Slashdot Mirror
The Truth About Linux and Windows
petrus4 writes "Groklaw has an update on the Laura DiDio saga. Apparently, her complaints about "Linux extremists" notwithstanding, cooler heads than the usual suspects are asking questions about her research. A very interesting read, and one which will hopefully encourage corporate readers to regard the Yankee Group's findings with the requisite metric ton of salt in the future."
They even subscribe to some Enderle research because they see him "well connected" to important companies like microsoft.
I can't understand how being a paid shill _incresease_ their credibility with management; but somehow it does. MBA's. go figure.
This should settle all these arguments going around once and for all.
The truth of the matter is that you should choose the operating system that suits your needs. If you want an inexpensive machine for Computer Science studies or to learn UNIX networking or even as a SOHO server for the advanced user, Linux is your game. Similarly, for gaming, business applications, enterprise servers or streaming media from your computer to your TV you won't go wrong with Windows.
But to get caught up in "OS 1 is better than OS 2" debates is pure silliness, especially when you can run both easily.
I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields
1. Linux still isn't ready for prime time zero hassle common user usage. Install Knoppix from the live cd at 800x600 and oops, now you gotta go to change the config as root to explicitly tell it your card can do 1024x768 because the installer sets as maximum whatever you were using the live cd at. Fedora's installer tries to relax you regarding Grub, but most of the time forcing LBA32 is needed or it sits there doing nothing at boot. Etc. Small potatoes for techs being paid to support it and used to all sorts of crockery, but not for casual users who shouldn't have to read inaccessible man pages because you can't even boot one machine during install.
2. Linux is being adopted and the rise in compromised roots is testament to this. I salute the geniuses who've sold Linux without regard to education of the average business user on security.
3. Windows will not be killed. Not going to happen. We will have competition indefinitely. And this is a good good thing.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Both companies are American, right? Profit!
We all dance, we all sing.
-The Streets
Why does Truth, Linux and Windows in the same sentence seems so awfully wrong to me?
A computer makes it possible to do, in half an hour, tasks which were completely unnecessary to do before.
you're so funny.
No - everything is not relative. To say "everything is relative, even this statement" would suggest that for some people the statement isn't relative, which would mean that for some people truth isn't relative. Truth exists outside your perceptions, Dewey-wannabe. "Realitity is as you experience it to be?" No. Reality is that stuff that continues even when you choose to ignore it.
Saying "for some things, MS Windows is better. For other things, Linux is better" doesn't mean it's relative, it merely means the statement is vague. There are explicit things that Linux is better for. There are explicit things MS Windows is better for.
"Everything is relative?" So, a rock is only a rock when I percieve it to be one? No, if it's a rock it continues to be a rock until something changes that state. If it is not a rock, then it continues not being a rock until something changes that state. Merely wishing it one way or the other doesn't make it so.
And in other news... Corporations don't care about you! *gasp*
The more i read that name the more my mind begins to replace Didio with Dildo.
And the more i read what Dildio has to say the more i think my dyslexia is right
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Since almost all wireless routers and firewalls (and many other embedded devices including digital projectors and printers) out there are already running Linux, and the vendors of these devices usually don't bother to point out to the customer what OS is it using, I'd say that many small business are already using Linux and don't even know it!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I did a straw poll among work colleagues and they all had windows XP installed. Why? Because it was the same price as Linux (i,e, they either got it off some thai market stall, or they paid for it with with the system and they had no choice -e.g. Dell)
If dodgy Microsoft volume license copies of XP weren't doing the rounds so much, then many home users would much rather use/try a free OS (Linux) than pay a hundred pounds for each incarnation of Microsoft Windows.
We will have competition indefinitely. And this is a good good thing Oh I definitely agree, competition is good. But I also don't agree that open source software necessarily needs competition (at all) to improve. If a user wants a new feature or a bug fixed, then it actually happens, even without a competing product including that feature. That's the genius of open source. Not to mention that anyone can fork a project at any time if they don't like how it's going (although this isn't always true for what I consider shared-source projects, like under the CDDL). With Windows, if you don't like it, you have no choice except to not use Windows. With Linux, you do have a choice, and THAT is the fundamental difference.
Take off every sig. For great justice.
We will have competition indefinitely. And this is a good good thing.
/.er embrace economics. It's like hearing a Mac zealot say that 2 mouse buttons are better than one.
It's so nice to see a
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
2. the exact same situation exists with Windows, billions of dollars of damage has been done by worms, trojans, viruses, etc. in the last four years due to failure to keep current with Windows patches to known problems
3. What happens when the expanding markets of India and China grow a new customer base that is bigger than all existing computer users at present, and they choose not to use Windows in those systems?
Haha! The term "Linux-extremist" is redundant. The very definition of a "Linux-user" already contains the connotation of "extremist," inasmuch as all the users are zealous users and defenders of Linux. I have never met a lukewarm Linux user.
Well, think of it like this: we stepped outside, noticed the house was on fire, and we're trying to tell you to get the fuck out of there while you still can. Yes, I'd say we're a pretty zealous lot.
Ahhh Haa! But I ignore your post, and therefor it does not exist!
This sig has been removed pending an investigation.
