 




<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Windows Vs SUSE linux</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/windows-vs-suse-linux/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/windows-vs-suse-linux/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 07:13:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: rechil</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/windows-vs-suse-linux/#comment-72118</link>
		<dc:creator>rechil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 05:14:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-72118</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Of course it depends on ur company&#039;s infrastructure and man power. If u hv plenty of knowledge on SuSE Linux, then u can change ur server or can migrate from windows to SuSE Linux. As Compare, SuSE Linux is the best choice over windows, cause windows is frequently virus effected and crashed. But there is a very little chance to get virus in Linux systems. Most of the virus programs r made to aim to windows. Where Linux is dynamically change its memory address so it is very difficult to get virus. Needless to say that, Linux has so many free tools and softwares that may perform very efficiently on Linux. Also Linux has a very strong security and there r no of tricks and flavours / distros. But Linux Administrator is more efficient than Windows Administrator. In Linux server there r plenty of tools and commands that u can perform an administrative job very fast where windows has no of gui tools which make the system slow. U can install only text based server that helps the system very fast and has more security on Linux system. But in windows u never install text based system. Only one drawback in Linux system is that u hv more and more expertise where in respect of windows is less.....]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course it depends on ur company&#8217;s infrastructure and man power. If u hv plenty of knowledge on SuSE Linux, then u can change ur server or can migrate from windows to SuSE Linux. As Compare, SuSE Linux is the best choice over windows, cause windows is frequently virus effected and crashed. But there is a very little chance to get virus in Linux systems. Most of the virus programs r made to aim to windows. Where Linux is dynamically change its memory address so it is very difficult to get virus. Needless to say that, Linux has so many free tools and softwares that may perform very efficiently on Linux. Also Linux has a very strong security and there r no of tricks and flavours / distros. But Linux Administrator is more efficient than Windows Administrator. In Linux server there r plenty of tools and commands that u can perform an administrative job very fast where windows has no of gui tools which make the system slow. U can install only text based server that helps the system very fast and has more security on Linux system. But in windows u never install text based system. Only one drawback in Linux system is that u hv more and more expertise where in respect of windows is less&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: buddyfarr</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/windows-vs-suse-linux/#comment-51605</link>
		<dc:creator>buddyfarr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:43:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-51605</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[but I do agree with Mrdenny, you need to look at what your IT staff excels in. if they are windows guys then keep it that way so that they are working with something that they are proficient in. but if they are linux specialists then they might be inclined to move that way. it also depends on what they wrote the site in. if it is .Net then they might need to recode the entire site to work on the other OS.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>but I do agree with Mrdenny, you need to look at what your IT staff excels in. if they are windows guys then keep it that way so that they are working with something that they are proficient in. but if they are linux specialists then they might be inclined to move that way. it also depends on what they wrote the site in. if it is .Net then they might need to recode the entire site to work on the other OS.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: buddyfarr</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/windows-vs-suse-linux/#comment-51604</link>
		<dc:creator>buddyfarr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:41:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-51604</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[actually that is not entirely true unless they have changed recently. Microsoft tried to swap it&#039;s hotmail system from a unix variant, (was it FreeBSD? can&#039;t remember),  to windows servers some years back and it crashed and they were down for a few days while they fixed it. I know that their newest database engine is much improved so I don&#039;t know if they have switched again or not. didn&#039;t follow it since then.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>actually that is not entirely true unless they have changed recently. Microsoft tried to swap it&#8217;s hotmail system from a unix variant, (was it FreeBSD? can&#8217;t remember),  to windows servers some years back and it crashed and they were down for a few days while they fixed it. I know that their newest database engine is much improved so I don&#8217;t know if they have switched again or not. didn&#8217;t follow it since then.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using memcached
Database Caching 6/9 queries in 0.013 seconds using memcached
Object Caching 296/299 objects using memcached

Served from: itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com @ 2013-05-24 09:32:23 -->