back to article Words to put dread in a sysadmin's heart: 'We are moving our cloud from Windows to Linux'

The worldview of elastic compute, or mine at least, has historically had very little Microsoft involved in it. Recently however, I have attended several job interviews and one question that has invariably been asked is: “We are planning on moving from Windows to Linux. Have you done it before?” This situation usually arrives …

  1. cupperty

    Retitled

    Words to put dread in a sysadmin's heart: 'We are moving our cloud from Linux to Windows'

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Retitled

      As a Linux admin, the only thing I dread is being expected to run these former Windows cloud systems.

  2. ratfox

    Stupid question

    Going to Linux will reduce the licensing costs, depending on your vendor of choice but the downside comes in those with Windows skills and experience needing to new learn new tools and the Linux infrastructure.

    I have no idea at all, but is it really easier to find people with Windows skills than people with Linux skills? I realize most of the corporate world is on Windows, but on the other hand, don't almost all CS schools have a Linux infrastructure nowadays?

    1. SolidSquid

      Re: Stupid question

      In terms of the users of the system probably, in terms of admins for your infrastructure I'd be a bit dubious that there were less Linux admins than Windows. Since Linux infrastructure works just fine backing up Windows systems, I honestly can't think why anyone other than the systems admin would have to have any kind of Linux experience

      1. JustNiz

        Re: Stupid question

        ...Because for developers other than those working on windows products, and for many other experienced computer users, Linux also makes a better desktop environment than windows.

    2. Salts

      Re: Stupid question

      I think its a good question, more and more I get the impression that knowledge of Linux is just expected, perhaps more knowledgable readers will advise.

    3. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: is it really easier to find people with Windows skills

      As the article is about moving from one environment to the other surely they already have people with Windows skills.

      1. Mage Silver badge

        Re: is it really easier to find people with Windows skills

        It's easy to find people with poor Windows skills that blindly follow MS Marketing / MCSE advice rather than best practice.

        All good Windows Sysadmins I ever knew last 15 years were also expert in Linux.

    4. Dr. Mouse

      Re: Stupid question

      I have no idea at all, but is it really easier to find people with Windows skills than people with Linux skills?

      This is a hard one, but I think it comes down to cost.

      You can find a cheap Windows admin/developer relatively easily. If someone wants to "get into IT", many will just go out and do a course like an MCSE. Most of these readily available courses are for Windows. In addition to these, these are the kids who grew up with Windows, figured stuff out as they went along, and started calling themselves Windows admins/devs.

      These cheap devs/admins are probably where a startup will, erm, start. They realise they need an IT bod, but want them as cheap as possible. They pay peanuts, and get monkeys, but this is acceptable for them in the financial constraints of a startup.

      At this level, there are (I believe, in my limitted experience) less Unix/Linux bods. Those who go into *nix tend to learn how to do things properly, and have more interest in computers, which generally leads to better staff. It also leads to higher wages, of the same sort of scale as the better Windows guys. To the average startup, however, this is just "more money", and negates the cost advantage of using Linux in the first place.

      1. JEDIDIAH
        Linux

        Re: Stupid question

        The problem with a "cheap" Windows admin is that you will likely get what you paid for. It's a platform that's all about the idea that you don't have to know what you're doing. A lot of people calling themselves Windows admins have no business being anywhere near a server.

        The competent ones (Windows admins) will be much more like their Unix counterparts in terms of technical skills, understanding the requirements of managing servers, and price tag.

        A cheap warm bodies probably make Windows more of a disaster than it needs to be.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Those who go into *nix tend to learn how to do things properly ...

        As an ancient, besandalled and bearded UNIX type, I totally disagree. Linux types seem to be self-taught by reading other people's misguided clever tricks and ideas. I lose count of the number of times I see Linux "sys admns" pipe awk into awk into grep into awk to do a simple one liner, or use some perl scrap to do a for loop better donê in a shell or make their tortuous way through a text file editing session in vi (vim) with just two or three commands that they know, ignorant of address ranges, anything other than the simplest s//// .... Tell them that ksh command recall uses vi (well, emacs if you prefer) and they are completely unable to translate their vi knowledge, such as it is, to the shell, typing "bash" frantically so that they can take their fingers away from the home keys to use the arrôw keys. Try explaining the difference between Bourne shell variable scope in for loops and Bash or mention shell array variables or safe automation. Ask how the back-up actually works (and how it differs from archive). Watch them become masters of copy and paste a la Windows. Look at the numbers who contribute to this web site who purport to be Linux techies while insisting that Linux is older than or actuall is UNIX or, rather, that UNIX or OSX is Linux.