... that this is a pissing contest, and it has nothing to do with the real issue. The core issue is that Linux is compatable with the information age, because it treats the unrestricted ability to copy and manipulate itself over the internet like a benefit. Windows is not, becuase it trys to treat information like "intellectual property" and sees the unrestricted ability to copy and manipulate information over the internet as a threat and "piracy". They (MS) have simply held themselves accountable to a paradigm that has no place in the information age, and they're trying to shift the argument to issues like "tco", and "features", and "hidded costs" to avoid it. In the long term, this is all totally irrelavent as to who wins. It doesn't matter what's Linux's flaws are - they will be remedied by market forces sooner or later.
I built a small office server for a company.
Spare Dell 400 mhz - 50$
mandrake -$
mysql - $
The office unknown to me had bought this very expensive win 2004 dell server (there network/computer consulting co told them they needed it to host my appliation). It was over 2000$. They didn't need it and the company couldn't install apache/mysql/php (Who do I call for support?).
I installed the linux and everything in about 4 hours. Linux installs have gotten much much better. Scary easy.
Basically the linux server has been chugging away for over a year with no problems. hardly maintenance. Nothing (Its behind a firewall). The windows server has had all sorts of networking issuse that keeps a tech visiting the office once a week.(granted its doing more but still).
Which is cheaper again???
This whole battle is absurd. Why has it all become so convoluted? Cost of deployment / migration: it is this simple -- if you have a pre-existing IT staff that is trained exclusively in windows, windows will be cheaper. If you have an IT staff educated in linux, it will be MUCH cheaper. This goes with TCO, etc. When it comes to stability, security, management, operation, these things will all be relative -- once again, to the competence of your IT staff (how and why they use what the use, how everything is implemented, etc.). Don't listen to anybody who says windows security holes are directly variable to linux security holes if they are just looking at them by numbers. Yea, linux has security holes (every OS does), but windows has HUGE security holes that are open invitations to destruction that are patched... eventually. The OSS community is pretty damn good at patching even the obscure holes pretty darn quick - and being honest about it. M$ will always be willing to strong-arm you into using their proprietary crap, and they will attempt to thwart linux via absurd propaganda campaigns. But none of that matters. Let the politics alone - that's not the IT workers job. Who is your IT staff, how are they trained? If they know what they are doing the OS shouldn't matter -- linux, aix, *bsd, windows, OS X, solaris: who cares?! We could all sit and bicker about the pluses and minuses of every server OS until the earth crashes into the sun, but the better plan is to skip the politics and educate the IT industry about every option and alternative. The problem with OS wars will always be that people believe that if they choose a side, fight for it, and win that they have won. Wrong. The burden of the IT professional and / or system administrator is one hell of a burden: you have to know everything. If you are an extremist in your profession to either side you are wrong -- it's not about the sys. admin. it's about the user and what works for them. It's about ensuring that *they* don't have to fix their computer -- that is our job. If a secretary has to spend even 5 minutes a day worrying about a program consistently crashing, or if they can log in or not, it's the admins. fault. period. Those are 5 minutes that they should have been doing what their job is. What we, as IT professionals, use at home is our deal, our preference, and our choice -- what we do at work is a different story. As an industry we all need to stop bickering and just learn our stuff, be competent, and be able and willing to work with everything that is out there to ensure that things "just work."
I disagree very strongly. My main operating system is Windows, which I operate on my University desktop. But, due to restrictions at my collate at my Uni, I can't use bittorrent or other peer2peer programs.
I have therefore got my old P2 350 running at home, and via SSH, bittorrent all my wanted TV shows to that, before FTPing it to my Uni box.
I'm a linux extremist? No, it just gets the job done.
Joe Zwers wrote a good article about Truth in benchmarking and how some companies blantantly manipulate data to reach marketing goals.
Slashdot coverage on earlier Linux vs Windows studies: here, here, here, here and here.
We also coverd a Microsoft study on W vs L
On the flipside of that, there are many corporations who go out of their way to find people that know Linux and can get a Linux server running in no time, and do all their Linux support in-house. They actively train those who don't know it as well, and are proficient at providing all sorts of in-house Linux support. To these corporations, it can be hard to find someone who says "I know Windows really well" and expect them to know how to do some of the stuff an MCSE can do. Saying "I know Windows" in an interview is radically different than saying "I know Linux", and it shows in the levels of confidence in the interviewee (unless they are a good liar).
Your examples are terrible. Windows can't set the right resolution on nVidia cards without the drivers either. Does that mean Windows isn't ready for "prime time zero hassle common user usage?"
What about the geniuses who've sold Windows "without regard to education of the average business user on security?" How many SMBs have bought Small Business Server 2003 and had IIS compromised?
Also, you made the classic uninformed mistake of confusing Linux distribution-level mistakes with the quality of the Linux kernel. Now repeat after me:
"Linux is not a distribution, it is a kernel. Any problems with the distribution, X errors, etc, should be addressed with the vendor."
