Slashdot Mirror
Survey shows NT admins looking at Linux
bpdlr writes "A recent survey carried out by the Microsoft Exchange Forum in the UK shows that 20% of NT/Exchange admins in UK enterprises see Linux as a potential alternative to NT, up from 0% in six months (it's a PDF file, see page 4). Compare that with only 29% sure they will upgrade to Win2000. "
Yeah, notice they're "looking", not "moving" to Linux. Yawn.
Of course, since we must suspect everything out of
Microsoft and apply the logic that they're trying
to deflect US DoJ charges, the paranoid among us
might think this statistic was either (a) inflated
or (b) delayed.
The NT admins I know actively use Linux at home or
at work, alongside (or instead of specific) NT
services.
-- Josh
Readers are reminded that this group represents largely Microsoft customers and the results are likely to reflect ...
a skewed response in that direction. As a consequence,
The event was sponsored by Microsoft, Compaq Computer, StaffWare, Fenestrae and other Microsoft Exchange Forum partners.
Maybe the ship is sinking.
You may be suprised to know that using NT doesn't automatically make you a micros~1 monkeyboy. Using NT with the opinion that there's no possible way any other product would work as well or better, would. Further, having the same opinion about Linux or *BSD doesn't make you any better than a micros~1 monkeyboy, just trendier.
To get passed as 'secure' involves a lot of money for testing, etc. And it's not the kind of glamorous work that code cowboys can do on their own (or on company time when the boss isn't watching).
Doesn't that mean that 51% are decidedly against, and as much as 80% are against?
We had a 486/33SX with 16M of ram serving email/dns and remote access for our entire company
~600 users. It ran linux and it worked fine. We replaced it because it had been running for years and hardware was starting to fail. I had people ask me about our firewall. They all thought it was NT with raptor. Nope, just a little linux box that you would use as a door stop if we all had to use Microsoft.
I was considering getting Win2k myself.
I actually think that Win2k won't be as bad as ppl think. It's just the corporation part of M$ that I hate. Otherwise, they do seem to make halfway decent software.
Unfortunately, Linux cannot hold a candlelight to Microsoft on ease of use yet... Especially config'ing lots of stuff... I wish we could settle on a unified all-purpose std. interface...
---
RH 6.0 -- the solution to all your W2K blues...
---
That's funny. I just got done working on moving an entire company from Unix to NT, and now I'm at another one. I must be imagining things...
As an NT Monkeyboy, I feel that OpenBSD and Solaris is a better product than Linux.
Linux is on the right track in becoming a force but it just is not there yet.
1) What, your own one person company?
2) If you moved from SCO, maybe you did a smart thing.
3) And now your network sucks and your servers won't stay up. I bet your "NT firewall" freezes up for two minutes at a time also.
4) I wish you mickeysoft astoturfers would stick to hassling ZDnet posters.
Well, my client workstation has been running Linux for more
than two years. It can do just about anything I want except
play modern games.
And what would be so hard about setting up a secretary's
Linux desktop with KDE and, say, ApplixWare?
That is like, so unfair! Not all of us NT admins are boys.
I have to agree with the first poster. I know it is a cardinal sin to admit, but ... Windows is not that awful. In fact I like win 95/98. And IE is good. I could sure do without that wretched paper-clip guy though. Linux is far more fun (not to mention it has inspired so many sites, so much debate, and a community that i have not witnessed any MS product produce), but i must express that IMHO MS does not make terrible software.
Some of it does seem bloated, but each version also has many advances over the previous. If only they'd include a means through which to remove some bloat (e.g., a 'would you like MS Office to frivously waste your memory' check box when you first install it.)
additionally, i think it is very rude of you to react that way. Perhaps some sympathy. You have to admit Office uses much less memory than greedy Star Office, IE blows away netscape in speed and stability, outlook is relatively. All in all Ms products have held their own for quit some time.
-matt
With an attitude like that, you'll do just fine. Just keep questioning things and you'll find the answer.
Hey, if you've never seen an NT box stay up that long, that says something about your skills, huh? It's not that tough. Install NT. Apply Sp4. Walk away. I know plenty of NT admins who agree with me. It works just fine. It's easy to use. Why switch?
I saw a microsoft ad in newsweek a few weeks ago. It was trying to promote NT and it said Windows NT is "3 times more reliable" than Windows 95. I have heard that windows NT is nice, but it crashes too often. The only thing I can conclude from this is that microsoft admits that windows 95 is a piece of crap (not reliable).
What constitutes acceptable proof of uptime?
Drawing conclusions like that would be very/b> questionable use of statistics. That X percent has said they are considering something, or aren't sure about going with the competitor, doesn't mean that you'll reverse the answers if you reverse the question. First of all, people are influenced by the way the question is asked. Second, there will always be a group that are undecided.
Yes. In a real company, run by grownups, that's not a lot of money. You see, there's this thing called ease of use. By everyone being able to work, and not having to play with text files on their computer, or having to call the administrator to change a font size, they get more work done. By getting more work done in less time, money is saved. In fact, Therefore, the cost of NT is justified. Do you understand?
In fact, boys and girls, let's do some math. Let's say those licenses cost $100,000. If everybody in the company spent ONLY an extra hour learning Linux stuff (if only we could be that lucky), and the average rate is $50/hour/person, that's $175,000 right there. $175,000 is more than $100,000, theremore, the company saved money installing NT. Did this go over your head?
Yep, that's the old Microsoft mindset: just turn it on and pretend that you're working. Look, if you push a Windows box hard, it crashes; if you play solitaire all day and use a one page excel page spreadsheet and don't try to resize the window in a abupt movement, then yeah, windblows might stay up. On the other hand if you have to dump a million records of data, massage them in a custom fashion, reload 'em into a database, need a computer that can function as a server and a client at the same time and handle zillions of interrupts and not lock up, then Unix is your machine.
A fact: most of the work gets done on the command line on a Unix box.
Another fact: learning how to be productive is hard and takes time.
Yet Another fact: most of the fricking around is done on a Windows machine.
Also, please, go back to harassing people on usenet. You earned your "Microsoft PR Specialist" pay today. Adios.
So are you seriously suggesting that $50/hour covers only salary and productivity? At $35,000 for salary its $16.80 an hour plus $33.20 an hour for productivity? $33.20 is a bit high; $35,000 is also a bit high. What kind of company are you talking about?
Maybe I would accept $40/hour/person which would give $140,000 but how is it that a staff of 3500 Unix users would instantly know how to use NT? (migration was topic if you forgot) People do not use NT at home, only half the people even have computers at home.
Is the concept of NT training too tough?
As I understand it several European and Asian nations have
already ruled Windows (including NT) unacceptable for mission
critical and national security systems because closed source
is a real security risk of a different kind. LIke giving MS access
to highly classified information and the users not even knowing
about it.
The race is already over, and what we are seeing here is inertia
from the huge investment companies have already made in NT.
Still, a goal of 40 million LInux users by next year is unrealistic.
Maybe within 2 years.
I would be interested in more stories at Slashdot about what
companies, governments and individuals are doing with Linux and
open source outside the US. Something positive instead of
these endless comparisons with NT, polls and benchmarks.
