Slashdot Mirror
Using Debian in Commercial Environments?
sydb asks: "I am currently persuading my employer to try out Linux. We are heavily dependent on IBM software technologies just now, and it's a very conservative operations organization. As a challenge, I am trying to persuade them to use my preferred distro but there are hurdles: IBM doesn't officially support Debian as a platform, though I have anecdotal evidence that most of it can be persuaded to work (with alien etc). Does Slashdot have experience shoe-horning Debian into this kind of scenario? Most importantly, how have things gone getting IBM support? My rationale for pushing Debian boils down to its vast array of packages available to apt-get, easy upgrades, apt-get itself, and the overall quality and consistency of the system."
I've recently developed several cable modem network applications that run off a Sparc box loaded with Debian with PHP and mySQL. They connect into the cisco 7200 and 10k series uBR chassis and allow our field techs to resolve the hybrid fiber coaxial mac address on the modem to it's internal 10.x.x.x ip address. This allows them to pull snmp data from the modem, such as RF levels, bandwidth, errors, etc.
Now getting back to the topic, the reason I went with Debian is that it allows me to easily install what I need knowing that it's going to work without any trouble. I can dedicate my time to development rather than trying to figure out why line 5234 in blah.h is giving me some error.
Incidently, the combination of my software and my Debian server got me a presentation in front of the company president. That's really saying something when there's 16,000 employees. As a side note if there's interest I'm considering creating a sourceforge project for my work (assuming it gets approval from my boss.)
Hi. Grammar Nazi here.
...but may not be fired if it were the vendors fault.
I notice you're making an attempt to use the subjunctive mood. I applaud your efforts! It's a poetic part of the English language that is slowly dying away. But that's no reason to use it incorrectly.
In this case, you should have said 'if it was'. You see, many people aware of the subjunctive mood but unschooled in its arcane ways simply assume that any conditional phrase in the third person using 'to be' ought to substitute 'were' for 'was'. This is actually not the case. The subjunctive mood and indicative mood are both appropriate after 'if', but they mean different things.
The English subjunctive (unlike the French/Spanish mood of the same name, but more like the Ancient Greek optative) indicates that a state is contrary to hypothesis. So, for example, I might say, "If I were a woman, I'd be incredibly attracted to Grammar Nazis". The use of 'were' in this context demonstrates that I am not a woman, and am speaking hypothetically.
Now, consider the phrase: "If he was there, why didn't you talk to him?" This phrase uses the indicative mood, because the second clause is not dependent on me assuming a hypothetical situation. The man in question was there; I am not suggesting he wasn't. Rather, I am calling into question your behaviour given that he was there.
The confusion arises from two uses of the word 'if'. One creates a hypothetical situation and comments on it -- in this case, we use the subjunctive mood. But the other simply establishes a prerequisite condition for the following clause. Your sentence and my latter example both fall into this category. Let's look at why.
Subjunctive: "If the fault were with with the vendor, we would have to have some serious words with them.... But it isn't, so I'm having some serious words with you." I could ommit the italicized portion of the sentence, but the subjunctive 'were' clearly implies that it is, in fact, not the vendor's fault, and that I am speaking hypothetically.
Indicative: "An employee can be badly blamed for a faulty vendor choice, but may not be fired, if it was the vendor's fault." We establish the vendor being at fault as a necessary precondition for our comment; we are discussing what happens if the vendor is at fault. We are not hypothesizing that he is at fault when in fact, he isn't. There is no fact here. We are not speaking contrary to hypothesis; there is no hypothesis.
I know it's pretty tricky, but when mastered, proper use of the subjunctive gives a speaker a certain educated flair that really impresses the ladies... Erm... Yeah.
This announcement was brought to you by GNAA, the Grammar Nazi Association of America.