This guy is way out there
Okay, here's a novel thought to settle the argument: Windows is better for some applications, and Linux is better for others. If I want to set up a desktop that's easy to use for those without engineering degrees, I'll probably recommend Windows. If I want to run a data center which requires high flexibility, fast file access, and reliable, reduntant storage, I'll use Linux, or possibly Solaris. And finally if I want to deploy a large number of engineering workstations, I'll go with Linux.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
As a veteran of selling on TCO, I've always got a kick out of these studies because they are so disconnected from reality. How can something that is like getting a five course buffet-style dinner for free somehow cost more than buying a meal a la carte, one dish at a time? I suppose it's the fact you've got to help yourself at the Linux buffet while they'll spoon feed you over at MS (and they really don't spoonfeed).
Linux has five advantages that simply render the conversation moot:
Cost of licenses
Customizability
Training Costs
Security
Out of box functionality
Linux licensing costs are self-explanatory. Hard to beat zero.
Linux is completely customizable. You can change anything and everything to fit your need.
MCSE certs are expensive. Linux certs are less so. Conversions from windows end users to linux are fairly painless. Sorry, Yankee, but learning how to operate a one windowing user interface is pretty easy when you are familiar with another.
Linux Security isn't perfect - but it's a quantum leap from Windows.
Where Windows cannot compete is with the out of the box capabilites of most every Linux distro. With Windows, you have to purchase thousands of dollars of software licenses to do what I can with my free download of Mephis or whatever. End user software is included. So is Server software. I'm out a minimum of $300 just to be able to do basic productivity. All those CALs add up with Windows.
-- $G
If a user wants a new feature or a bug fixed, then it actually happens, even without a competing product including that feature
.0001% of people and of absolutely no use to the other 99.9999% of people. And as for forking your own project, try it sometime. Do you have the time and resources to maintain your own source tree? Starting it is easy, maintaining such a beast is a huge commitment.
Yeah, I know that whenever my mom, who uses windows, needs her computer to do something new, she constantly complains that she can't just fire up a C++ editor and make the changes to the source code herself.
And my six year old nephew was complaining that his games were kind of sluggish. Poor kid can't just look at the source and find the problems.
Face it, the ability to change operating system code is a benefit for
Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
In contrast to what?
My IT department can't explain why the suspend option disappeared on my whiz-bang XP notebook. I only wish there was some config file I could tweak to bring it back.
I'm not saying Linux is perfect, but it seems you're implying that Windows is "zero hassle", which it clearly isn't.
Compromised roots, huh? It's cool that you've drunk the Windows Kool-aid and all, but if you are going to pretend to be neutral, you can't reveal your ignorance about one side.
-Peter
I've got a bone to pick with the never-ending stream of studies by tech research outfits comparing Linux to Windows. For starters, it seems like about half of them are paid for by one camp or another.
If we agree that this is the main premise, I have a problem with the write-up on Groklaw in the first place. I think it's unlikely that most corporations (to whom the original study was aimed at) will find much value in an article on a site that has never displayed much consideration for corporate interests.[1]
[1] Unless they happen to be interests that parallel the Linux community
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
I've personally tried about a dozen times, and none of those installs worked correctly, and they all required a substantial amount of work to get them working even close to a Windows system working out of the box (none of the attempts ever yielded a 100% functioning PC). Thus, I know that a server would require a high-paid consultant to set up.
I don't respond to AC's.
The only problem is that while you're out there yelling and screaming to get the fuck out before someone dies, most of the real world is inside getting on with life, annoyed in equal parts with the poor construction of the house and with the maniacs outside who are screaming bloody murder all night.
Linux / Windows is *not* a life or death choice for most of us who have jobs to do. So-called advocates who would present it as such do far more harm than good to Linux's reputation in the business world.
Cheers
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
Niether is Microsoft Windows. Ask almost anyone who uses Windows. It's a hassle.
The issues you mention are installation. Few people could do a full windows install, including all vendor supplied device drivers.
The actual truth is BOTH systems are far beyond the capabilities of average, unsophisticated users, or anything other than casual day-to-day usage of common applications.
3. Windows will not be killed. Not going to happen. We will have competition indefinitely.
If you call 90% Microsoft market share with exclusionary back-room deals at all major computer manufacturers so that virtually no PCs ship with competitors products... then yet, looks like it's gonna be that way for some time. I just wouldn't call it "competition". "Monopoly" might be a much better word.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
What's sad to me is that this kind of spin can be seen in just about every poll/survey you'll see in the mainstream media. The numbers and wording are often spun in a way to imply a conclusion that has nothing to do with the real question at hand.
There was one recently that in a survey of over 600 kids, the ones who played video games were responsible for two-thirds of the violent acts recorded for the group.
How horrible! Ban video games, now!
Of course nowhere can it be found what percentage of those sruveyed played video games. If over two-thirds played video games, its just possible we should be forcing kids to play more video games.
Thus, I know that a server would require a high-paid consultant to set up.
Dude, you really need to have a talk with my boss then. Tell him he needs to pay me more. I set up and maintain a few linux servers and firewalls here where I work and I'm sure as hell not high paid.
Slackware
I've personally tried about a dozen times, and none of those installs worked correctly...
Uhm, I wouldn't admit that here. Makes people question your bona fides.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Translation: What follows is complete bullshit.
This is generally true for all instances.
Another common form is:
"Fact: So and so was blah blah blah..."
Translation: This is as far from factual as you can get, and still be in the same planetary systm. Fact: I hope this helps.
or some kid in high school who needs a little extra weekend cash...