For example, reliable statistics about Linux usage in various
regions of the world. Anybody have the figures or trends?
In what countries do you expect LInux first to surpass Windows
in total number of installed units (including servers and clients
and home users). Japan? France? Austraila? I'd bet these will be the
first.
Windows 2000 is irrelevant except as a way for companies which
already have an investment in MS to justify that to themselves,
in the same way that the US kept sending troops to Vietnam to
justify that mistake, untill finally they could be pulled out without
losing too much face. Not loosing too much face is what this
is all about among pointy-haired IT bosses everywhere who
have bet on NT and are now being forced to adjust to reality.l
Linux as it is may not be the solution for everything, but the
costs and inefficiencies of NT are just too great to continue
justifying it. Windows 2000 will compound all of these issues
and pointy haired bosses are realizing it, though the people who
work for them have known it for some time.
The workstation on my desk does have SP4. It's not very heavily loaded either. It's a major brand box with completely standard hardware; I'm the only user. And most of the time it runs without incident. But a couple weeks ago, I was running Word and Netscape, and then I hit Win-F to bring up the Find dialog, and it bluescreened on me. You want to blame that on incompetent administration? All the handwaving in the world won't change the fact that that never should have happened.
Actually, stuff like that works. Nobody knew about Linux a year ago, now they ask me things like "when the RedHat IPO is coming?" and "can we get an old machine and setup a webserver with linux?".
I've got about a dozen NT servers (NT4 SP4) sitting in front of me right now. Most of them boast uptimes of several months...... the ones that are running on high-dollar Compaq rack-mounted Proliant hardware with RAID-5 arrays and ECC memory, that is. The ones running on commodity PC hardware fall apart on a daily/weekly basis. I've also got a commodity PC right in front of me that's running one of the "free unix variants". I just had to reboot it after 14 months of uptime after a thunderstorm caused one of its network cards to hang. Moral of story: on high quality megabuck iron, just about any O/S can be stable, but mediocre hardware can rapidly separate the O/S "men" from the "boys". NT is just a "glam-rocker". *nix is more like a "Ted Nugent" :-)
We use CDE from Xi. The users are generally not aware if they are on AIX, Solaris, or Linux. The ones that care are. CDE, configured properly, is pretty rich. I am not sure what you mean by "a patchwork of garbage."
I am also not sure why you think that Linux and commercial UNIXes have few applications. Well, no ani-virus software, no defrag software, no disaster recovery and uninstallation software, no periodic update software, no backup software needed (well, we use ADSM and love it, but none is NEEDED per se), and the game support is lacking. Aren't we talking about using this is a business environment? SAP, Oracle, DB2, a browser, a mail reader, a basic word processor (the CDE default is just fine for most messages)(or there is Applix, which everyone seems to forget about), a basic spreadsheet (Applix's is very nice), and you should be set.
I think that you may have limited X experience.
I don't love NT (or even like it really) but I can see where its usefulness lies. The dbms's for it support odbc EASILY (try ODBC under linux, WHAT A PAIN IT CAN BE!), although the db performance lacks in speed, and a blue screen during a big query might happen. So what does this mean? Where is the support for a serious GRAPHICALLY CONFIGURABLE (KDE?) set of server apps? Like BackOffice, only stable. This is where MS hits home with me, because I can install something quickly and connect a client to it and get to work. Linux does involve playing with text files sometimes, which is annoying. I'd rather have text files than the registry any day, but we need an enterprise distro that is managed and configured in one integrated environment. ;-). At my company, if we could have used Linux/Notes instead of NT/Exchange, we would have in a flash.
This needs to come from the enterprise vendors that are porting their software to Linux, like IBM/Lotus, Sybase, etc. If we saw universal support on the SERVER end for a unified GUI, we'd be on our way. You can't deny that NT makes certain things much easier than UNIX. How about file sharing: right click, choose sharing, set permissions, open files. Or DNS Administration? Add CNAMES, A records, zone transfers, everything with a few point-and-clicks. I know everyone, myself included, hates the point-and-click solution as the only solution, but this is what is going to win in the real world, NT just looks too perfect to pass up for a command line or archaic X tools (like the RedHat control panel. How ugly is that? I think LinuxConf is pretty gross as well).
Take a look at Mac OS X, that is a prime example of Apple porting their awesome GUI to a unix-core system. That's where its at, not KDE with a million little applets that are basically useless, i.e. no WP, database software (like access), or spreadsheet with the same common GUI. A real company needs to jump in here and dump some real money into development. Then the market can be had, I guarantee it
I've supported a user base that included several
thousand NT/95 boxes. NT is not stable. I've
seen lots of executives foaming at the mouth
or in sheer panic when their NT "boxes" let
them down.
> Install NT. Apply Sp4. Walk away
ROTFL! More like..
MSCE diary, day 1-365
"Reinstalled and walked away, happy that you had not given that user your direct number, so that when he calls, and he *will* call, the helpdesk will have to handle it and not you."
Comments:
Pros:
1) super slick install over top of NT4sp4. I put the CD in, clicked a button, and went to lunch.
When I came back, it was done. All my app
settings and server config was preserved.
2) DirectX7 is nice. I can run Quake faster under NT5 than under Win98.
3) Microsoft Management Console rules. There's not a single thing you can't configure, from low level IRQs to DHCP scopes, all the way up to IIS, directory, or Db settings, all from a single view.
4) Active Directory really is nice, if not inferior to NDS. You can micro-configure the permissions for any resource, anywhere.
5) Setting up ipmasquerade/address sharing, VPNs, ip-security, is so trivial now that your mom can figure it out.
6) It hasn't crashed yet. My fear is building.
7) Terminal Server is built in, so you can run
Win32 apps remotely as easily as X.
Cons:
It sucks up even more ram than ever. It's unbearable on an 80mb machine. You definately need 128mb of ram.
It didn't recognize my ethernet card's IRQ properly.
They have started ripping of Raster. They have alpha transparency in the desktop now. Menus can "materialize" in via a fade effect. The mouse and other icons are drop-shadowed.
If this thing is stable, I can't see NT admins switching. What would be the point? Switch from NT to Linux, and you're back to square one with a non-directory service based configuration repository. Hacking
Hmmm... MustardMan "would rather slam my balls in a 1977 monte carlo's trunk lid".
As no other choices are mentioned, this is just something he'd rather do, for fun, presumably?
Ouch!
> Basically, when I see someone choosing to use X under Linux as their desktop OS (i.e., not people who have only one computer and the desktop computer == the server) at this point in time, I can't help but think:
>
> - They use only Open Source software on ideological principle, or
> - The pricier alternatives are out of their range, or
> - They're console guys just using X to keep a bunch of *terms on their screen at once, or
> - They're programmers, actively working to improve the Linux desktop experience, or
> - Have very limited desktop needs, e.g., need only a few programs, or
> - They're dumb and/or stubborn, usually both.
>
>
or lastly:
- they do important work that requires instant response and rock-solid reliabilit
y at all times, and can't reboot to install a simple software package
The number of servers isn't a useful stat. Take two mail systems. One running MS Exchange on 16 servers, and one running the same number of users on 2 Sun UNIX servers. Based on number of servers, MS appears to have better penetration, but based on number of users that have the same.
