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."
It's really a one way street of interoperability since Windows is the playground bully refusing to share with anyone.
...the only companies that use only Linux are companies that are out of business, and for good reason. Linux is a very poor piece of software with much of it's codebase stolen from SCO by criminals.
GO SLASHDOT!
Lack of an integrated software environment- What is that supposed to mean? Does it mean that I can choose what stuff I want to use?
My dictionary defines the word "integrated" as "formed or blended into a whole"...the word "choose" does not appear anywhere.
With MS, there's one choice. With linux, there's multiple choices for software to use.
Actually, I have found multiple choices of software to use on MS as well.
I don't quite get what they're saying with this one. If someone knows, then I'd like to understand better.
See above.
Lack of a clear roadmap- Well, the idea with linux is to make it more stable, faster, and more secure (not necessarily in that order). What more of a 'product map' do you want?
Perhaps some more details on exactly how it will become "more stable, faster, and more secure", and perhaps a rough idea about when it will be available. Some predictability of the timetable would be nice too, even +/-2 years (not "it will be ready when it's ready...now stop asking")
MS isn't going to come up with the next killer app of the internet.
Well, they have an awfully big R&D budget, so I actually think the chances are reasonable.
All of the other big applications have come out of open-source groups.
Accountability if problems arise- This means that the top IT person wants some one else to take the blame if something bad happens. Everyone knows MS stuff doesn't work perfectly, so if it screws up, it's not the admin's fault. With linux, if it screws up, most people (correctly) blame the admin.
And your point is?
I bet a lot of problems come up becaue when a company switches from windows to linux, the admins expect it to work the same, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Linux uses different programs, and often times, the best way to configure it is vi and a man page or two. With windows, it's all point-and-click.
But everyone is telling me that Linux is just like Windows, but it's totally free and never gets any viruses. Shouldn't I dump all my Windows stuff?
ZING! Funny how my Widows box runs just fine month after month without shutdown,... even with hardware failures. The problem with Windows operability on corporate networks is (a) Idiots using it, and (b) Linux groupies who have to administer it, but don't think it's worth learning. If you put even half as much time into setting up Windows as you do into customizing your desktop manager in Lunux, you'd never crash. Trust me on this one... I've been running XP on bad ram, burnt-out processors, and busted video cards for years. As far as I can tell, it's been damn near bulletproof.
Don't get me wrong, Windows has issues, and they desperately need addressing. But don't tell me it crashes too much. If you're still using a version of windows that bluescreens, then I'm gonna start comparing WinXP to mandrake 5, since we're talking about the same time difference there.
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.