I compared three server operating systems, "Windows Server", "Free Linux", and "Commercial Linux".
| Windows Server | Commercial Linux | Free linux | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial cost | × | △ | 〇 |
| Operational effort | 〇 | △ | × |
| Ease of finding information on the net | △ | △ | 〇 |
--Windows Server is an abbreviation of CAL (** C ** lient ** A ** ccess ** L ** license) for the number of clients or users in addition to the OS license fee, and allows clients to use Windows Server. The cost of the license to do this) is heavy.
――Commercial Linux requires a server license fee, but it is often not as good as Windows even if you add the maintenance fee for annual support.
――The appeal of free Linux is that you can start it on your own without the need for initial investment.
――It is almost inversely proportional to the initial cost.
--Since Windows Server can work on the familiar Windows base, it is often relatively easy to operate.
--Commercial Linux does not have much trouble in operation if you have a contract for paid support.
――Free Linux is an OS that you use at your own risk, so basically you need to solve it by yourself no matter what happens. Operation requires a certain amount of labor and cost.
--Windows Server can refer to document libraries such as MSDN and TechNET, so it can secure a certain amount of information, though not as much as free Linux.
――Commercial Linux does not have much information about distributors that provide OSs, so the knowledge of free Linux users can be used as a reference to some extent, so it is evaluated to be about the same as Windows Server.
--Free Linux demonstrates its strengths. Since it can be used free of charge, it is used by various users, and has the advantage of being able to easily find each knowledge.
Recommended Posts