It would have been useful for the survey to list sendmail as a mail system.
"You have to admit Office uses much less memory than greedy Star Office, IE blows away netscape in speed and stability, outlook is relatively. All in all Ms products have held their own for quit some time."
If we assume that the above is true then why did MS do all of the things they're accused of instead of sitting back and letting the wonderful qualities of their software do all the work?
Could have saved themselves a lot of grief.
Most people including myself at one time are blinded by NT hype. We would have never been linux users if NT was half as good as promissed. I switched to linux out of neccesity. Most people think NT is thee answer for every problem and unix is way obsolete. I was puzzled as way I needed a comand prompt to type commands when you can click them. With todays powerfull machines there is no excuse for a command prompt. Right? Well After learning the command prompt I can see way alot of unix admins were banging there heads agaisnt the table table with guis. I had one unix admon who was fustrating because he didnt want to copy the NT registry from tape backups but he had to because NT backup forced him. NT is going to release service pack 5 for NT 4 which should fix all exchange bugs and the famous blue screen of death error on heavy loads.
If this is true then I am switching to NT because everyone else is. But regardless of how slow NT is, hardware is going to get faster. I am suprissed at how NT admins actually call this bloatiness as a feature. "NT requires more hardware to run. WOW! Thank you microsoft. These new p2's will fly and I can finnaly use new hardware"??????
I should recieve the beta cd soon so I am going to try win2000. If NT can run 95% of the software for srvers then there is no need for unix. All the unix vendors are porting to NT and microsoft recently stoped releasing NT source code to the vendors that help them migrate so once the unix vendors switch to NT then they will stay there.
ITs software that keeps people to windows as a desktop and its sftware that is going to keep NT in the server market. IF this NT is another flop and is even slower then linux will stay.
I am just playing the game of follow the leader and if win2000 is as good as the beta then youu can kiss unix goodbye. Sorry
Most bussiness that still use unix still have it because there exchange servers are keep crashing. 90% of all bussiness are watching win2000 very carefully. IF it sucks then NT will decline if it is stable then NT will be everywhere.
I agree, you can't put those figures against each other.
However, what IS interesting is that the same figure was 0% half a year ago when they performed a similar study. That clearly shows that Linux is gaining acceptance among NT administrators fast.
/Tord
If Linux sysadmins are more expensive than NT sysadmins, then the question
'Would you consider changing from NT to Linux ?'
can be rephrased
'Would you like to increase your value ?'
How about Slashdot.org's own very terrible track record? They have the WORST uptime of almost any large website I've ever seen.
I live in an exchange world. I have found that either WordPerfect or Star Office that both come with the newer distributions of either caldera or RH work just fine when dealing with the MS Office world.
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." -- Mark Twain (*nix)
Taking your points one by one, about why some people might
...
user LInux as their *desktop* system:
1. Open Source on ideol. principles -
2. price - can only afford Linux
3. console users -
4. programmers wanting to improve system
5. need only a few apps
5. dumb/stubborn
Almost all these points are what make LInux a superior
desktop system for most users in the world today. As it is,
X under LInux is not a patchwork of garbage. I think it has
a look and feel much superior to Windows and people switching
to LInux don't regard it as a downgrade. Of course the Linux
desktop can be made to look awful if one has bad taste.
The Windows desktop is nice, but I think a great many people
are simply *tired* of it and likewise the tired old argument abot
needing MS Office compatibility is a red herring, but that would
require another post. It is true that Linux lacks a really good
native Word Processor at this time, but it has everything else
and more. The lack of a really excellent Word Processor has
not stopped quite a few people from abandoning the Windows
desktop for most things and using Linux more and more as
a desktop platform.
Open source on ideological principles can be an important
point to many people when they discover that information is
secretly being sent to Redmond whenever they connect.
Price already is very important when people can barely afford
a cheap PC, much less hundreds of dollars for software and
upgrades. This forces them to make a choice between
illegal, pirated MS software and Linux or some other free system.
Most of the MS software in use today outside the US is
pirated. Most peoople in the world today who can use computers
cannot afford a new PC every 2 years and afford to keep upgrading
to run MS desktop apps. Especially because open source
software is being mandated in schools and by governments
outside the US people will use it and it will be what they are used
to (instead of Windows or Dos)..
Console users - not relevant, but you might be surprised at
the number of people who want a good console when they
are frusted by flaky guis that don't let them get from here to
there. Especially grandmothers who can read and write
(many kids today can't, but they can mash buttons)
programmers - a great many home users are teenagers who
like to cutomize look and feel. These are not programmers or
geeks. Typically, gamers. IRC, etc. Linux gives them the
ability to customize a *lot* more. This gives them a feeling of
control, not unlike programming does. Also, quite a few more
mature users might find the configurability of Linux in general
a big plus because their needs vary so much.
need only a few apps. Actually, 90% of desktop users use
only a few apps. A very few apps. These days, a web browser
and email and perhaps a word processor and a few games.
In corporate setting, the same is true. Often a desktop loads
its apps off a network and this is strictly controlled by sysadmins.
It's a lot easier to do this with LInux or Unix and to administer
remotely if the client is Linux of Unix. By the way, Netscape
under Linux is a lot smoother than Netscape under Windows
and KFM is a much better browser for most users' needs
than either Netscape or IE 5. I never use Netscape except
for a few troublesome sites with CSS or cgi that Kfm doesn't
interpret. Ever tried ftp with IE 5 - what a kludge. Kfm does
it right.
Stupid and stubborn - stupid and stubborn people people
don't need the latest gizmo when something simpler will do
the job. They would still be using C64's but can't get them
repaired so they might try LInux.
In summary, I think you are only looking at a very small portion
of the potential desktop market - American consumers and
corporate users who buy from respected American retail
chains or distributors. Consumers who might be using desktop
computers for the first time worldwide are more literate, and
better consumers, and less afluent. Others will remember
their roots (at least those of sufficient age). For example
The Amiga was much bigger in Europe than Windows for
many years - until the company went under, actually. Cost
was a factor there as well, especially in apps and games which
were much less expensive than Windows/DOS equivalents.
Linux is different, but similar in many ways. It is much more
stable and has many more apps for business and networking, but
perhaps harder to learn to use and less interesting at first
graphically and for multimedia. That is changing, though.
Actually, there is a lot of interest in Linux for the desktop in
the mainstream press and among the big companies. These
big companies want open standards for desktop apps as well
because they realize it's either that or MS. Not as much
hoopla as about LInux as a server, because Linux is already
a proven winner as a server. Look at all the commercial
sites that just a few months ago featured only Windows software
reviewing and stocking Linux software for the desktop.
The main problem is that the real numbers of users are not
known, especially outside the US.
Well, I have had some coffee and I am feeling a little more relaxed that I was last time I commented on NT ROI issues (where I was referred to as the "skinflint boss from hell", which has shown up in the company directory three times so far, thank you very much), so let's look at some basic issues with licencing and support.
... stretched out a little bit more.