        They seem to be mainly people who first learnt on Windows, tried to become techie by playing with Linux (I mean, playing, not trying to get a serious, professional job done) and then just bumble through with a set of ideas from other amateurs who think they are good because they discoverd a the command line, if they did. Or they think the ability to pull out one card and jam in another without losing the screws to the case makes them a software expert. Mention X/Open or Posix or man pages, any shell other than bash (if they know it is just a shell) and watch the confusion. Shove a couple of functions and an exec to take control of i/o into a script and observe bewilderment and panic. I have and still do see this in every industry, from engineering, though scientifc and financial services to banks.

        Too often, a bank, for instance, will decide to move to virtual servers running Linux on what used to be Windows hardware by telling the windows staff to install and configure it and watch as the O/S clock goes into the wrong timezone and is corrected by adjusting it to Norwegian Summer time (seen it in a very large, American bank) or just get it wrong (in a major Swiss bank), while persisting in Windows utilities for critical stuff that, at least, if you are lucky, the windows admins understand, vital network components, email and so on. A lot of this is, of course, because the different Linuxes can not agree on some common interfaces and standards and these are often so bizarrely documented that one can not expect the vast numbers of existing stuff just to pick it up, along with the details of RAID, Veritas, automating software distribution across thousands of hosts, secure user management and so on.

        I'm a UNIX bigot, absolutely. But I do not pretend that Linux admin is easy or self-evident and it certainly is not taught at University and, as firms have been told it is easy and free, they tend not to give the level of training they need and have not got the experienced staff in situ to recruit the few good people (who expect a better salary than the operators and windows admins and much better than the employer wants to pay).

        Real Linux or UNIX engineers and admins who know more than just a few admin tools are rare.

        There's a reason why current computing admin seems even more prone to disaster and cock-up than of yore and it is not the complexity (except where introduced by ignorance and poor or no design).

        Steam, steam, stamp and shriek.

        1. redneck

          Re: Those who go into *nix tend to learn how to do things properly ...

          I love your comments. I'm gonna print them out and post them on my cube for others to see. Fantastic. (I'm another UNIX bigot. God curse donatelli for canceling the port of HP-UX to Xeon...)

        2. Ken 16 Silver badge

          Well said, sir!

          I am neither a Windows nor Linux sysadmin though I have, reluctantly, administrated servers for both. My Linux knowledge is weak, self taught, based on extensive use of G**gle and memories of my formal training in Sun Solaris and IBM AIX. I am a hack. I recognise this in myself but bemoan it when people who profess to administer Linux for a living have less knowledge on how the things work. When I meet a really good Linux sysadmin I am agog. They are not cheap but they are worthwhile. On the other hand, Windows seems pretty idiot proof to install, security harden and operate.

      3. AlbertH

        Re: Stupid question

        Exactly right.

        Linux admins usually command higher pay because they have REAL skills! There is also the point that one Linux admin can replace dozens of Windows W*n&e@s. A global company - that I've consulted for - recently replaced 44 Windows data centres around the planet with just 4 Linux servers - and reduced their IT staff from nearly 400 to just 8 (a sysadmin and 7 PFYs).

        That's the real saving - the 8 linux admins can be very highly paid (and certainly are!) and the 400 MCSEs will have to go and re-train if they want to earn in the sector in future....

    5. pyite

      Re: Stupid question

      ratfox: Finding Linux admins is just as easy.

      Finding Linux admins willing to take a pay cut to match Windows admin salaries is the hard part.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Stupid question

        >Finding Linux admins willing to take a pay cut to match Windows admin salaries is the hard part.