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
Speaking as a person who has installed many differnt distributions of Linux and has been using Linux for 11 years. I would agree with the Grand Parent. It is not just about installing the packages it is configurating them to do what you need them to do. To a group of people who think in terms of Microsoft and have them start working in Linux is a bigger push. Concepts like mounting drives, Finding the print driver for one of the many possible print servers, best ways to share files, Samba or NFS?, Dealing with RWX RWX RWX based permissions, and groups, writtig shell scripts, the CronTab, Finding drivers and worse installing them, knowing where the logs are and how to read them. Working with Linux is much differnt then working on windows. I am not saying one is harder then the other but just that they are differnt way of thinking about solving problems and to switch a group of people from one OS to an other will be at best problematic.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
No, I bill myself out at roughly $15/hour. ...and therin lies your problem.
They wouldn't have hire him to shill if he didn't know what he was talking about, right?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I understand what you're saying, but your analogy is flawed, nonetheless.
.
.through the nose.
The difference is like purchasing a Fiat as opposed to being given a Ferrari.
Now, I've never owned a Ferrari, but I have owned an equivelent Maserati as well as several Fiats, so I can appreciate the difference that cost of operation alone can entail.
But here's the thing, if you can already do your own Fiat repair and maintenance in house you already have most of the skills and physical plant needed to maintain a Ferrari in house. Yes, you'll need a bit of training, but can acquire that bit by bit as you need it, while you keep your Fiat fleet running alongside until you're up to speed on Ferraris.
But here's the other thing, your Ferrari parts and much tecnical information is going to be available just as freely as your Ferrari was . .
But the Fiat stuff is going to continue to cost you. .
Yes, as well as a being a Maserati owner I have also converted a business from a Windows only shop to a Linux only shop.
We handled everything in house because the very first time we called MS for support they told us, "Ummmmm, have you tried reinstalling?"
So what the fuck good is their "support" anyway? We learned to do things ourselves, and when we started to wonder what the fuck good MS was in general we learned to do things with Linux ourselves as well.
You can too. For God's sake man, go read a book or something. (Unless, for some reason, you really want to give me $500/hr to read the book for you, I've got my eye on a bench built violin. I'll take your money, but, believe it or not, I'd really rather spend my time learning a Bach violin partita on my cheap Chinese fiddle)
When you do you'll find you've plugged into a source of free Ferraris for everybody, forever.
KFG
I don't get your point, since the article is from BusinessWeek.
Unless you believe that BusinessWeek has no consideration for corporate interests.
Whilst reading all the replies to Mr. Hamm's blog, I ran across one respondent who said he's used Linux the past two years and hadn't found a need to use Windows.
I have a dual-boot XP/Gentoo box. I love Gentoo (and Linux in general) to death. Why do I persist in keeping XP on my box? For the games. I am a games fiend to the point that only XP can feed the passion. Do I keep any critical information on the XP side? Hell, no! I use XP for games, nothing more. Linux is what I use when I need to get work done.
That having been said, I remember someone from the Microsoft camp (Ballmer?) claiming that "Linux is a toy." Well, MS if I only use XP for games, which OS do you think is more deserving of being called "a toy?" Although, I'm sure Yankee Group and her collection of didiots could put a different spin on it.
Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
WIsh I could help you out with that one. Every *nix consultant I looked at started at $50/hour. That makes *nix expensive for our business, considering that they'd also have to write applications that don't exist on the *nix platform, too.
I don't respond to AC's.
...I'm sure you can find a teenager at the local elementary school...
You might want to rethink this. This usually means they've been held back a year.
Translation: "Linux is too expensive 'cause I'm retarded"
Face it, the ability to change operating system code is a benefit for .0001% of people and of absolutely no use to the other 99.9999% of people
That's just not true. I may never edit the source of a project or fork it. But I still benefit from the fact that others more knowledgeable than me can. Because of the forking and bugfixing that exists in the open source world I have:
Firefox instead of Netscape or IE
BMP instead of XMMS
Xorg instead of Xfree
Bug fixes that come faster than in the proprietary world
And I'm sure there's more that I'm just unaware of since I'm not a coder. A recent small example is that the latest Gnome didn't come with a menu editor. People complained and eventually a user (a non Gnome developer) made one. Now we're happy. Wouldn't have been so easy if they didn't have the code. See this article about how someone had to reverse engineer OSX just to get a desktop switcher. Which will probably become broken with the latest OSX release.
Well I have installed linux servers thousands of times.
I have not had a problem with bad installs in years.
I would agree years ago linux installs were not as easy
as they could have been, but time have changed a lot things.
If I get new hardware in, I test it to see if I have the drivers
I need to do the install. It is true linux does not
have all drivers for every piece of hardware out. If you have tried
installing linux lately, and it did not go well for you,
You still do not need the services of a consultant. What you
most likely need is the url of the hardware compatibility list.
Administering a linux server in not unlike maintaining
Microsoft servers. You will need to take the time to get accustomed to
the administrative task and applications. It is not out of your reach
to accomplish this. You should use the same sticktoitness that you
used to learn the Microsoft Os.
Good Luck on your next install.