Your point, concisely made, is that NT allows people to be more easily productive and thus the cost is justified. You define that as being able to change settings without talking to the admin or help desk (I assume that you carry this out to stuff like loading floppies without mounting and unmounting and so on). You then note the savings by comparing the licence costs to the retraining costs. This is where you lose me.
Now, I can certainly see the math; if the cost of the licences exceeds the costs of retraining, then it is not justified. If the licences are cheaper, then NT is a good idea. However, moving from this back to ease of use as a justification is not really justified. I see what you meant (I think), but let's look at the same concept
You make a few assumptions (correct me if I am off):
1. People are used to operating in a Windows 95 or NT 4.0 environment (as 3.51 and 3.11 are both a lot harder to mess around with). Fair enough -- where we use Windows, we use NT4.0, except on some laptops with 95.
2. People need in the course of normal business (and as part of a valid business reason) to make changes in their environments that would require actions too complex for normal users to accomplish without resorting to the well-known 4357 call. Windows allows them to do this without the call.
3. By allowing the changes to be made quicker, more work can be done, making the company more money.
And then the math, which seems right (your math is not in dispute).
I have to argue that you are making some wrong connections and that some of ypur assumptions are not correct. Here is why I think this:
1. Assumption 1 (familiarity with 95-type desktop) is seen to be causative in increasing the speed with which users are able to solve "mission critical" problems (perhaps not to the enterprise, but to the users themselves). This is not correct for several reasons:
a) unless the user is a hardware tech or doing odd graphics things, changing settings is not something that needs to be done by the user. Pick a corporate standard and stick with it. If the user objects to things like the fonts, let them change it via a menu (I am not a perl hacker, but even I could make a menu-based system to allow this in one afternoon, as I have done so before). If the user wants backgrounds with psychedelic flying lizards and feels strongly enough to hold up work until he or she gets said lizards, then the user a) has too little work or b)needs to find another job.
b)And if you are talking about settings in Word and Excel (I have found that many NT people lump applications in with the OS), the same applies. Is the person doing word processing or are they making art? If they are making art here, they will get Frame and 512MB of RAM and so on and so forth. Art is their job and we want to give them the right tools. If they want sixteen different fonts in five colors with Outlook and Word, well, there is that entire concept of a value-added vs. a non-value-added activity. This sort of thing is non-critical and is almost always a problem that the user has produced themselves. They should be punished, not given tech support (no, not with a beating -- we get the departments to pay per call and their managers are now paying attention).
2. Assumption 2 (that users need to make changes) is simply wrong, as I have touched on above. Where is user error and user eccentricity and users avoiding work something that we want to go out of our way to encourage by "helping them" do more of the same? I would argue that if the users are screwing with their settings, they need to stop. That is a management problem, not something that inevitably happens -- it happens if you let it happen. If people are messing around with their system, they are not working. The entire point that you are making (that elimination of problems speeds users to a point where they can work) suggests not that we solve avoidable errors faster but that we avoid the damned errors in the first place. Like by telling people that blowing up their machines will become a discipliary issue. Like by using NT instead of 95 and shutting down as much of it as possible (or CDE). The way that you deal with hitting yourself in the head with a hammer is not by taking some asprin so that it won't hurt as much; it is by stopping hitting yourself in the head with the hammer! Why is this so hard to understand.
3. Finally, Assumption 3 (that the avoidance of time loss pays for the licences) only works if you assume that the other two points are correct, which they are not. If you eliminate the obvious solutions to the problems, the tortured logic makes sense, but that is a little like buying a tank so that you can get to work safely because you insist on driving to work every morning on the wrong side of the road. There are easier solutions.
From my experience, which goes back a long ways (pushing 30 years at this point), user support is something that has become a huge issue only with Microsoft OSes and applications because they are a) so buggy and b) impossible to administrate centrally.
a) You cannot fix NT or Win3.x/9x because it is unfixable. It is so buggy and so badly developed that there is almost no way to permanently fix problems. That is why the industry average number for help desk staff:user on Microsoft OSes is 1:15. I am not a huge fan of either Macs or OS/2, but the normal number there have been 1:100 for years now. Our admins are normally in change of 400+ workstations and still find time to play Doom (or Quake). he help desk costs are horrible and they are unique to Microsoft operating systems. NT is only a little less problematic. And this is without going into the multiple revisions of Office that we have to support, many of which do not work well or similarly in very major ways. Even if everyone is familiar with the environment and the apps, it doesn't always help. Contrast this with vi and ISPF, with shell scripts and COBOL, with WordPerfect (for want of a better cross-platform exaple outside of Notes). You will get the calls anyway.
b) I'm not arguing for terminals -- look at what you have to do with 300 PCs -- you have to do either the same thing 300 times or do it from a distance. I didn't dislike UNIX because the admins could do most of the work without leaving the room and I didn't have to worry about getting the place depopulated because they were off site in case we had a disaster. Of course, the IBM folks never left the machine room at all. With the PCs, we had to send people to every damned machine. This was hugely expensive and continues to be a problem. One reason why Linux looks attractive to us is the remote administration tools from UNIX (and Tivoli, when they get their act together; we do not do CA, period). You cannot do this with NT. I know. I was hopeful when SMS came out. Nothing has or will happen. Microsoft products will always cost more.
So, basically, I would rather save money by avoiding NT. As I have stated before, it costs too damned much in licences and support. We have users on NCD Xterms that have been happily using SOlaris or AIX for years, some are using Linux now, and the only hurdle was moving to CDE. Some of these people have called us two or three times in 10 years. The mainframe people never call (that is a little misleading -- we have people here who have hacked MVS source code, so they aren't too likely to need any kind of help and occasionally get calls from friends at compeditors and help them with their MVS issues) and they seem to be reasonably receptive to those IBM NCs, so we will get them on a Xterm yet (only twenty years)(those plasma screens last a long damned time). The OS/2 and Mac people almost never call (some of the OS/2 people have never called, even once). The people on Microsoft OSes call all the time. The lesson is top stick with something that works, not to live with the creeping horrors that ooze out of Redmond on a regular basis. I realize that I sound like a LISP programmer saying bad things about UNIX and how Apollo did (whatever) many years before, but I am not that young! I can do the math, though, and mine has a lot more variables in it than your does, apparently. I didlike the expression "thinking outside the box" (when I was in business school, we had to think, we didn't have all of these buzz-words to save us time), but perhaps you should.
I fail to see the logic of this statement. Failure to upgrade to every latest, greatest technology makes one stupid and stubborn? I would actually classify these users as 'intelligent and practical'. Somebody who writes their thesis in edlin is stupid and stubborn, but what about somebody who writes their thesis (or a business plan, or SOPs.... etc) with TeX or troff is not neccesserily stupid nor stubborn, even though they're certainly not using the latest gizmo.
Customer A:
Has approximately 100 workstations (Windows 95/98) that will be accessing a central mail server for interoffice and internet email. Despite FreeBSD recommendation, client decides on two NT servers, one for web traffic, one for Microsoft Exchange. Reason for NT choice: "I want everything, from top to bottom, to be Microsoft. It's Microsoft. It's an integrated solution." Aftermath: Client's NT servers are rarely stable, as exchange buckles under heavy email load. Client spends astronomical fees on "NT Experts" to come in and "tune" IIS server to get the easiest of features working correctly. Conclusion: Client has overshot their budget. WAY overshot. Windows 95 workstations seem to destroy themselves left and right. And things still aren't working up to spec.