        According to Microsoft the rockstar/Wall St salaries demanded by all Linux sysadmins is what keeps Micosoft's TCO so low. I would love to know which firms they surveyed

      2. admiraljkb

        Re: Stupid question

        pyite "Finding Linux admins willing to take a pay cut to match Windows admin salaries is the hard part."

        Hence why I jumped ship on MS since I was both Windows and Linux. Linux pays better, and generally requires less employees to maintain. Fewer higher paid employees is better than many slightly less paid ones.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Stupid question

      "is it really easier to find people with Windows skills"

      Wait - Windows requires skills??? Next you'll be saying it has functionality!

      1. oldcoder

        Re: Stupid question

        After all, even a 5 year old can do it.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I have done several the other way. Java processes in particular seem to run much better on Windows Server - and are certainly much easier to manage.

    With the wholesale move to Azure going on in the enterprise at the moment I suspect there will be plenty of others too.

    1. Roo
      Windows

      @AC

      "I have done several the other way. Java processes in particular seem to run much better on Windows Server - and are certainly much easier to manage."

      Are there any specific things that make managing Java processes on Windows easier ? I haven't really seen any difference - but the kinds of problems I come across are JVMs exploding due to exhausting their heap, or missing resources not showing up until runtime...

      1. marky_boi
        Facepalm

        Re: @AC

        Are there any specific things that make managing Java processes on Windows easier ?

        get a good Java programmer who knows how to aggressively recover resources. or better still code in a better language. Java is a dirty word in my industry, all my vendors have now seen the error of their ways and use more robust languages and upspecc'd the software architecture to ensure management of the software environemt takes priority.

        1. Roo
          Windows

          Re: @AC

          "get a good Java programmer who knows how to aggressively recover resources."

          Those folks are rarer than hens teeth, and even the "good" ones tend to prioritise quick delivery over runtime performance.

          "or better still code in a better language. "

          We don't always get to choose what language people write code in... You've been pretty unhelpful tbh. :)

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @AC

        "Are there any specific things that make managing Java processes on Windows easier ?"

        Perhaps this dude only knows GUIs and Windows task manager?

    2. amanfromarse

      More AC pro-MS propaganda.

      Why would anybody move from Linux to MS? It just doesn't make sense if they have linux experience.

      In my experence, mainly banks, Java systems are nearly always deployed to linux (or other non-MS) servers, although development is frequently on Windows workstations.

      >With the wholesale move to Azure going on in the enterprise at the moment

      That is utter bollocks.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: More AC pro-MS propaganda.

        ">With the wholesale move to Azure going on in the enterprise at the moment

        That is utter bollocks."

        It really isn't - Azure is gaining market share much faster than AWS - and is looking like it will soon overtake AWS in terms of revenue. And Microsoft make a profit - unlike Amazon.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: More AC pro-MS propaganda.

          >And Microsoft make a profit - unlike Amazon.

          And my daughter's class bake sale made a profit and GM doesn't - so pink is the best color for a car

      2. pyite

        Re: More AC pro-MS propaganda.

        amanfromarse: many companies make these kinds of decisions without asking any hands-on techies for their opinions.

        Just a couple of examples I have had to deal with: an acquisition and at another job we had a board member who pushed out a private OpenStack system in favor of a different cloud system that he had invested in.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I know, don't feed the troll but...

      "Java processes in particular seem to run much better on Windows Server"

      Details needed or downvoted as troll.

    4. Hans 1

      >I have done several the other way. Java processes in particular seem to run much better on Windows Server - and are certainly much easier to manage.

      Numpty, I will give you keywords for you to find out, good luck:

      Java max heap windows

      You will come back and say, yeah, yeah, yeah, but that only affects 32-bit JVM's, I will say right, go read what SAP have to say about it. Windows drivers load anywhere in memory, the Oracle Java heap (both 32 and 64-bit) has to be one contiguous block. Yes, you can use JRockit, but that is being deprecated.

      Besides, how do you send signals to the Java process on Windows ? Right, you need to get that toolbar/spyware infested free tool off the interwebs.

      Bottom line, good job you posted anon, window cleaner, because you simply "Have no clue"™.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Don't go Windows, and if you do, keep your options open

    Microsoft is ok if your appplication is going to be small and stay small. However, if you scale up there will come a point where the licensing costs will start to eat a significant portion of your operations budget, not to mention the patch/upgrade/lifecycle ball chain. At that point, you'll dearly want to move to Linux.

