RedHat Vs Windows
Red Hat Versus Windows
Red Hat is an open-source Linux distribution and Windows is the commercial offering from Redmond-based Microsoft. Before considering whether Red Hat is better than Windows, let’s look at the Linux versus Windows debate in general (from a home user perspective).
Points for Windows include: it’s easy to use, it’s widely supported and … well, that’s probably about it.
Points for Linux include: it’s cheap (or free), it’s stable and it’s more secure than Windows.
For home users, the choice is fairly easy. If you’re a non-technical type, Windows is probably your best bet. It’s as easy to use as an operating system can be, it’s probably the operating system that you use at work and, because it has such a large user-base, you’ll be able to get support when you need it - in fact, your next door neighbour’s kids will probably be able to act as your unofficial help desk! That said, it’s worth noting that Linux is becoming easier and easier to use and certain distributions, such as Ubuntu, are now bringing it within reach of even the most technically-challenged people. For technically-minded people, Linux represents a great choice which enables people to keep their hard earned cash in their pockets.
Ok, so let’s move on to Red Hat versus Windows in a business environment, starting out with the costs. I mentioned above that Linux is cheap or free, but that’s not exactly the case when it comes to Red Hat. While Microsoft charges a one-time licensing fee, Red Hat uses an annual support subscription model – in other words, you pay for it every year. Microsoft infers that this makes Red Hat more expensive than Windows (How can “free” be this expensive?). Hmmm. Ok, when it comes to the straightforward, up-front costs for the shrink-wrapped operating system, Red Hat is indeed probably is more expensive that Windows. That said, when you start to factor in CAL licensing and upgrade costs (due to the fact that Windows has obsolescence built-in), then the gaps starts to close. So, which is really the cheapest option? The answer is probably that it is probably environment-dependant. What’s cheaper for me might not be cheaper for you.
On to security. Microsoft claim that Windows has less vulnerabilities than Red Hat (Quote: Over the first 650 days of product life for Windows Server 2003, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, Windows Server 2003 had 75 percent fewer published vulnerabilities). I’m not going to dispute Microsoft’s statistics (which I’m sure are right), but they are possibly somewhat misleading. Unlike Windows, Red Hat ships with a complete range of server applications, some of which will not be installed. Were you to look at actual installations and compare the number of vulnerabilities that affected each over a certain period, the numbers would probably be fairly similar. Furthermore, it’s also worth remembering that vulnerabilities in Microsoft operating systems tend to be more heavily targeted than vulnerabilities in other operating systems.
When it comes to manageability, Microsoft scores some points over Red Hat. Windows does a much superior job of hand-holding that Linux. In a small business where Bob the bookkeeper is also Bob the IT guy (simply because he happens to know a bit more about IT than anybody else in the building), then he would certainly find life to be easier in a Windows environment. That said, in larger environments or environments with experienced administrators, this will be a non-issue. You can do things just as easily in Red Hat as easily as you can in Windows (in fact, some things can be done more easily), so long as you know how to do them.
So, which is really the best option? There is no clear-cut answer. For small businesses with limited in-house resources which do not want to outsource support, Windows would probably be the right choice. For everybody else, it’s an extremely close call. I prefer Red Hat’s server and desktop solutions to either Windows Server or Windows XP or Vista, but that’s simply a matter of personal opinion. Your mileage may vary.