix, but I can definitely see the advantages of using Windows Server.

Has anyone tried implementing OS X Server vs. Windows SBS in a small business? If so, which is better? How about Unix in a small business?

Mike LaRiviere

 

[tomf87]

I've got one small business that uses all three. They use Linux as the inbound mail relay, use SBS for email/calendaring, and have a Mac OS X Server running on a G4 Server for file sharing.

I would use OS X Server if it were just for file/print sharing and email. However, if you're looking for calendaring and a very good database server, go SBS.