    So if you want to start with Windows and leave your options of going elsewhere open, you'll have to use cross platform technologies. Which means you'll go with some JVM based language, plus an open database platform (PostgreSQL or MariaDB)

    Using those on Windows is not impossible, but then Windows loses a lot of its appeal because the strength of Windows development is on using the full Microsoft stack. So you're probably better going with Linux on the server in the first place. As for developers, allow them to choose their OS (Windows, Mac, Linux) but force on them the same toolset where possible. For example, the first to use a new OS/IDE combination has to create a script on your repository which automates everything necessary to set up the dev environment from scratch.

    1. Dr. Mouse

      Re: Don't go Windows, and if you do, keep your options open

      We have ended up with a similar issue. Development of one of our applications was done on Windows, using VS/C#/.Net/MSSQL etc. While this worked, and scales reasonably well for our use, we are tied into it now.

      Had we developed using cross-platform alternatives, we could (for example) be using Raspberry Pis for out clients, which could have been integrated into the other hardware involved and produced a much nicer (and cheaper) system.

      Once you have reached the point this system has in development, moving is a nightmare.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Don't go Windows, and if you do, keep your options open

      "Microsoft is ok if your appplication is going to be small and stay small. However, if you scale up there will come a point where the licensing costs will start to eat a significant portion of your operations budget, not to mention the patch/upgrade/lifecycle ball chain. At that point, you'll dearly want to move to Linux"

      But the common Enterprise Linux versions like Redhat and Suse actually cost more than Windows Server to license. And they don't they scale as well as Windows on the same hardware for many tasks, and often cost more to operate overall.

      Unless you need more than 8TB of RAM in a single system image (the largest current x86 servers) then Windows Server often makes more sense and usually costs less.

      1. A J Stiles

        Re: Don't go Windows, and if you do, keep your options open

        But the common Enterprise Linux versions like Redhat and Suse actually cost more than Windows Server to license.
        I'm intrigued ..... What exactly does Red Hat or SuSE do, that Debian doesn't? And which components of the stack have ongoing costs beyond the up-front cost? (Apache, MariaDB, Asterisk, Exim, all the popular Open Source programming languages -- none of them have per-processor or per-client licencing costs).

        1. BlartVersenwaldIII
          Thumb Down

          Re: Don't go Windows, and if you do, keep your options open

          We have a big RHEL footprint at work... and it's not that RH "does" things that Debian or $distro doesn't do equally as well. It's that the RHEL price tag also comes with a glowing neon sign that says "we are the Official Linux of the business world" and the $software price tag comes with a scruffy message on the back of a fag packet that says "we only bother to test this stuff on RH so you'd better use that as we're not sufficiently competent to test on anything else".

          Most of our *nix admins would be perfectly happy running our various applications on any number of distros, but because of a combination of regulatory requirements, training courses, inter-and-intra-team standardisation, third-party software and the fact that the cost of a RHEL contract over the lifetime of a system is relatively miniscule we run "the industry standard".

          No-one ever got fired for buying IBM/Microsoft/Red Hat...

          1. Hans 1

            Re: Don't go Windows, and if you do, keep your options open

            @ BlartVersenwaldIII

            I upvoted, however, I know people who, rightfully, got fired for buying Microsoft software ... does not happen a lot, sadly, but still.

        2. John G Imrie

          Re: Don't go Windows, and if you do, keep your options open

          I'm intrigued ..... What exactly does Red Hat or SuSE do, that Debian doesn't?

          It has Enterprise in the name, which lets you get it past the PHB

          1. redneck

            Re: Don't go Windows, and if you do, keep your options open

            Well, for one thing, HP only provides drivers for its Proliant systems for RHEL and SUSE. With Debian, you have to jump through hoops. Eg, HP only provides linux drivers for OSes that are Enterprise class.

      2. orly_andico

        Re: Don't go Windows, and if you do, keep your options open

        Oracle Enterprise Linux.