Customer B:
Similar to the above customer, but in a more email-intensive setting. Client has approximately 100 or so computers running Windows NT Workstation that will be accessing a central mail server for interoffice and internet email. Client accepts FreeBSD recommendation. Aftermath: Client's FreeBSD server is exceptional for mail, file, and print services. Sidenote: Windows NT Workstation is an ideal operating system in their type of environment, and is a strong performer on the desktop. Client may be accepting FreeBSD recommendation for HTTP services in the near future. Conclusion: Client is in WAY under budget, and a few months early to boot.
Based on my experiences, I can say that an ideal company setting would include a BSD Unix (or Linux if you prefer) on the server-side. I prefer BSD Unix because of its excellent networking code. Additionally, FreeBSD in particular is a breeze to install. That's why I carry my FreeBSD CD set with me wherever I go. On the client-side, I prefer Windows NT Workstation for the masses, and Linux or BSD for the techies, at their option. Windows NT Server may be good for nominal load, but I (personally) wouldn't trust it in a mission critical environment.
If everybody in the company spent ONLY an extra hour learning Linux stuff (if only we could be that lucky), and the average rate is $50/hour/person, that's $175,000 right there. $175,000 is more than $100,000, theremore, the company saved money installing NT. Did this go over your head?
And how much time did they spend learning NT? End-user training is remarkably easy in all systems in all areas except troubleshooting, and I don't have to point fingers, where end-user has a lot of chances to get his troubleshooting skills applied.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
First, this seems to be "what runs your department" (p3) as opposed to "what runs your company". This is like saying that NT runs my department as a passwd and file server, but UNIX handles the entire company's e-mail, web, NFS, print sharing, etc.
You also have about 75% of the respondants saying they use less than 20 exchange servers. How many users are served by these 20 servers? If I worked for IBM, I'd say that we have more than 100,000 employees, but I'd have no idea how many exchange servers are in operation, so I'd have to answer that question based on the number of servers in my group/department.
There are a couple promising questions in there (especailly about Linux) but I'd wait to see the next survey before trumpeting this to the PHBs.
but I think that the systems with the most usership will be able to put major pressure on server vendors to adopt a service/protocol.
That said, I also want to remind everyone that Windows9x is in an area (desktop) that Linux aspires to expand into (and doing quite well I might add); conversely, Linux excells where Microsoft wants to expand - the serverspace. Linux rests squarely in Microsoft's upgrade path for Win2000 and is eating into current NT and Windows installations.
Linux must be easier to install, configure and use than Win9x. Essentially, a nobrainer.
Briefly, much will be decided this year.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
I'd like to see some figures on:
How many all-NT departments with 50 servers are considering Linux?
(Companies with a lot of servers are more likely to have competent sys admins. This question will tell us if we are finally getting through to the morons.)
How many of those with "Unix" listed (especially those with
("Unix" is a rather generic name. And the OS breakdown didn't list Linux as an option, even at 0%.)
What is the difference between the number of each OS that the IT Manager/Director/Whatever says they have and the number they REALLY have?
(The contention all along is that Linux has been sneaking in through the backdoor. The CTO, by definition, probably wouldn't know about this.)
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
24% are planning not to move to W2k (but have presumably considered). These are people who have actively rejected W2k.
Furthermore, 28% are "uncertain" on "considering" Linux. That doesn't even make logical sense--they aren't sure if they are considering? That means they ARE considering. I find it more likely that 28% read the question as "planning". That brings the number of "considerings" up to 48%.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
"...virtually ALL of the commercial players getting involved with Linux...are focusing on the server side?"
Virtual: seeming to be, but not actually being. See Virtual Reality.
It's true that Linux functions well as a server. And it's true that Linux may well more power than the average user needs on his desktop. But it is NOT true that the commercial players are forgetting the client side.
IBM: Linux on Thinkpads.
NVidia: Linux drivers for high-end video cards (only useful on the desktop)
Loki: Civ:CTP and many more desktop games to come
Oracle, Informix, etc: Server side stuff first, client tools on the way
The only reason it seems like commercial entities are focusing on the server aspects is that the server software companies are bigger. An announcment from Oracle can overshadow announcments from "client-side companies".
That said, I don't think the company secretary will be using Linux on the desktop anytime soon--but:
1) Why take the short term view?
2) If Linux wins in the backroom, we make the rules. Win95 would start having to advertise (and support) its "Linux-compatible protocols", etc. In this scenario, while MS might still hold the desktop market, we would have achieved a major goal in squashing many proprietary formats and protocols.
BTW, why exclude Linux-only companies from your client/server dichotomy? If we include them (since there doesn't appear to be any reason to bar them), we can find a LOT more examples of client-side Linux.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
So you are saying W2k is OK for single-user, single-process, simple work?
Sounds like Micros~1 stole more than a GUI from Apple.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
I just read "Good News from Outer Space". Did you get that phrase from there or is it from somewhere else previously?
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
1) A new PC suitable for installing NT + Exchange and serving 600 people can cost $20k. Let's be more reasonable and discard things like RAID and 1GB of RAM and say $5k.
2) You neglected to factor in the cost of NT and Exchange, including 600 licenses. That's at least $1129 more, plus $40/user if they don't already have the licenses = $24,000.
3) It doesn't cost $200k/yr to run a mail server. Our network admin (admittedly incompetent) only gets about $50k. Factoring electricity, etc brings that up to $60k.
So let's re-add this. ~$30,000 for a new NT/Exchange or $0 for Linux. That sounds like a substantial savings to me.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by generic kewl tech reference:
...
I so agree with you, from my personal experience. I personally downgraded to Windows NT Server 4.0 from Windows 95, under the idea that I had better get used to it to improve my employment prospects. Say what you will about Win95, I never had a day of trouble with it. This all changed when I moved to the 'more stable' NT, which had to be reinstalled three times in the first week. God help me, I then decided to try a home network. I'll leave describing this fiasco to those with more technical knowledge and better command of the language.
Now, I'm running a dual boot of Windows NT (for games) and Red Hat Linux (for everything else). I'm still having trouble because I don't know what I'm doing, but at least that's self-correcting.
Then my work went to Windows NT
OKay, back to lurking, I obviously still have more to learn.
I think it's open to anyone, but only NT admins show, for the most part.
They make a statement at the beginning of their survey that this will almost surely skew the results.
That quote you gave about "as one would expect" - I think they're basically saying that such results can be expected from a survey of NT admins. If anything else shows, it means NT is losing their current admins.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
This was a trend 5 years ago too (if MS-Press was/is to be believed),
Linux isn't going to magically stop all NT houses to up and switch to Linux.
It takes time....and this is merely more evidance that Linux is here to stay.
Example: for every one of you who says "I just switched from UNIX to NT" there's one of me, who has seen companies port NT web-servers to Linux for stability.
Werd.
star trek episodes from either star trek or these 3-letter knockoffs in which the enterprise *wasn't* captured, taken over by hostile enitity, taken over by hostile computer, abandoned, told to self-destruct, or otherwise removed or nearly removed from control of the captain & crew.
