Slashdot Mirror


InformationWeek On Windows-Linux Interoperability

prostoalex writes "InformationWeek magazine has a lengthy article about the issues that enterprises face when vying for Linux+Windows interoperability, as most of the corporate infrastructures are seldom monocultural. What's also interesting is the InformationWeek surveys of the IT professionals. The following questions are asked and the responses to them are nicely graphed: 1) Reasons for choosing Windows, 2) Reasons for choosing Linux, 3) Top Windows concerns, 4) Top Linux concerns, 5) Top interoperability issues."

5 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Re:One of the biggest issues, though... by quigonn · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, it doesn't. You obviously never tried out OpenOffice. At my company, we completely switched from MS Office to OpenOffice, and we had no interoperability problems so far.

    --
    A monkey is doing the real work for me.
  2. Re:Price... by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 3, Informative
    With Small Business Server 2003, Microsoft knocked 60% off the price of its previous Small Business Server, introducing a standard edition for only $599, right between Red Hat's $349 basic edition (software only) and $799 standard edition (software plus phone support).

    I also wish IT Week would have pointed out that $599 for SBS 2003 doesn't include support of any kind. One incident requiring MS phone support and you've immediately eclipsed the price of RH Enterprise w/support. Not to mention that one of SBS 2003's biggest value points is Exchange server, which (in any reasonably large enterprise) necesitates a second layer "Mail router" to dump all the worms, virii, and spam before they hit the Exchange box and bring it to its knees... Think PostFix + Spam Assassin + a good set of attachment blocking rules.

    Maybe I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will point me out if I am,) but I was under the impression that with SBS you had to run it all on one server. Is this still/Was this ever the case? Do extra servers under SBS cost extra money? (I've never worked anywhere that could consider SBS, since the limit is 50 users, so I'm admitedly ignorant of some facets of an SBS environment.)
    --
    Who did what now?
  3. Re:Management tools? by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Informative

    Cut-copy-paste works now.

    The misunderstanding came from the fact that there are actually two distinct ways to move text around. One is by hitting Ctrl-C/X/V or using the menus, that puts it on the clipboard, and you can paste it with similar options.

    The other way is more like drag and drop, when you highlight something and middleclick or click both buttons on a 2-button mouse. That way isn't really copying and pasting. This has been around since the beginning of X afaik.

    You can copy something, then highlight something else. Middle click to paste the highlighted text, and then hit ctrl-V or select paste from the menu to get the copied text. There are two distinct buffers. Try it sometime.

    Some apps had bugs where they confused the two, most of those are fixed these days, anything that intermingles the highlight-middlebutton buffer with ctrl-X/V buffer should have a bug filed against it.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  4. That's not insightful... by MarkusQ · · Score: 3, Informative

    Red Hat has per-server licensing now. If you buy a copy, you are allowed to install it on one server only, unless you buy more support seats.

    No, if you buy support for one machine you can't "install" that support on multiple machines, any more than you can buy insurance for one car and "install" it on multiple cars. This isn't a GPL issue, you just didn't understand what they were saying.

    -- MarkusQ

  5. Re:Interoperability v compatability by Etyenne · · Score: 2, Informative

    OSS needs a killer-app style product/system/something to get the lead, so that microsoft will have to try to be compatible.

    We already have one. It's called Apache.

    --
    :wq