        Free download - you can still download patches from Oracle's Public Yum repository even if you don't pay support - and contrary to the popular belief that it is simply a Red Hat / CentOS respin, it has significant enhancements around high-scale architectures such as RDMA for Infiniband (basically the stuff that is needed to support the large Exadata engineered systems).

        Support is pretty cheap - $500/year or so. And optional. If you don't pay for support, you are not entitled to file SR's on support.oracle.com

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Don't go Windows, and if you do, keep your options open

        "But the common Enterprise Linux versions like Redhat and Suse actually cost more than Windows Server to license"

        Mmmmm... go read https://www.suse.com/products/server/how-to-buy/ or https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/rhel.html and tell me again that Windows is cheaper than that. Don't forget to include Microsoft's CALs in your comparison, by the way. Or perhaps one may argue that the cost is actually worth paying because the support you get with these is far superior than what you get from Microsoft support. Plus, you can use the "free" version (Fedora or OpenSUSE) which uses the same code base for development or distributed environments where you essentially don't care about losing one machine, and the skills will readily move from free to premium editions.

        And while you're reading the above two links, take a second to wonder how these two offers fit on a single sheet of paper, whereas you'll need an specialist to understand Microsoft licensing.

        There are valid reasons for going with Microsoft OSs, cost is not one of them.

        "And they don't they scale as well as Windows on the same hardware for many tasks, and often cost more to operate overall."

        That is quite a broad statement, and a bit hard to believe: Windows scales exactly better on what dimension? I can name without thinking too much three or four big, big, big scale business running on Linux and nothing of comparable scale running on Windows. It could be very well that these are "trapped" on Linux (i.e, started small with Linux and grew with it) and that the big Windows players just don't advertise their choice of OS (surely Microsoft would be extremely happy to hear them doing that) but I seriously doubt it.

      4. Roo
        Windows

        Re: Don't go Windows, and if you do, keep your options open

        "But the common Enterprise Linux versions like Redhat and Suse actually cost more than Windows Server to license."

        Microsoft charged $128* to report a bug in their newfangled NT 3.51, that said they did thrown in the "warranty" for the distribution media for nothing.

        *=actually £128, but hey I'm giving their dollar price to show them in the best possible light.

        The fact is with a Linux you can run the crown jewels on something like RHEL (and get support), and run something like Centos on everything else (eg: desktops, lappies etc). You can't really do that in the Microsoft ecosystem, there are no competing vendors offering compatible products just 'partners' whose whole business case rests on MS choosing to allow them to exist.

        It doesn't stop at the partners either, MS, can actually revoke a license to run your software on instances of their OS on your hardware. I guess if you are in the business of running Microsoft gear you don't see it in those terms, or you believe it'll never happen, or it is a failure your business can survive.

        While some folks are in the business of running Microsoft software, other people run software to help them make their businesses more profitable. They *could* choose to take on the $ole Vendor gamble, but instead they choose to hedge their bets with multiple Open Source distribution vendors.

        The competition in the Linux market place is stronger, broader (embedded -> top end HPC) and the cost of moving from one vendor to another is tiny compared to moving from MS to *anything* else. I'm not even making this up, MS, their beholden customers and their shills state this as fact in public over and over again, they broadcast it far and wide as if it were a virtue rather than a millstone.

        So lots of Microsoft advocates agree that migrating from MS to anything else is cripplingly expensive, and products get EOL'd sooner or later, therefore an MS solution will inevitably be cripplingly expensive. A rational response would be to make sure you don't use MS stuff in the first place, and this is what has been happening over the last decade or so.

        More and more new stuff is getting written for Open Source platforms everyday, meanwhile more and more MS stuff is getting decommissioned and replaced with Open Source everyday. Despite it's continued growth Windows has been 'legacy software' for a decade now, it's in it's twilight years in all but branding. Like it or not Open Source is at the foot of a much longer growth curve than the one enjoyed by Windows.

        The challenge faced by MS is that Windows doesn't really have a USP beyond being compatible with itself. Don't worry for MS though, they will continue to tax Open Source via patents etc, they will do fine, just don't expect them to make any further contributions to making you richer.

      5. oldcoder

        Re: Don't go Windows, and if you do, keep your options open

        You can waste money either way...

