Windows 10 alternatives and competitors

We are part of the State Department and use the solution to achieve operational excellence and readiness for the cloud. We think about what the next 20 to 30 years of consular systems infrastructure might look like to build and design for the next 40 years. Not many other companies think beyond a decade. 

The solution was implemented in our environment in 2014. The initial mission is still the same but how we go about it is different. For now, the solution is more for application support and making sure we are following State mandates or executive orders. 

For example, one use case involved planning, designing the implementation, and executing a launch of online passport renewals.

Our environment is moving toward tools that provide automation to remove human error. These are tactical operations and use cases. We currently use SaaS, OpenShift, and Ansible to a limited degree.

We had many issues with staff turnover during COVID. Working from home and trying to maintain databases was not ideal. During this time, the solution would have been rated a five out of ten.

Sometimes, vendors provide the government or bigger organizations with band-aids but not solutions. Everything seems to be a problem so many fixes are provided. A fix for this or a fix for that is equivalent to putting a band-aid on a large cut which will not work. Vendors tend to look at the money game because larger companies are their bread and butter. There should be an appreciation for the needs of bigger organizations.

It took some time to get us in a good position with the solution. There is definitely some growth and appreciation. We are at a place now where we can grow our environment. Today, the solution is rated a seven out of ten.

The solution is useful for application support and automations. 

A completely new setup should not be required when upgrading to a new version of the solution. For example, moving from RHEL 7.7 to RHEL 9 requires us to go through every minor version upgrade as well as RHEL 8. We do not have the ability to patch as quickly as we would like, but there are pathways. We got on 6.8 this year and migrated to 6.11 where we are trying to work on the automation portions of deployment. Before, we had variations of versions 7.2, 7.3, and 7.5 in our environment. We have not yet been able to use the supported versions that we are accustomed to with our applications. We are now on 7.9.1 and are trying to implement the minor upgrade versions in our environment. We have not yet experienced a healthy environment or the joy of using RHEL because we keep encountering issues and problems.

There are issues when upgrading or integrating with previous applications or systems such as Satellite, vRA, SaaS, or OpenShift. This is extremely, extremely important because a lot of our infrastructure is on RHEL. We need to have someone onsite to adjudicate our infrastructure's most important applications, when we would rather be able to patch them in a timely manner without having the whole world assist us. 

The solution should be more user-friendly so we better understand how to scale. It is not that we shun professional services, but there is a major knowledge gap in our understanding of the solution. 

I have been using the solution for four years. 

With anything, when you nurture it things work. Now that we are finally on 7.9 and migrated 6.11 we are actively trying to automate. This puts us in a better and more stable position. 

We rely primarily on our contracting staff or professional services for support. We receive onsite support from account engineers who apply critical patches or troubleshoot code that is not cohesive. For the most part, turnaround time is moderate but certain legacy applications are harder to troubleshoot, so they take more time.

Technical support steps in for big issues and provides good help. For example, support assisted with decommissioning 6.2 and 6.5 because they were at end of life with no option for purchasing ongoing support. We had professional services and many different products, so technical support made an exception to help with migrations and that was appreciated. 

Technical support is rated a nine out of ten. 

Positive

I do not know the setup details. The solution was implemented in 2014 and I joined the team in 2018.

We are currently experiencing issues when upgrading or integrating with previous applications and are looking for solutions. We push out patches and look at Tower. We already tried Puppet and it integrates with Satellite, but we prefer to use home-grown products. 

Because we use Satellite, it would be nice if the automation portions come from Tower or others. We have explained this to an account manager but solutions are being presented to us from a sales perspective. For example, we are told that we should ramp up, get other applications, or purchase more licenses.  

Decommissioning is one of our biggest issues. We upgrade and spin it up, but then have problems decommissioning some applications so more user licenses are required. For example, we have an unused server but cannot remove the license because we are either unable to get assistance or do not know how to perform the action.

We used vRA with the solution but it did not work for us.

We also used CloudForm but are attempting without success to decommission because it was not a useful case.

It is important to ensure there is a level of training for implementation. You need to understand compliance for your organization to determine whether vendors can provide appropriate tools. 

Do not be afraid to ask questions once the solution is implemented in your environment to ensure you are where you need to be. 

Stay on top of version or patch releases to prevent bugs or security vulnerabilities to your ISSO or agency. 

I rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

I am a database administrator and work within the database that installs the solution all over the company and for clients. 

The solution used to be set up on hardware such as Exadata and Spark machines. Nowadays, the solution is set up on virtual machines and uses the ODA in various cloud environments. 

There are 50 to 100 people who use the solution across multiple teams that operate morning, noon, and night. My team is composed of 20 architects or engineers who focus on DBA for Oracle DB2 and SQL server.

The solution is a reliable operational system that gets the job done.

Many features are over and above competitors such as Red Hat.

CapsLive is a great, free feature that you have to pay for in other systems. I can do upgrades to the operational system without any database or application downtime. This saves me a lot of time. 

The virtual environment is the best I've ever worked with. 

Graphical support for the environment could be more like virtual reality. 

The solution is not as user friendly as Meet for IBM AIX. Meet has a more friendly operational system because the interface works in a better way. 

It would be beneficial to have universal integration with clouds around the world such as Amazon, Google, Azure, and Oracle.

It would be nice to have better features for governance types. 

I have been using the solution for years. 

The solution is very, very stable and runs particularly well for Unix and Linux environments. You can let the machine run without turning it off for a long time and it will still work well. That is completely different than working with Windows or other substandard operational systems.

Stability is rated a ten out of ten. 

The solution is very scalable with no change in hardware needed. Most operational systems require you to change the entire hardware in order to accommodate a new operational system. 

Scalability is rated a ten out of ten. 

We use technical support when we have bugs or issues. Support used to be a bit lost because they didn't have historical information about issues. But nowadays, support usually solves our issues. 

We like the support team and don't have problems with them. All solutions come with issues, but Oracle provides an issue manual that is helpful. 

Technical support is rated an eight out of ten. 

Positive

I used to work with Windows and Ubuntu. 

I previously used Meet for IBM AIX. I still work a bit with the AIX operating system. 

I don't usually do installations, but did some a long time ago and they were not difficult. 

If you pay attention and take care of performance issues or adapt the operational system for your goals, then setup is not difficult. 

We implement the solution in-house. We have a highly-professional team who sometimes collaborates with Oracle engineers if we have issues. 

The solution is free to use with a support subscription rather than having to buy licenses. There is no comparison in pricing right now. 

There isn't a better operational system in the world right now. Maybe someone will invent one, but for now the solution with Linux and Unix is the top option. 

Windows is a terrible operational system that relies on pointers so I don't like using it at all. It also has mathematical flaws that I don't like. 

It is important to work with a vendor who will sell you the correct product for your environment rather than just try to make the most money off of you. 

Study the solution and learn how to install it correctly and use it in the best ways. Follow best practices from Oracle and get some training in the operational system. 

The solution comes with a lot of features and options that you can use for free. It is reliable and you can even use an old version with no issues. It is not the most user friendly, but you can learn it with a bit of study. 

Overall, the solution beats other operational systems by a large margin. The solution is rated a nine out of ten. 

We are using this solution as a server operating system.

The most valuable feature is this solution integrates very well with all Microsoft and all other mainstream software solutions and the design is very good. Windows has an option now allowing you to just install the Windows Core with the PowerShell without any graphical services running.

I used to like the graphical interface and graphical philosophy in previous versions of Windows Server. I am not able to be as fast and efficient as I used to be using a graphical interface. However, Windows has moved to the PowerShell, it is powerful, but is still limited compared to what we do can do in Linux. Linux was built at the beginning of the command line interfaces which is why they have a very powerful command line. 

When you work on the command line you can make scripts and then use them every time you want to complete a task. You can capitalize on past experiences by using a script to simplify them, such as when you need to install something or do configurations. Making those tasks faster and simplified. You end up saving a lot of time by using the command line which is best for administrators and the graphical interface is best for the end-user.

You can not do most of the automation on Windows that you can on Linux, it is not the same thing. Windows is improving but it is not at the same level as Linux.

When using a graphical interface it tends to have more bugs, vulnerabilities and weakens the server. Normally we install Linux on big servers that do not have any graphical interfaces inside. The fewer services you run the better it with be for security. We prefer most of the time installing Windows without the graphical interface. 

Overall Windows for us is more difficult and less efficient than Linux.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately 25 years.

