Windows Server 2012 - A fool proof Server OS

This news promises the steps taken by windows to retain its customer base.Can Windows really give security equal to linux servers.

Windows never compromised its security. Any of the server edition windows launched was never buggy. The hacks and everything were a result of misconfiguration on admin's part. Software was never to be blamed. It was fool proof. But in this version, It has crossed heights of epicness. Companies have already started to migrate from linux to windows for servers now. And this is my personal experience. I use Server2012 too.

Nayan GoenkaCompanies have already started to migrate from linux to windows for servers now. And this is my personal experience. I use Server2012 too.

Then why companies like Google,Facebook,IBM prefer Linux over Windows ?
Well, I guess it's all about Freedom & Support. Some companies want to develop the server the way they want, Microsoft puts restrictions - while Linux don't.
Talking about support, If there's bug you have to report in MS support & they will confirm the bug & will fix in the next patch, which will take quite time.
In linux, the moment bug hits the launchpad, 1000 developers with same problem are working to fix it & it will be fix within few hours or minutes.

And btw, check this link : #-Link-Snipped-#

It does look like Windows Server 2012 is a lot better than previous versions. The move to visualization is welcome.

Plus, you can't compare desktop and server versions of Windows. Server versions are way superior in terms of stability and security, and its meant to be used in server environments.

Regardless, Windows Server & Linux have their own places in use. For companies that can afford the licenses and cost of maintenance with ease, its still fine to use Windows Server. Plus with visualization, you can still mix in some Linux environments if needed. In addition, there are businesses which benefit a lot from Active Directory domain services.

Whereas 100% Linux is great for all uses as long as you have got competent Linux server administrators (especially if you are using CentOS which does not have commercial support like RHEL or SUSE Enterprise). Most Linux server editions suit companies ranging from small businesses up to service provider levels. I used to work in a CentOS environment on a VoIP server, its a breeze to use, especially remotely.

My stance, personally, is that its good to have Windows Server & Linux Server (or even the closed source IBM i) existing in the market, to give greater choice for businesses of varying markets, and more importantly, having more competitive features being introduced.

Windows was tough to main, I agree with that. But it doesnt mean it wasnt secure. Or it wasnt worthy. I would prefer windows anytime over Linux. And the giants take have developed their own operating versions out of linux. That is exactly they built according to them. And you dont expect Google and Facebook to use their competitors products to handle their own network. Plus it is too costly affair to just migrate such huge frames between operating systems. That is holding back those companies whose servers run on tailor made operating system.

Even if you put up a perfect configuration of any type of server hosted on Windows Server 2003 vs any linux machine, Windows wont be hacked. And about the delay in updates, it is a centralized company unlike Linux. Service is never delayed, you put up a call, a field agent(remote/live) will be in least possible time. But judging the software on this basis is not correct. You need to check in all aspects. Only fast "bug-fix" doesnt make it good or bad.