One caution is that Windows is not as secure an OS perhaps because there is a rich set of stuff that is darn hard to replace or eliminate.
I haven't seen one single landline direct-connection to the internet since the dialup/adsl days. Most consumers will have a router. The only exception is 3G/4G adapters, but the topic is about firewalling. And unless you're running a DPI appliance to check for binary malware, you're getting those in your windows machines anyway.
A FreeBSD or Linux based firewall+VPN system can be pruned to an astoundingly short list of services and binaries
As can Windows. And you can also take the easy approach of just closing any external port besides the VPN, leaving only potential attacks on the TCP stack and the VPN layer. I actually find funny people that use firewalls on unix systems "as a checklist item"; Most systems don't even require firewall if properly configured. But yeah, lets badmouth windows and forget the ton of distros that allow remote root login via ssh *by default*.
You open up a good context to make the point that a user should use what they know best. If the poster knows how to manage one system and not the other then the best answer for that user is obvious.
No. If the user knew what was best - or at least the options available - he woudn't be asking this. Having guys following tutorials on the internet to configure stuff is not my idea of "secure", and he'd probably be better buying a dedicated appliance with a nice gui interface.While realizing that you exposed something from the internal system or used a weak password for root after your whole network was compromised does have its educational value, it is a dreadful experience for a non-unix nerd.
Full blown Win-Server software that can get the job done costs more than the hardware.
No, not really. Windows has the easiest internet-sharing and vpn configuration wizard you'lll find. And its not half bad, but...
The above is a rather nice little box. At half this price I would buy two.
I have an equivalent box, Instead of pfSense (which, besides the gui and the easy VLAN setup, is a crappy system for everything else), I run FreeBSD 9.2. And I use it everyday to tunnel into my windows machines with RDP via SSH
ZFS is a big monolithic package that does everything, much like Microsoft Word or Outlook. ZFS is more in the Microsoft tradition.
Well, that is well within the Unix tradition. ZFS is a *kernel* module, not a userland application. Just because the cli interface is comprised of 2 commands, it doesn't mean its monolithic. Its as monolithic as ifconfig and other complex utilities.
And I'd take anyday the zfs/zpool command format over the lvm ugly mess.
If no major motherboard manufacturer even cares about niche market then I would ask you to explain all of the boards that are targeted towards multi-GPU setups and overclocking which are both small minority niche markets.
You say they are small. They aren't. They are the beef of the desktop market - hardcore gamers.
I beg to differ on this one as well. Just look at what Linux admins or really anyone with Linux skills gets paid compared to Windows admins. Not a single person that I know who really knows tech buys Apple, or Microsoft products (other than Windows for gaming)
You can differ as much as you want. Competent Linux admins and Windows admins are paid about the same. Less on the linux side for most run-to-the-mill LAMP setups, more on Windows side for enterprise. You pay for competency first, and any above-average sysadmin will be proficient in several systems, not only Linux. But in the end, techies are a minority, way smaller than gamers. And just because you're a sysadmin, it doesn't mean you can distinguish good gear from bad gear. Lots of techies I know do use Linux. And FreeBSD. And DragonFlyBSD. And Windows. A good techie isn't usually a one trick monkey. The sooner you learn it, the faster you'll grow.
People who know a little more might buy things like ECS or Foxcon motherboards that in my experience are not worth even thinking about as they tend to be less compatible and have lower quality components like capacitors that are being pushed to their limits which causes them to break down much more quickly.
Actually, Foxconn are usually replicas of Intel desktop silks. When a chipset is released, it is often accompanied with reference schematics that are - basically - a skeleton version of the reference board for that chipset. Foxconn usually mimics it to a point where you can hold both motherboards and they seem to differ only in color. So they usually are as compatible as one can be.
Regarding "pushing capacitors to the limit", isn't really about that. Its about electrolyte degradation. And this can happen with any major manufacturer, as they don't control every step of the supply chain.
People that know what they're buying are buying ready-made workstations from Dell or HP or Apple, or building it with Tyan, SuperMicro or similar gear. Coincidentally, both Dell and HP are huge players in the server market, and they use Foxconn factories.
I actually have used desktop components for servers quite a lot. I do make sure there is redundancy and for a small business they really do not need anything more. Also in my experience good quality desktop components are just as stable and last just as long as server components. Besides who cares if the system lasts for 5 years or 10 years when it should be considered too slow to be useful after 3 years?