        But there is no need to have a RHEL for every server. One out of four is sufficient - then use CentOS for the other three...

  5. jake Silver badge

    Whatever.

    For the last couple decades, it's been Slackware on the desktops and BSD on the servers 'round these here parts. Obviously, YMMV. Follow your own bliss.

  6. SnakeChisler

    Windows upgrades

    Having moved from windows NT4 to our current platform of 2012 and also having experience of UNIX & Linux its not just simply choose the devil you know.

    Upgrading to the latest versions of windows server can be harder than switching to LINUX also the hardware costs just mount up.

    In a modern setup running mail servers and web servers is far easier on Linux/Unix boxes,

    If you've software developed on windows your generally stuck to a certain degree as your tied into .net but there's no reason why you can look at requirments on a case by case basis.

    1. dogged

      Re: Windows upgrades

      even then, there's Mono and MS is aggressively opening up the source of the .NET stack.

      1. dogged

        Re: Windows upgrades

        I wrote -

        > MS is aggressively opening up the source of the .NET stack.

        and two people downvoted it.

        How'd you feel now, suckers?

    2. Paul Crawford Silver badge

      Re: Windows upgrades

      Moving from OS to OS, or between versions of the "same" OS separated by many years, is often a real pain and takes a lot of effort and testing. For some legacy applications the cost or trouble may not be worth it. If you have legacy code that is not internet-facing, then running it in VMs of NT4, W2k, old Linux, etc, is probably going to be your saviour.

      You can typically run a good few VMs on a single newer server with your preferred OS (Linux or Windows) using either a paid-for VM or (if willing to risk it) a free one. All at lower cost and higher performance, security, and ease of backup/restore, than keeping old machines going.

  7. Tom 7

    Learning Linux source code off by heart

    is a lot easier than working out MS licensing when you need to add on a couple of servers.

    1. phuzz Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: Learning Linux source code off by heart

      MS Licensing isn't difficult, just open your corporate wallet and throw money at them until they go away.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Learning Linux source code off by heart

        re: phuzz

        You must have an exceptionally large wallet.

      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Learning Linux source code off by heart

        You can always hire IBM consultants to tell you what Microsoft OS to buy - now that they don't tell you what IBM HW to run it on

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In the startups I've been involved with in recent years, Windows doesn't even enter the conversation unless there's some specific application which requires it. Most developers use Macs on the desktop, some Linux; almost all of them are comfortable with the Linux instances on Amazon Web Services or similar cloud hosting provider which they're almost invariably using. So nobody would ever hear the words "we are moving our cloud from Windows to Linux", although if they did, in most cases I imagine such an utterance would bring joy rather than fear.

  9. Nick Kew

    Preaching to the choir

    Are you sure you're in the right publication? Aren't reg readers far more likely to be the people cleaning up the mess than the ones making this kind of startup mistakes?

  10. Alistair
    Windows

    wow. Stunning revelations overall.

    Yes, I've seen this -

    Most "utiity developer" types I've met grew up with windows on the desktop, and are more comfortable with windows, but none of them are locked into it, just more comfortable with the MS "office suite of tools" for general desktop use. Coding wise, the toolsets that are more common in general IT environments are typically geared toward windows, but again, not always locked into it. Specialty IT shops, yes, the gearing is likley more toward unix/linux and mainframe.

    The problem comes when you put the term "startup" in there. It really depends on how the startup fires up. If its one of these "lets just toss this together and see what happens" startups (and there are a crapton of them floating around) its likely sloppy code slammed together on a windows platform, using the latest buzzphrase driven kitch. There are startups that start out with a serious business plan and (an/a few) architect(s) who have a clue driving the overall situation. These I've found build on a linux back end and develop the front end in something reasonably crossplatform capable as far as language goes. These tend to go somewhere.

    Interestingly I'm hearing more and more of the pre-2k "open source is bad for business" crap coming back up. This after piloting linux into a mid-sized corporate environment that never knew it previously and taking it, in 9 years, to the second most deployed platform of choice, soon to unseat windows on the server level. And yes, I've participated in (move from windows to linux) - its NOT painless, and more often than not requires a profound mental shift in the way the developers work on the codebase.