:)
These guys shouldn't be permitted shields, let alone phasers & torpedoes
Personally, I think by the time Windows 2000 -is- released, at least some of those NT admins would have switched over.
TARGET: 40,000,000 Linux Users by 2,000.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Assuming this is true (Have only used SP3 myself, as my company will not go past SP3 yet because of reported incompatibilities between some software we use and SP4), then isn't it kind of pathetic how long it took them to get NT4 to a point of relative stability? What were people supposed to do all these years while waiting for SP4 to solve all their problems?
Shawn Asmussen
NT is server smallfry. The back end, where the actual work gets done, is nearly exclusively Unix. You just can't run enterprise class applications that retain the ability to change with your business on NT.
On NT you can setup most things with a couple of clicks. On Unix systems you generally have to edit text files which is obviously more difficult for the less experienced.
:).
The real difference, however, is shown when something goes wrong. If there is no NT button to click on and fix the problem you're stuck. With Unix, you can be "artistic" in the config files, you can see what's happening, you can fix things. At the very least, if you can't fix it you'll find a way to go around it instead
In a larger company you'll see Unix boxes working with NT boxes. Whenever something new is implemented it's the Unix admins that get things to work because they can change stuff whereas the NT guys can't.
Regards
true, but an NT network needs more admins than a UNIX network. Plus you'll need a much bigger support helpdesk with an NT network.
A solaris shop i know of employs 4 admins for 250+ sun workstations and ~10 servers. The admins are also the user support.
How many admins and, more significantly, how many tech support helpdesk workers would you need for a similar size NT network?
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
are there any oss pdf->html converters around, i can't stand having to locate 3rd party plug-ins every time someone puts a document up. this is got to be one of the top ten mistakes of the web (Bleeding-edge technology - using pdf's)
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
...is that 47% of the respondents are uncertain that they will migrate to W2K after it comes out. It may be a point of concern for Microsoft if Microsoft customers don't buy Microsoft upgrades.
Also of interest is the fact that a majority (52%) are not considering LINUX as a possible OS alternative. It would be of interest to see how many of them are hard-core "I won't switch 'till someone puts a gun to my head" types.
And Micros~1 isn't? You can't exactly call them an enterprise solutions vendor!!!
Today's English Lesson: Oxymorons
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
We have to start talking about providing what suits call an "upgrade path" to get people out of NT4.
Windows does have it's problems, but what you are saying is not entirely accurate. Windows 95 and 98 both have a semi-multiuser mode where users login at startup, and each user gets his/her own desktop and system settings. You still do have to worry about so-and-so deleting this and that file, but at least you dont all have to have the same configuration. This even applies to programs (not all programs) for example, MS Office and Corel Wordperfect Suite each ahve seperate settings for each user.
Us giving mis-information about what windows can and can't do makes us look as bad as Microsoft. If we must always put down Windows to promote Linux (which I do not believe is a good idea, we should promote Linux on its merits by itself, not just on how much better than windows it is) we at least should get our information right.
There is an interesting survey over at sqlserver mag. 79% of their own folks do not think MS sql server will be as accepted as Oracle for mission critical apps. http://www.sqlmag.com
Help fight continental drift.
On Debian, there's a file "/etc/login.access" that allows you to configure local vs. remote logins by group, or source network.
Try "man login.access"
I'm sure all of us at one time or another has had to install windows and installed *unix (duh), but the real fact of the matter is that both have their ground and will stay there.
*unix has got to be the most god awful thing to install. Thank goodness I have someone who is willing to help me with my installs *if your reading thanks*
Windows on the other hand is easy to install to a certain extent, however it lacks the reliability of *unix.
I had a *unix machine running 67 days until I tried to add 3 options to the kernel. After that only god could've got it up and running. Well I'm sure someone could've but the every day user couldn't have...and I consider myself a notch or two above the every day user.
*unix is nice for those of us who like to program, get around quicker and cheaper I might add, but people also like to add a program with a click here and a click there and your running. Not some 10 step process that may take a day or two, and recompiling the kernel.
these of course are my honest opinions.
*not yet decided which is better*
However, to answer your question,
firstly, the best way to do remote access is through ssh , and turn of telnet services. Check your
If you run sshd , you can edit the sshd config file to deny ssh logins for certain users.
If you run ftpd, you need to add the people who aren't permitted remote logins to the ftpusers file.
You can also restrict access via
Well, here's one MSCE that's doing more than just looking; I love the ways Linux services, like BIND/named for example, once I get thru the hassle of setting up, just runs, and runs, and runs w/o a glitch.
Now, my NT4/SP3 servers are basically pretty stable (you must have PERFECT hw) but a VP just asked about having to hit 'reload' to update pages - I explained it was WinGate page cacheing, but offered to switch it off. Unchecked the 'cache' box and saved changes, about 20 minutes later nobody could work thru the proxy and we got a house call from Dr. Watson, the service had stopped. They asked "what happened" I said "I Dunno", restarted the service and it's A-ok now. Embarassments like that happen all the time here. The only time I get 'strange weird glitches' in Linux is when I don't know what I'm doing, but 'oddities' pop up all the time in M$ stuff - I just say, "Hey, I don't write the crap, we just buy permission and install it." Rebooting clears up most of it.
Incident earlier today was a Win95 box hosting a printer stopped; event viewer revealed it couldn't renew it's DHCP IP lease for some reason. Back to manual control! In other incidents, I've had two other networks complete stop because the DHCP server got corrupted jet databases. I know it is recommended to manually make backups of the DHCP lease databases, but Why, unless M$ just wants to create extra 'make work' for admins to be kept busy continuously mopping up after this slop.
Chuck
Office 2000 on Monday, wooho. Now we can create documents the could have been created on a 1985 edition of "WordStar" and sent it to people in Office2Grand format and make them feel obsolete and behind the times.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Why switch?
Umm, economics? Did you really pay over $100,000 for 3500 client access licenses or should we report you to the SPA?
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
ALSO - I notice your argument is basically the old stale "impune the user/customer" tactic, i.e., NT is perfect, if you're experiencing problems it's YOUR fault, the user or Admin is clueless, blahblah. Yeah, right. The most tightly written part of NT is the product liability disclaimer that's evolved to protect M$ from customers using this excellent work of art.
Essentially, I grew tired of being an unpaid/unwitting crash test dummy for M$ stuff; If I pay for a license and it doesn't work out of the box I'm not going to waste my time mucking around with something that's going to obsolesce in 3 years - I'd rather muck around with an old standard that at least acts sane.
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Well, first thing, I'm 40
Next, the potential savings I refered to was just client access licenses, not Linux on the end user desktop. The average IT customer can still use whatever they're comfortable with to freely access many Linux servers, w/o any extra training overhead.
Just a quick quote from the 5/31 "Network Computing" mag: "Unlike the controversial Microsoft-funded studies released by Mindcraft, we discovered only negligible performance differences between the two for average workloads. Our tests showed that, depending on the degree of tuning performed on each installation, either system could be made to surpass the other slightly in terms of file-sharing performance. But examining the cost difference between the two licenses brings this testing into an entirely new light.