Yah, that shows. You're "that" kind of guy. Let me ask you, assuming you're running eg. databases on those servers, what happens when a bit is flipped on in memory and a write operation commits 0x10FE credit instead of 0xFE? Your redundant system will replicate this and silently propagate the error. Or when a block is misread from a single disk instead of using parity check? Are your clients aware that this can happen? Have you explained it to them?
I have run many different Windows and Linux servers and have worked for hosting providers that host 1000's of websites and other applications on both and I can say from experience that Windows uses a lot more resources, is much slower and is much less stable than Linux, and in many cases Linux is quicker and easier to get setup and running, although not always quite as straightforward as Windows.
So, you have Windows and Linux experience on a very narrow field. Good for you. I can actually setup an OpenBSD server way faster than you can install most Linux distros, does it mean its a good replacement for every workload? Not really.
In my book stability and low overhead are key factors in making a good server and Linux easily beats Windows on that.
I could give you several server scenarios where Windows would win hands-down, but you seem to have your mind made. I would start with most available iSCSI daemons, but when you need eg. complex, multi-level autentication for both machine and resources with a fine-grained ACL, you'll probably understand that Linux isn't always the answer.
Smaller companies often have old desktops running as their "servers", no raid (or using the crappy bios fakeraid), no backups, no redundancy etc.
Smaller companies often have no servers and have everything online, or have a in-house NAS and a bunch of desktops. This isn't the nineties anymore. Some corner shops may still have a couple of desktops doubling as servers (yah, I've seen it), but it is not that common.
Lots of cheaper servers are also based on desktop boards, and lots of budget hosting companies use such systems.
Just because they are in a rackmount case, it doesn't make them "servers". And most providers describe in detail the hardware, and will give you explicit option for an entry-level server solution - you get what you choose to pay for. If you're dumb enough to get an i7 "server" with 32GB of RAM for database work, its your problem, not theirs.
Most desktop gear isn't even designed for a 24/7 operation, let alone having to support the cpu running at full capacity and indefinite amount of time. Desktop gear is not designed, both from a thermal and electrical perspective, for this kind of operation.
I like to use ECC even on the desktop, and yes there are ways to do it. At a cost.
Just because you use entry-level server gear/workstation gear for desktop work, it doesn't make it desktop
And you think with the low margins the manufacturers have these days, they can do without that share?
Unfortunely, yes. No major motherboard manufacturer even cares about niche market. And the IC manufacturers, they don't really care, either.
Also people using desktop Linux are typically in the higher income levels and can not only pay for quality
Higher income buyers are buying trendy Apple, Andoid tablets and Microsoft laptops, not linux workstations.
they can recognize it, unlike the sheep
No, they just don't care about that. But you do get the smugness of the illusion that the manufacturer uses fairy dust instead of building it like everyone else.
Wolves are always a minority.
Now, you're just assuming stuff. I'd say wolves are quite the majority of animals in wolfpacks, and the major ingredient in wolf stoo.
What you are also completely forgetting is that a lot of these will actually run as servers. You know, because Linux does well as server
Who is using COTS desktop boards on servers? Traditionally, Intel desktop cpu lines do not support ECC memory. And you talk like there is no option for servers besides Linux.
You know, because Linux does well as server, quite unlike Windows
I assume you speak from experience. I'd blame it on the sysadmin, not the operating system.
But you would not know or understand that.
Get out of the basement sometimes. Try to vent out at least some of that frustration of yours.
In the early days all of Germany's neighbors were weak in comparison, they'd all been through WW1 also.
I don't really see where you got that idea. The british empire had what was probably the most well-oiled war machine at the time - and Germany gave them a run for their money.
No one really wanted to get into a war and were slow to react.
If you mean "leaders were well aware of the consequences of war in your own backyard because it had happened a decade and a half before", yeah. No redneck reasoning here. And when the Americans realized this, they bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They've witnessed the horrors of the invasion of China and what is now Korea a couple of years before. (Hint: google "nanking massacre" - it makes the german seem inefficient by comparison).
If Germany had just grabbed their "lebensraum" and stopped they probably could have kept it.
You seem to forget that WWII was also fought in Africa. And Asia. Germany was fighting every major country on Earth at the time (with the exception of Japan), and had taken control of France and Netherlands, both with colonies in Africa.
It took the combination of the largest empire (British), greatest economy (USA) and the largest country to bring them down.
And a healthy dose of luck, in the form of bad decisions from Hitler and his generals. Just by themselves, it wasn't clear they would win against Germany.