The solution is stable. However, when you start putting in some extra layers, such as data intelligence inside, then problems tend to start happening.

We have been using Microsoft Windows Server solutions for a long time. We started with Windows NT then switched to Windows Server 2000, Windows Server 2003, and all the way up to this current version. Additionally, we work with Linux and Windows 10.

It is easy to do some types of deployments with Windows dedicated networks.

We have evaluated Linux and other Windows systems.

I recently started using my Windows 10 with the Linux Subsystem for Windows, to install and administer all my Linux servers worldwide. I can run a DBM on the Linux Subsystem for Windows, Ubuntu, or Kali Linux, and can access my servers worldwide. Having Linux Subsystem running inside Windows 10, I have been enjoying using the operating system much more.

I cannot install a virtual machine inside the Subsystems which I do very easily on any Linux distribution. Additionally, after installing a virtual machine on Linux, the virtual machine will be more powerful than the Linux Subsystem for Windows. If Microsoft was able to achieve the same level of a virtual machine, then it will be very good for us to start doing many more operations inside of Windows.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

My primary use case is for office work and developing software. 

The most valuable feature is that it's developer-friendly and easily accessible. Like any other Linux operating system, you have access to open sources, all the necessary tooling, and anything that helps developers do their work. I'm no Linux guru, but Ubuntu offers packages that I find easy to use. There are other options for people who are very skilled with Linux, but this solution has the perfect balance of having enough technical requirements to meet your needs while still being usable. It doesn't require you to be so technically proficient that you need to recompile kernels or anything like that. It's a Linux operating system for normal people. 

The only improvement I would suggest is to switching back to Aptitude. They switched a lot of the packages that used to be running in Aptitude to Snap. I don't find them as usable when they are in Snap. The most obvious instance of this is that it's caused me to have issues with Chrome. Starting Chrome took a couple of seconds before it was up and running, which wasn't pleasant. Back when it used to run packaging in Aptitude, I didn't have this problem. I know they're familiar with these issues because a lot of other people have experienced them too. 

I have been using this solution for five years. 

This solution is stable. 

I have never contacted technical support, but I probably will in the future. They offer very good services. 

I use Windows 10 because I have to, due to the programs I have that came with it, but I use Ubuntu on top of that. 

The initial setup was very quick. It is easy to install. 

I implemented myself. 

I'm aware of the paid services that they offer and provide technical support for, which are very good. Down the road, I will use some of them, specifically the service that automatically patches the central core of the operating system because it seems useful. Another service they used to have is a paid networking service. The services they offer are useful, but they depend on your particular situation and requirements. I would consider paying for them when a situation calls for them, but I don't need them right now. 

You don't need to pay for licensing. 

Some of my colleagues use Mint, but it's a matter of preference and specific to each person. 

I recommend Ubuntu Linux, specifically for developers. 

I would rate Ubuntu Linux a nine out of ten. 

It's normally next to our operating system, which helps us to install our servers, et cetera.

I'm satisfied with the product. It fulfills our desired needs.

We haven't had any issues with performance. The stability is good.

The initial setup is easy.

You can work with the UI or in command line, if you prefer.

It is scalable. 

It would be ideal if Red Hat would continue the CentOS versions in an open-source format. They seem to be moving away from that. Now only paid versions are available. 

I've been using the solution for six to seven years. I've used it since CentOS 5.

The solution is stable, and the performance is good. For years, we have had no complaints. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable.

The solution scales well. 

We have about 50 or more systems set up in our organization. I'm not sure how many users are on it. 

I'm not sure if we have plans to increase usage right now. 

I've never used technical support. If we need to troubleshoot, we look at blogs and forums. 

I have previously used Windows. 

The initial setup is straightforward. It's very easy to set up. We did not find it complex in any way. 

The UI makes it very easy. You just go through it step by step. Of course, if you like, you can also do command line as well. 

How long it takes to deploy depends on the speed of the system. It's got very good capacity and a nice configuration setup. It can usually be installed in 20 minutes to half an hour. If a person has experience with Linux, they can likely install a server in 15 minutes. 

We used it as an open-source solution. We did not have to worry about licensing. 

We are using the latest available version, which is on the cloud only.

My understanding is that CentOS is a Red Hat product now, so CentOS is now converted to CentOS Stream. It's not open-source anymore. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.