    (grumpy old system admin, tired of beating up the developers)

  11. Peter Johnston 1

    Google Cloud Platform charges by the minute so spikes are no problem. It has 70 centres worldwide, so you can deploy one (or more) close to whichever cities you have traction in. Containers mean you can upgrade or fix without any downtime. There is no minimum charge either - you can start for free, in fact they'll give you $300 worth of time to get you going.

    Using Bitnami you can have Linux up and running in a minute or two without any knowledge of code or software at all. And a host of open-source apps too. I set up eXoPlatform which is near impossible to set up on Windows, without a line of code.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      when is bitnami

      going to publish a set of ejbca servers?

      Also, because my environments (by choice or not) are running CentOS, if Bitnami has an appliance version of a package I want to deploy, I'll download it and pick it apart to see how to install it on CentOS.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There's Windows and then there's Windows

    The startups I've seen who got going on Windows had developers administering Windows servers "on the side", doing the pointy-clicky thing. But to really administer Windows at scale (enterprise or cloud, it matters not) you have to have serious talent - PowerShell is not a walk in the park. So you have this gap between "casual administration" and "scalable administration" where the toolchain you were used to evaporates under your feet and you have to learn a whole new way of doing things.

    UNIX/Linux, for all its myriad faults, keeps the same toolchain and worldview from itty-bitty systems up to big scale. Edit config file, HUP process, rinse, repeat. It's actually worrying to me when I see obfuscated configuration on Linux or pointy-clicky for serious infrastructure because that is the road to perdition in the cloud.

  13. SysKoll

    No pointy clicky is GOOD

    Among Windows developers, there is a tendency to providea GUI, and only a GUI, for some or all of the operation and configuration steps of their expensive Entreprisey application.

    This means that some critical configuration or runtime elements will be impossible to script and audit.

    Linux/Unix guys tend to think of GUI as a cutesy thingy you slap onto an application when Marketing gets too whiny. This is the right attitude for all business-critical applications, especially server-side. GUI are for desktop applications. On a server, I want scripts, config files, logs and audit trails.

  14. bill 27

    OK, it starts out:

    "Most startups don't hire full-time (or even part-time) sysadmins in the beginning to save on costs. Developers in startups, the ones whom I have spoken with, seem to know enough Windows to get a basic web stack configuration working, perhaps even a cluster."

    And ends with:

    "Going to Linux will reduce the licensing costs, depending on your vendor of choice but the downside comes in those with Windows skills and experience needing to new learn new tools and the Linux infrastructure."

  15. Rick Giles
    Linux

    Obvious choice

    My advice: make your choice Linux and stick to it. - There, fixed it for you.

  16. IdeaForecasting

    Resource usage

    All you have to do to determine if one is better than the other OS wise is to watch the performance monitor on each, all CPU's move together in a Windows world, while CPU's in a Linux system, baring minor differences in the Scheduler will demonstrate scaleability.

    And as for Java, Windows overhead seems get into the face of Java more, with regards to controls, at the expense of performance and resource usage.

    In general you can expect about 25% to 30% of any compute resource to be consumed by Windows Overhead, compared to Linux.

  17. conan

    Pre-release infrastructure

    As a developer who's worked in several startups, I disagree with some of the assumptions in this article.

    Firstly, all the sysadmins I know in startups ARE developers - and they call themselves "devops" to reflect this. Infrastructure built by these developers is invariably better than anything I've seen in the enterprise, mainly because it's modern.

    Secondly, in pre-release, the decision isn't simply whether to run your own tin or use public cloud infrastructure, there's a third way: PaaS. Running on Heroku or Elastic Beanstalk or App Engine or the Azure equivalent is significantly cheaper than hiring a sysadmin or devops of any type, until such a time as you need to scale in production. At that point you have a choice: accept the higher scaling costs of your existing PaaS solution, or move away onto public IaaS or your own tin. There's never a question of whether you can scale or not; if you don't choose scalable infrastructure to begin with, either as a sysadmin, devops or straight developer, you're not doing your job - the entrepreneurs who started your company definitely hired you to make a scalable business.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like