I don't completely disagree if you consider "improve" to mean growth of an existing product. However, so much open source software is simply recreations of existing commercial software that you have to wonder what would happen if FOSS actually gained significant market share.
A recent post in the Freeciv thread made the interesting point that original FOSS is extra difficult because of the relatively unorganized and fluid nature of development teams. The loss of the primary developer can kill or radically alter any FOSS project, even with a commercial product to use a roadmap. Anything really new and inventive is exponentially more susceptible.
Well, you actually do have choice in Windows as there are literally thousands of third party apps ranging from tightly integrated to Windows to stand-alone executable you can keep on a USB drive. Similarly, you have that in Linux.
If you mean that there's multiple flavors of it, then Linux really isn't an OS but a species of OS and of course, there's one exact example of whatever species Windows is, so no competition in that respect.
It is also false to say you're stuck with MS as so many do claim (not necessarily you). I've worked for corporations who had only to sign voluminous contracts and fork over large sums to get the ability to custom build Windows 95 for themselves internally to the point that it was as different from what MS sold as Fedora is from Mepis.
The thing that Open Source gives us which we need so badly is what we don't have with MS unless we give them large sums and that is how the frigging code works to begin with. I agree that people should have the rights to best use of the fruits of their labor and also that open sourcing one's work is one's right if one so chooses, so I won't get into partisanship on it.
However, is doesn't help MS in the slightest to keep such a tight fist wrapped around the code most in need of being fixed to improve the product. For crying out loud, if they just loosened a little, they might find a third party making something with their IP that was insanely good stuff and worth MS buying and making part of the next iteration of Windows. Instead, we have to rely on top down promulgation of advancement solely from Redmond and put up with their insistance on selling beta as finished product.
But unless and until Linux (I won't hold my breath on any variant of BSD other than OSX) becomes fool-proof in installation and basic usage and software addition (rpm? apt-get? make? wtf?) then Windows will remain where it is completely on top. (wtf? should be construed as "prior art" with regard to its usage in relation to app packaging. I openly release it to anyone's use as a name for a Linux app package system. Entirely appropriate as well I think.)
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Here's my own invalid anecdote (personal anecdotes are invalid as evidence of an overall trend):
We needed an Oracle server for a project at work. Because of the non-critical, but fairly high demand, nature of the app it needed a dedicated server, rather than getting to run on the shared Oracle server on the departmental Solaris box. So a simple Dell desktop was purchased with the fastest P4 available, plenty of RAM and IDE RAID-1 disks. This was fast enough to meet the needs, and it was decided stable enough for this application. If the server died it'd take at most a couple days for Dell to replace it, and that was an acceptable amount of time for it to be out of service.
Now because of anti-Windows zealotry of some people, it was decided that the server had to run Linux, SuSe was what they wanted. We didn't actually have anyone that was very experienced in Linux, mind you, just people that didn't like Windows, and Linux was the only viable x86 alternative to run Oracle on.
I tried several times to get SuSe to work, but it wouldn't. I did a net install from a CD, but after it was up it wouldn't get on the Internet anymore. I couldn't figure out what was happening. Answer turned out to be the network card was listed as unsupported by SuSe. Odd, given that their installer supported it fine.
So we switched to RedHat. Now I couldn't get the mirroring to work. Our Solaris guy came and fought with it for a couple days and got it working. I then went back to getting Oracle installed. This I could never get working, despite repeated attempts. The documentation didn't help, since it was assuming different things than what I had. Turns out this is because Oracle supports RedHat Enterprise Linux, not normal RedHat. Finally I was fed up and said "You want Linux, you install it." They fought with it for a few mroe days before calling Oracle who said "If it's not a supported OS we won't talk to you."
That put everything on hold since RHEL is quie expensive. I asked if I could please just try to install it on XP. They said fine, but it wouldn't work. I installed and patched XP, then installed Active PERL since that was needed for interfacing. I then put in the Oracle CD, told it to install, and it did so flawlessly.
So in the end what was about 2 weeks of fighting with Linux to no resolution was fixed in about 2 hours by installing Windows. The Windows license was to the effect of $100 (we got a discount). RHEL was looking like $1500 I think. Who knows what cost in staff time it would have taken to hack it to run on non-supported Linux, if it was even possible.
So in this case, Windows was a MUCH cheaper option.
Now this isn't to try and claim Windows is always cheaper, but rather to point out that little anecdotes, espically when related to s tiny server for a small project, aren't valid as evidence of a trend. Yes, there certianly are situations where Linux is the cheapest option, because it is available at no cost. However there are certianly cases where it's not, because the costs of making it work, or costs because of losses due to problems exceed the savings of not having to pay for it.
It's not a black and white issue.
A couple non-critical points that I think a lot of non-Linux users miss:
1) All Linux distributions are not the same, or even close. Suse or Ubuntu are about all a beginner should use. Some distros are downright scary for non-experts (Slackware) while others pretend to be friendly even though they are not (Fedora/RedHat).