Anyway, different strokes. DOS prompt, ugh.
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I feel this is where Linux/Unix makes the most sense - being true multi-user. In windows, you have to worry about little brother - or whoever, clobbering one of your files. On top of that, users compete for their desktop configuration. With Linux, each user has his/her own home directory/desktop setup - and each is protected from other users via a login/password - it makes perfect sense. In fact, NT requires a user/password to use the computer (however, the separation of users isn't so clean). Linux == multi-user and Windows == single-user. Remember, Linux is not windows and trying to use it like windows limit its power
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
Was the Microsoft Exchange forum be open only to NT users, or was it open to Unix users also?
It just seems like 3% isn't realistic as far as percentage of businesses using Unix, but that'd make sense if it were an NT only survey. I know Unix isn't nearly that scarce in the US business community.
If it were an NT only survey, though, why do they brag about NT Server's prevalence? They say that it "remains the dominent departmental OS server as one would expect." This is a strange survey.
That happens when you're running pure BETA software, have very few beta testers to help find bugs, and, have only 1 (count that: 1) server, that takes so much of a beating that when a few (average #'s anyone???) thousand of it's clients go to another site, it can be easily crippled. Also, it's been moved around quite a bit lately (new versions, new servers, new location?)...
Operating systems are just tools, use the right one for the right job. If I want to play quake or
download streaming media I will use NT. Or if I have some..well cant think of much else to do on NT..Linux is wonderful for programming and as a server. I have a 486/50 server webpages at home (cable modem) that would be dead if NT were installed. I can access it from work and do external security audits on the firewall. Use minicom to dialup our RAS servers and check for security issues too.
Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.
- almost entirely : NEARLY
- for all practical purposes (virtually unknown)
Whether it has any more power or not is irrelevant. The problem is that, for the most part, Linux lacks the apps that most people want to use, the substitutes for those missing apps lack sufficient quality for most people, and at the current time, its "desktop experience" is, to put it bluntly, a patchwork of garbage. When most people can already do everything that they want, and already know how to do it on Windows or a Mac, Linux for them is a severe downgrade. Why would a desktop user switch? The joys of Netscape on Linux?Basically, when I see someone choosing to use X under Linux as their desktop OS (i.e., not people who have only one computer and the desktop computer == the server) at this point in time, I can't help but think:
- They use only Open Source software on ideological principle, or
- The pricier alternatives are out of their range, or
- They're console guys just using X to keep a bunch of *terms on their screen at once, or
- They're programmers, actively working to improve the Linux desktop experience, or
- Have very limited desktop needs, e.g., need only a few programs, or
- They're dumb and/or stubborn, usually both.
Nothing wrong at all with those first five groups. The last group probably deserves their fate. This is absolutely, positively, unmistakably, without-a-doubt WRONG. If any company ever owns the entire client and server computing enchilada, it's going to come from first owning the desktop. That's why Microsoft could jump down into the brand new (for them) PDA market with CE and grab over 30% of it within a couple of years. And it's why Microsoft having 30% is still seen as a disappointment by some people -- because they know how powerful owning the desktop is. It's why Microsoft could jump up into the server market and put such a hurting on most Unix vendors. The desktop will always be the key to whoever aspires to world domination.Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
sistren
But brethren is nowadays generally excepted to be gender-neutral, now that it has lost it's literal usage as the ordinary plural of "brother".
Well, if that's true, then why don't you post something that proves it? I've never even seen an idle NT box stay up for 6 months let alone on that's actually working.
I understand your love, but lying about NT won't make Linux go away. Just ask Bill.
First of all, NT is at best run on Departmental servers. Enterprise servers are the likes of Compaq AlphaServer ES40s and GS80/140s.
The intel platform doesn't hold a candle to Enterprise servers.
He also knows nothing about Linux. Seeing Linux focused on the server market seems to be quite striking news to this guy.
Since when is posting useful information 'Spamming'? Now if he was posting this info on a Bingo hall's bulletin board perhaps, but posting computer related information in an IS shop really doesn't constitute spamming.
Personally, I don't really care what OS I see used at my customer's sites. I do, however, like to see working computers. Linux does the job.
If the schools use Linux it is a big step in bringing Linux into the home, look at all the mac's here in the usa, where many schools orginally had all apple computer labs, now i know my school is pretty much split 50/50, but by being in the schools it really helped move the mac's into the home. Hopefully the same thing will happen there, and then maybe we can follow thier trend. Just thinking about the money that could be saved for educational institutions by using a free open source os has to be a large amount. I'm sure they get educational discounts on licenses, but still, say its only $50 a license, and its a decent sized school with say, 25 or 50 windows machines, its $1250 to $2500 in just licensing...and thats even forgetting all the server licensing. Doesn't seem like much, but in schools every penny counts, so if nothing else $$$$ should be thier first motivator to bring linux into the schools, if the appropriate software is available, and i see that as the real sticking point.
I set up Linux on my family's computer. The problem is that it doesn't make much sense that people should have to type passwords just to turn on the computer. But they should not have the ability to access it remotely, either. How do I set up Linux in such a way that local-only users, who don't need a password, can't log in remotely, while people like myself (with an ugly password) can?
Thank you for the clarification!
It's all about getting info into the right hands, my friends. My boss was ranking on Linux something fierce, saying it was in no way ready for the enterprise. I cooly handed him my Linux Journal extra that had the interviews with top IBM, Corel and Netscape execs and why they went with Linux. Plus I've been posting all manner of info on bulletin boards around the office (people are getting pissed at the "mystery Linux poster" *chuckle* Anyways, most people are biased against Linux simply because they haven't taken step one towards understanding it. Keep plugging away and offering up information, my brethren (and sisters... what is the female form of brethren anyways?) -ZaMoose
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
For 'to NT' read 'from NT'.
;-)
Maybe I'm more mindless than I thought
Nick.
29% are planning to move to NT within 12 months.
20% are considering Linux as a possible OS alternative in the future.
Sounds to me like the questions are not equal (I don't think they were meant to be). Comparing these statistics is erroneous, as planning is alot different than considering. And future is alot longer than 12 months, they could mean 5 years. Puffing out your chests by spouting figures like this just makes the whole community look worse. Take the following statement, which is close to the survey's: I am planning on wearing clothes tomorrow, but I have considered streaking in the future...
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
Man, I see the change happening as we speak. A couple of months ago, I installed the first Linux box in the shop. My, this would have been nothing short of heretic last year.
Now I'm actually working in porting one of our (most important) systems from NT to Unix. They want to have it on Linux and Solaris, because people have started to ask.
And I'm starting to believe that this is the beggining of the end for Micros~1... Oh, the joy.
After working with Windows 2000 Beta 3 for a while, I wouldn't toss it out of the running quite yet AS A WORKSTATION. From my expierence with it, its quicker than NT 4, and (so far) as stable.
Of course, I still run Linux most of the time...why? Because I need my computer to do things in the background, and I need it to do them efficently. NT isn't able to do that (imho). But you need/want a stable enviornment to code, do word processing, etc. (i.e. not be serving anything on a large scale), then NT definately rivals Linux.
