View Full Version : [poll] BEST OS FOR WIRELESS
What do you guys think is the best operating system for Wireless?
savagedavid
24-06-2006, 16:39
How do you mean? for running an AP or for accessing a network?
What do you guys think is the best operating system for Wireless?
well you can use any of the OS's to access the wireless network, its just like any other network. AFAIK you can't get windows to run a wireless card in AP mode. It can do ad-hoc or client. HostAP on linux is bitch, running in master mode is your best bet. I have never worked on a MAC so can't help you there.
Just goes to show that Linux RULEZ!
savagedavid
03-07-2006, 10:38
I guess the rule would be:
1. I want to click 1 button and get onto a wireless network, but then have no control over anything - go for Windows XP
2. I want the maximum power I can get out of my wireless kit - go for Linux.
3. Having said that - if you really examine the power of Windows Server 2003 you might be suprised to find it can do almost everything Linux can, you just have to be more familiar with the OS than most people are...
3. Having said that - if you really examine the power of Windows Server 2003 you might be suprised to find it can do almost everything Linux can, you just have to be more familiar with the OS than most people are...
Well, maybe easy, but I strongly disagree. Windoze is easy to work with, but DEFINITELY NOT stable. I rather go through difficulty in setting up Linux, sitting with an allmost perfect system, than have to click once in windoze and reboot a couple of times a week to keep it alive!! B)
Windows Server <> Easy
The nice thing about having a powerful command line, is that it is a lot easier to follow a tutorial that says 'type pkg_add -rv apache2 php4-server' then to follow a tutoral that says 'click here, click there, click overthere'
I used to admin a win2003 box for quite a while and was constantly frustrated with it. Doing simple things like sharing a folder was a mission and half. Altho it was solid as rock... dunno if it had anything to do with its specs (dual xeon 2,8ghz, 2gb ram, raid 10 setup) ;) I'd like to see that baby run debian *droolz*
Nuff said. I rest my case! !amazed
savagedavid
06-07-2006, 13:24
Nuff said indeed. This thread could easily go on and get a life of its own. I have worked extensively with Linux and Windows systems and they both have their faults and strengths. I guess its a matter of picking the right machine for the job. You cant compare an XP desktop's stability with 250 applications installed to a locked down Server 2003 box running minimal services - its just a reasonable comparison. I have some 2K3 mailservers that have run for a year without problems. Likewise we are running some Linux boxes and CTWUG and I am constantly impressed with its stability and power.
savagedavid
06-07-2006, 13:32
I see macs are real popular for wireless...
been down all the routes and back to 2003 server, suse was great but still the smallest thing 'like playing an mp3' was a mission on linux - but playing mp3's on a server is prolly not what it was designed for still windoze rocks!!!
Well, this just proves that FreeBSD pwns Windows and Linux
</rant> :P
Poll: Which operating system would you prefer for Wireless?
Mikrotik - need i say more
been down all the routes and back to 2003 server, suse was great but still the smallest thing 'like playing an mp3' was a mission on linux - but playing mp3's on a server is prolly not what it was designed for still windoze rocks!!!
I never knew typing mpg123 filename.mp3 was so difficult :p
LOL, lets face it; it's just much easier running WinXP as a desktop OS. You don't have to download the tarball and compile it, just to find you don't have all the nessesary libraries to install Adobe Acrobat :P
But from a server point of veiw, I run Win2k3 and Linux (RH ES 3 & 4 & Debian Sarge). I MUCH prefer the linux boxes they're much more stable and I've never had an application or service that I haven't been able to get working. Windows, err1982983 application will quit ??? Linux error unable to bla bla bla.... google.... oooh, add lib or whatever and hey presto.
It's got a lot to do with what you want to with the box.
IMO.
WinXP - Desktop
Win2k3 - Collaberation Server
Linux - Every other server and other requirement
LOL, easier to run windows... Not in my case, windows doesnt even install on my box, even though it has that little designed for windows xp sticker...
Besides, KDE with all the eye-kandy turned up looks damn hot!
been down all the routes and back to 2003 server, suse was great but still the smallest thing 'like playing an mp3' was a mission on linux - but playing mp3's on a server is prolly not what it was designed for still windoze rocks!!!
I never knew typing mpg123 filename.mp3 was so difficult :p
I never knew that there r still boxes that old that could run winxp :p
savagedavid
15-07-2006, 12:18
WinXP - Desktop
Win2k3 - Collaberation Server
Linux - Every other server and other requirement
You forgot:
Novel Netware - best file and print server ever invented (try it some time - really!)
Anonymous165
15-07-2006, 23:04
People that say linux is more stable than Windows 2003 dont know as much as they should or havent implemented microsoft solutions correctly.
Micorosoft has SLA agreements with large corperates where they garrentee 99.999% uptimes. How do you explain this if Windows is so unstable?
Its all relvent to what hardware you are using and what policies you have in place in your organization.
Ouch this post is really going off topic, but I just have to add my 2c.
Its all relvent to what hardware you are using and what policies you have in place in your organization
Thats just it, why should you buy specific hardware thats compatible with your OS? It should be the other way around. Linux (and their developers) worked hard to make sure linux is compatible with virtually any hardware out there.
Terribly sorry, but it totally disagree with that statement. My dad has a Windows 2000 Server for his office (he works at home). Its VERY high spec'd (waste of money...) Now i'm not quite sure whether something drastic has changed from Windows 2000 s to windows 2003 server, (knowing Microsoft, they probably just added some little menu effects) but my humble FreeBSD server, built out of scrap components on a 733mhz p3 has a higher uptime then his server. Infact my laptop has a higher uptime then it even. He has spent over R10,000 on trying to get it setup properly, but no one can seem to do that. It just likes restarting itself, and it will CRASH if too many people try and copy files from it. Believe me, its not the hardware. FreeSBIE is faster on that computer then Windows 2000 server.
(FreeSBIE = FreeBSD LiveCD)
</rant>
Edit: Agreed with Foamz, why do i need to spend $100 000 just to get stable uptime?
Ouch this post is really going off topic, but I just have to add my 2c.
...and all I want to know was which operating system would be best for wireless jobbies... %-6
But I'm glad we finally found that, according to what we've heard in this post, Linux still seems to be the most stable operating system around.
Sorry Gates, but you'll have to try harder...
Yes Must agree... I'm quite sidk of WIN pop-up error windows..Just when you need to run stable... Can WIN not ignore minor problems and just keep the program running instead of shutting it down..?? Just wondering... :? Me no like mr Gates (wondering why he called it windows and not gates...) !lol ?!
LOL, cause Gates imply security, while Windows are wide open
LOL :D good one... real good one... I'm selling my windows..ANYONE.. 20 sents?? .. OK 5 sent's
good for hanging on your mirror and ppl won't brake into your car... cause they pity you :)
Sorry no space on my mirror... Norton antiviral software already hanging there... !lol It was no good on my computor so I tried it on the other viruses out there... :D may be if I glue the logo to my rims they'd stop confiscating my tires.... B) You gotto love this place... otherwise you'd be long gone.... :D !lol
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.1 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.