2) Servers are easy. Even on Windows it's harder to get a desktop system working with all hardware. In fact, Linux often does a better job at detecting hardware than Windows because on Windows you're expected to be able to go download a driver or two while most drivers on Linux come with the distribution. For example, an HP P1000 printer requires a 10MB download on Windows, but 'just works' with most Linux distros.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
It's a matter of admiration. Programmers/Open Source supporters admire people like James Gosling or Linus Torvalds. MBAs admire people like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates (and probably have neutral opinions of Gosling/Torvalds) because they have "achieved" things that MBAs strive for. And therefore progammers admire/respect programming/design/Open Source etc. MBAs admire Microsoft, Apple etc. Thus, programmers/Open Source supporters give more regard to technical facts and Open Source personalities. MBAs give more regard to "research" funded or supported by companies like Microsoft or Apple (Apple supporters wait, don't stone me to death yet. I'm not necessarily saying that Apple does such things. I'm just saying that if it did, then MBAs would swallow it.)
1. I can't get XP working on my computer with 1024x768 without going into the net, downloading a driver, installing it and changing the resolution. I also have to do that to have 24 or 32 bit colors. Where is the difference? The average Joe doesn't know how to install Windows either.
2. We can't requier that the user educate himself, but we can make a less sensible piece of software.
3. Yes, I also belive that Windows will not die, but if it doesn't become better, it will. Win may survive, but it will be very different from what we have today. Also, there is no bad on a possible Windows death, we will still have competiton, FOSS make it impossible to not have.
Rethinking email
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
$50/hr is very cheap for a consultant. Especially for a short term job like a system setup. You're probably talking about 4-10hours of work depending on the system requirements. At most that's $550 bucks. If your business is that tight with $$, then you've got bigger problems.
BTW, If you *need* apps that only exist on one platform, you should probably stick with that platform. It would be foolish to pay for a custom build of a shrinkwrap product, especially when you consider the cost of maintenence.
Laura DiDio denounced these penguins.
true but you could invent a hardness scale cr(crushability) (patent pending) and the rock will be say 3cr no matter who is looking at it.
The only difference is how easily you or the GCM can crush but it does not change the rock itself
Mark Twain's famous quote about statistics STILL applies.
Linux here is suffering from the same issue that Mac/Windows comparisons suffer from- Everyone has used Windows, but not everyone has used Macs, so quoting statistics such as "75% of computer users think non-Windows computers also have virus, spyware and security issues" really doesn't say squat, unless you ONLY survey those who use both regularly... but since that intersection is a much smaller set than the "set of all computer users", you run into other issues. or?
She reported that SCO's claims seemed justified. She told me: "It appeared to be a direct cut and paste right down to the developers' notes."
I do notes before programming anytime (doodles might be a more accurate word), and will write down flowcharts and algorithms for anything bigger than a script. But I do all of them in some piece of paper with a pencil, and paste it in front of me when I'm programming. WTF are "developer's notes", and how would SCO get the hold of the notes of some programmer who worked on Unix 20 years ago in a small office cubicle, or the ones of another one who worked on Linux in some dorm room 10 years ago?
Would "developer's notes" mean, by any chance, the same thing as source code for this woman?
I must say it is really an important difference, for the notes are more personal and, if they are similar, then the posibility of copyright infringement is way bigger than if the source code is similar. Specially when you are talking about POSIX compliant systems (same interfaces) that follow standard algorithms.
this is a 'trashcan' computer as you'd probably call it across the atlantic. made from 2-5 year old components, that windows users had decided were too slow for them, i put fc3 on it, which runs non-3d applications well at a more than satisfactory speed.
:p
the 20 quid was for a cd-drive and an MS optical 5 button mouse. hey - they make ok hardware
Do I work for a Fortune 500? No. If you are a small company then you should be looking at *anything* that can provide you an edge over the big guys. That makes new technologies and Linux even more important to you. Why do you think you need a "consultant" to help you? Why aren't you encouraging people to better themselves in any spare time (if your IT person/people don't have *any* spare time you are well and truly fucked the next time you have a crisis).
All I need to know is that Yankme Group are the ones that were pumping MCI/Worldcom when I was an employee. I lost a lot of my 401k based on their bullshit and my naivete'.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Where's the "-1, Car Analogy" mod when you need it?
After surveying a number of IT professionals about what they thought of Laura Didio.
75% said she was a stupid b%$^*
12.5% said she was a mindless whore.
12.5% said "who's Laura Didio".
Powerpoint presentations are currently being edited. This is a 3rd party survey so we can't give out any particulars of the survey or how it was presented. But we can tell you that no corporate sponsorship was involved.
Here's some insult to your injury...
.h files she doesn't even understand!
From the linked article:
When SCO first made its claims that IBM had misappropriated some of its code and handed it over to the Linux community, SCO showed samples to several analysts to prove its copyrights were being infringed. DiDio, a former journalist and not a programmer, was one of them. She reported that SCO's claims seemed justified. She told me: "It appeared to be a direct cut and paste right down to the developers' notes." A couple of months ago, the judge in the case wrote that he had seen "an astonishing lack of evidence" backing up SCO's claims. On the phone, I asked DiDio's reaction to the judge's statement. She said: "I can't reconcile it. I want to see what's presented in court."
So... what you have is a woman who is not a programmer, making conclusive statements after looking at
There's a point, like the boiling point... let us call this point the Enderle point... at which you have simply lost all professional credibility. You are seen as nothing more than a suck up, a Nathaniel Branden of IT (Little Ayn Rand hatred slipped out there, sorry).