It would be interesting to see statistics for new IT systems - does anybody have numbers?
Seems that the message is, that SysAdmins are fed up with NT, and that they hope to be more efficient with Linux in the long run! This is a strong statement, considering that Linux SysAdmins are more expensive than NT SysAdmins, and considering that personell costs are usually a big chunk of any IT department!
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
From the Report's "Conclusion":
When I prepared the survey at the beginning of the year, Linux
had only just started making its presence felt. And yet, when
I asked this audience of IT Managers whether they were
considering it as a potential alternative to Windows NT, 20%
said "Yes", with another 27% unsure of what they might be
using as an Enterprise OS beyond the millennium.
Is the writing on the wall and if so, what's changed? Well for
a start, just over a year ago, I would have said that 80% of
Microsoft Windows NT Forum members would jump to Windows 2000
within twelve months of its release. Today, given a number of
factors, including delays, certitude, among the group that
were questioned, has slipped to 30%. I'm not sure that very
many IT Managers really believe that Linux will really take
the place of Windows NT. However, the evidence from this
relatively small but influential group of customers, is that
Windows 2000 is no longer a foregone conclusion and that
options are being kept very much open.
Win2K does go a long way towards fixing all of NT's stupid "features".
c redibly-easy-to-setup GUI, Plug'n'Play support, and it could very much become the OS of choice everywhere. Which is what you have to do to survive the bloated vaccuous force that is M$.
I fully agree that NT boxes are nearly impossible to administrate remotely (a big issue for a college student/sysadmin for multiple labs). With the help of third-party utilities (read: more money), _some_ of those stupid features get ironed out.
I installed Beta 3 of Windows 2000 on my newly-built personal machine. It appears to fix a lot of those problems. Integrated CPU, memory, and disk space quotas (FINALLY! What took them so long?!), practically requires use of NTFS (the ONLY decent filesystem they've ever produced), (X-)terminal services, and a decent networking scheme. And my complete installation took two reboots, and required very little input.
As for the admin that started this thread, something is seriously wrong if you made a 95 box the print server. Where were you hosting DHCP? My DHCP server is up nine months at a time, and then is taken down for applying patches. It's a P90 from IBM. My file and print servers (one Alpha/4-166, a dual PII-300, and a P200MMX) have uptimes of about six months.
I also have an NT Workstation box that has all sorts of beta programs, shareware, and freeware installed. It's a P200 with uptimes of three months. Oh, and it's also file and ghost image server.
The price issue is moot - except for migrations, which should only be done because of SERIOUS problems with the current platform. Migrations are naturally expensive. Licensing is definitely an issue. Microsoft licenses ARE extremely expensive, especially when compared to, oh, I don't know, almost every Linux and BSD variant.
2000 also demands hardware - and quality at that. Like NT, it is not tolerant of minor hardware glitches like 9x, or some Unix flavors are. On my K62-333, it took two hours to install itself on 900MB (Server, all options). Once installed, it used 128MB RAM. Most *nixes are much happier on much less hardware. Less Hardware = Cheaper.
All reports are true for NT and 9x. They are dead. The NT kernel did many things right, but it was bulky and unmanagable. 9x finally developed a reasonable interface, but the kernel was major suckage and the networking atrocious. 2000 became managable. Win2K actually is decent. But it's expensive and requires powerful hardware for reasonable performance.
Unfortunately, *nix had all of these features nearly a decade ago, which means that M$ is finally catching up with reality.
*nix has the kernel, the administration-capabilities. It just needs a very-compatable-with-all-sorts-of-hardware-and-in
Did you ever notice that when ST:TNG needed a plot device, they either used an Alien Probe, Q, or some sort of virus?
An alien probe was even responsible for making the captain think he was living out the rest of his life on an dying planet.
-NG
+--
Given infinite time, 100 monkeys could type out the complete works of Shakespeare.
+-- (Score:-1, Moderator on Power Trip)
Would you go to a mechanic who claimed to solve all your servicing needs with a screwdriver. Call me old fashioned but I wouldnt. Would you go to a consultant who claimed to solve all your problems with Linux. Again, I wouldnt. Just as M$ is wrong in its "extreme right" stance, Linux users could be getting into the trap of "extreme left" stance. The problem is not with right or left but with "extreme" Any extreme is bad. Too much of anything can be bad. (including middle. That is why I keep fluctuating)
Okay NT is not as good as it should be. LInux is not God either. It has its fault too. On the desktop it is not very good. And X sucks. It is a different matter that is sucks independant of the OS.
What people will have to look at is both NT and linux will coexist. I want an alternative to NT not another NT in disguise who claims that he can do anything and is the be all and end all. I need an operating system that will augument and give me choice. We are using linux on our network to get somethings done. But I would still rate Win as a better desktop OS. HOpefully Linux will become better in the coming years. And so will NT. Then all of us will be winners becos there will be competition and also better features. Linux should thank NT for the competition and respond to issues raised by NT admins instead of ridiculing them. FOr example, there are no apps to match Notes or MSX. There is no Directory Services and so on. Concentrate on having better features. Not on NT.
Understand that the success of Linux so far has been becos it quietly concentrated on providing a better OS and not on hype. Dont worry about the hype. Do a good job and it will pay off.
O this learning! What a thing it is - William Shakespeare
Umm, That's just plain
A) RUDE
B) WRONG
I've used linux since 1995, at home, along with Windows, Mac and Amiga. I've found linux a joy.
At work, I program for the win family of fecal matter... i mean products.
To claim people who use windows are stupid is just fucking ignorant.
Myddrin
sob's cant get a damn thing done with iis. im completely frustrated working with nt admins...at least the ones ive worked with. im a web designer/programmer/technoligist by profession and i have been slowly persuading the admins to switch from nt and incorporate linux into our webservers/mailservers/printservers etc.
:)
here are some statements that you can use to persuade your fellow nt admins:
"you'll never have to reapply a service pack again!"
"you wont have to reboot your webserver 600 times!"
"your silly mail server wont get bogged down if the employees decide to send a nude santa claus to everyone on christmas!"
these statements have successfully worked in convincing the admins of another solution---LINUX
so by years end we'll be able to chalk up another company that is switching from nt to linux.
now i gotta get good with linux
Sensei
Sensei
Linuxnewbie.org home of the NHF's
I've been an NT admin for 4 years now and am a RedHat Linux user @ home. I am in the process of testing Samba on Linux vs. NT for my company. I would have to agree that the learning curve for most people going from NT to a flavor of niX is a bit more cumbersome than going from niX to NT.
However, I consider myself able to move around within linux and am fast becoming Linux literate.
I do believe that your statment is as IGNORANT as non-linux users saying that linux is junk...
Watch what you say bud.. Keep you monkey out of your mouth...
D/
So, did anyone notice?
:)))
'Inaugural survey of the Microsoft Exchange forum'
then:
principal corporate messaging solution: Exchange with 65%
and lastly:
'If anything has to go in favor of the y2k project, what will it be?'
The Groupware system.
Link the three together and you'll have difficulty to stop laughing
Do you really wanna get me started? . . . .
didn't think so. you better check yourself before you wreck yourself......
hmmm... not today, I think..