Can we now write DiDio off as a shill? Like that woman who did fake newscasts for Bush, or Robert Novak?
I personally, welcome shills like DiDio. Every day respectable journalists let a woman like her survive, they put another nail in their coffin and the net and social-based expertise groups become authoritative sources for real news pulling from many sources to draw complete conclusions. So, I say, good on her. Make a few bucks at the Microsoft trough. Sell credibility you never had in the first place. Kill the industry rags. More opportunity for other people to emerge as experts when the people you used to listen to are revealed as phonies.
So you're lumping ALL MBA's into one category and ALL programmers into another?
Seems pretty stupid to me.
I'm an MBA and I don't admire people like Bill Gates. I love linux and OSS. I'm not a fan of Microsoft, but I am a gamer. I'm waiting for the time a few years from now when gaming hits linux full force and I can move completely away from microsoft.
I'm a data architect and have a naturally sceptical mind. I probably swallow less bullshit than you.
Actually, it takes a lot less time to setup a Linux server than a Windows server -- at least to set it up right.
A typical Windows server requires a huge amount of work making sure that everything is properly disabled, and that permissions are set up right.
Linux usually consists of saying chkconfig XXXX off a number of times, for everything that doesn't need to be running.
Then you get the security issues. With Windows, you need to update quite often, while with Linux you can get away with about once a month. Plus, on Linux, you get your updates in pieces, so you only have to update what you are actually vulnerable for.
The maintenance cost of a Linux _server_ is much less than that of Windows. The cost of a Linux desktop is smaller if used as a thin client, and greater otherwise.
Engineering and the Ultimate
I dunno, but I've been seeing a *lot* more "How do I do $this in PHP/Mysql on Windows Server 2003..." posts and "I'm running $expensive_firewall on Windows..."
More mailing lists (Checkpoint FW-1) and stuff (Squirrelmail too) are getting more posts about Windows. Even the simply trouble ticket system I've used (osticket) now has tons of Windows questions posted in the forums.
Is it just the competency of the admins? Quite possible, but if one was going to take a Google around the web, they might be inclined to think that Windows was the OS to throw weight behind in the server market.
Just a thought. Maybe a poor one, but it's definitely something to notice.
That's being very generous. If I were to assume the going rate for IT work ($50/hour+), a Linux install would cost us *thousands* more than a Windows install.
That's not true. While people say "OSS is only free if your time is worthless", they forget to mention that you need just as much time with windows. Linux can be installed very quickly by someone who knows what they're doing. There are also powerful, automated setup programs available that any competent Unix admin should be able to use. Using that could save a bunch of time and a lot of money over installing Windows on a bunch of machines. Windows takes time too.
Interesting. Here, most have Windows and Linux both, or just Windows.
Games run better or are Windows-only, and we work in a Windows shop so work is also Windows-centric too.
But many are using Firefox, so it's not that we prefer to pay for something we can have for free, it's just that switching to Linux isn't "free" (at least until the support for many of the things we Windows users take for granted is there).
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The thing many slashbots forget is that Linux is not the perfect solution for everyone, all the time. It sounds like you've got a pre-existing network with hardware & software that needs to work. You have the experience & knowledge to make it work quickly & correctly under Windows 2000. Therefore, trying to shoe-horn Linux into your environment is probably not a smart move.
However, it is important to also realize the costs of using Windows. If this system is in any way connected to the Internet there is an associated maintenance cost (have to keep checking for security updates) and risks (what if the newest update breaks your system, or your server gets hacked before you get the next update)? Both of these concerns apply to Linux as well, but many would argue (I think fairly) that the risks are much lower due to a better security architecture.
The other concern with Windows is on-going licensing & support costs. Your system may work today, but in 5 years you may not be able to get support for your software (eventually Microsoft will end-of-life W2k, and your POS & financial software will have updated versions as well). This is a concern with Linux as well, however some argue (and I think this is pushing it) that you could hire a consultant to do support for your old system because you have the source code. While that is true, I expect that to be the very rare case.
I don't know anything about the financial software & POS systems available to Linux, but if/when those components become commercially available & viable it might be worth it to investigate Linux - it may save you money on licensing & support costs, it may make your system more secure against hackers / viruses, and/or it may provide you with improved functionality that was not possible/practical with Windows. But Linux is not the miracle cure that will make all of your problems go away, and it's not the right solution for every situation, despite what some may claim here.
OK, thanks for telling me that there is an exception to a general rule. You see, when people say "all", they really, honestly do mean all without any exception whatsoever. But you knew that, since you swallow less bullshit than me.
I'm saying something negative about the majority of MBAs. You're an MBA too. But I'm not saying that you have a small penis. Get over it.
Concepts like mounting drives, Finding the print driver for one of the many possible print servers, best ways to share files, Samba or NFS?, Dealing with RWX RWX RWX based permissions, and groups, writtig shell scripts, the CronTab, Finding drivers and worse installing them, knowing where the logs are and how to read them.
If a sysadmin doesn't understand, or cannot quickly pick up these concepts, then they have no business being a sysadmin.
Simple.
Management is about lying about the need for management. It's primate hierarchy in organizational terms.
They therefore love liars who reinforce that lie.
Humans will ALWAYS - ALWAYS - make the wrong decision given two or more options. They will do this to spite the person with the correct option.
Because if that person is "right", then they're "wrong" - and if they're "wrong", they're dead - and that can't be allowed. So they're "right" and the other person is "wrong".
Human psychology is that simple. It's only the EXPRESSION of that psychology that occasionally gets complex.
No manager can make a correct decision because that action by itself conflicts with his primary purpose.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
That is absolute nonsense, and furthermore, I can tell you that people with your attitude are the bane of the Help Desk world. Mounting drives is really easy (you add the applet to the taskbar in GNOME... which autodetects it for you anyway). Sharing drives (of course, you don't want to do that, right? You mean sharing individual folders.)? GNOME-SYSTEM-TOOLS fixes this right up for you. Permissions? Seriously, it's not that hard. R is Read. W is Write. X is eXecute. First group is owner, second group is group, last group is everyone else. That's way easier than MS permissions (Modify? "Full" Control? Group Policy? The Fuck?). And when was the last time that Desktop usage forced you to work with shell scripts, or cron, or drivers? And don't even try and cop out with that printing nonsense, printing sucks no matter which platform you're using (except... MAYBE OS X... if your printer is supported). I mean, try printing anything in XP without a real printer driver. Guess what CUPS does?
Imagine this: "Hey everyone, it's your boss, Charlie. I'm sure you've noticed that your computers look a little strange; that's because we've removed Windows and installed Linux. Yes, overnight. Please, nobody panic. For the next 8 hours, we're not going to do any work. Instead, we're going to take the time to learn the Linux equivalents to the Windows apps you're so... fond of. First, THE INTERNET... better known as a Web Browser. It works the same, no worries. Second, WORD... or OpenOffice.org. It also works the same. Thirdly, OUTLOOK (which I'm sure you'll all miss)... which is Evolution here in Linux. And I'm sure you see this coming, it also works the same. Oh... and Instant Messaging, which is GAIM on this side of the fence. Wait... I believe it also works the same."
Maybe this attitude comes from working Help Desk too long, but I'm tired of stupid questions. Really, if you can't take 5 minutes to click around in the menu options (which is what I do... because I frequently have no idea what people are talking about) then you need to take a day and find your brain. I mean, you're worried about TCO? Try the THINKING option, and I guarantee you can kill off 90% of your Support Staff. Why do I suggest it? Because despite the fact that it would cost me my job, I know it's never going to happen.
"BTW, If you *need* apps that only exist on one platform, you should probably stick with that platform"
Which is the fundamental mistake for any company that does that.
Sooner or later (unless that app was made directly by IBM or Microsoft or a company on that scale), the company that made that app is going to go bust - or simply stop supporting that app - or replace it with a more expensive version.
Any company that does mission critical work on a proprietary app is going to end up like Linus with BitKeeper.
Better to spend the money now to avoid that fate than have to spend it when you can't afford it later.
It is NOT foolish to do a custom build of a shrinkwrap app. And the more critical the app, the more important it is to do that. Because it restores control to the person who uses that app.
The cost of development is irrelevant (depending on the cash flow needed to support that development). The cost of maintenance is greater, but still not significant if the app has mission-critical importance (obviously you don't rebuild a minor utility that cost you $25). These are bean-counter notions. And bean-counters will always sell you short to save a couple bucks. Nobody running a company should care what the bean-counters say - unless they tell you there's no more revenue and no more profit. Accountants are supposed to tell you how you're doing - not tell you what to do.
It's not hard to find someone to work cheap to build or maintain a custom app - especially today when the IT market sucks. And if your IT department has some notion of quality (oh, wait, forget I said that), then the in-house app is likely to be as good or better than the commercial app - at the very least it will match your needs better. The cost of programmer and system design and maintenance time is small compared to the business benefit of the app.
I realize nobody believes this because it flies against the grain of conventional IT wisdowm.
Sorry - conventional IT wisdom, like all conventional wisdom, is simply wrong.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
You can make the same statment about alot of things in either windows or linux. If you get new hardware, there probably won't be any drivers supported in either windows or linux and this is the crux of the argument. Because you found a network card that works in windows without a driver doesn't mean that a new one won't require a driver. It is about the timing of the release and the age of the card. Even things like wether or not the manufactuer paid microsoft to include it in the install (thru the whql testing) has to be considered here.
All in all, a driver would have probably been developed at some time for the wirless card. The question i would ask is "why didn't you check to see if the car was supported by linux before getting it?>" Another question would be "is there actualy a driver but you couldn't figure out how to use it?" Most wireless network cards use a set of comunication chips and the drivers are clasified by the chip name in linux were you find driver by the card manufacturers and type in windows. There are some wireless cards that didn't work and i don't know if that was ever changed or not so it is possible there isn't a driver. However i think it is still possible that there is a driver but you don't know about it or aren't asociating a broadcom chip with a linksys wireless card.
Note: i pulled those names out of the air to ilistrate how the differences can be in driver names. Linksys probably doesn't use a broadcom chip or broadcom might not even make a wireles chip. Often a company produces a product based on other established chips and make them work better or to thier "niche". linux just labels to the chip t o cover more then one card were windows drivers tend to be card specific.