Slashdot Mirror
Linux: Look before you Leap
juniorboy sent us JP Mogenthal's latest piece from Internetwork, this timing cautioning people about Linux and along the way tries to get at the root of why people are switching.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Not required. I came from Solaris to Linux without
a hiccup. A competent Un*x admin is all that is
required.
Care to wager that the author of this article is
a specialist in NT integration? Just another
Redmond lackey gearing up the FUD campaign.
"Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition"
I know this "better value proposition" comment from one MS person. Is this guy singing the Redmond Mantra?
as a computer tech for a computer consulting firm
and a linux newbie i think he does have a point linux isnt the answer to every problem.
We have some 486 boxes we were going to settup ip_mas on and sell as internet to lan gateway/firewalls using 1 or more modems.
With all the problems i have been having with it i dought that is going to happen. If i cant get it working there is no way our clients are going to be able to keep it up and running not to mention upgrades.
How-tos faqs Suse tech support, irc #linux on irc (tried many networks) and newsgroup searches have not been any help. I have spent over 50 hours searching for the answer on the web. 5 reinstalls
and mumerous changes of components and software upgrades.
the problem?
when downloading from a fast site >3 kbs
the download stalls aftewr ~500k and often the hard drive thrashes and no new connections can be formed But the slower connections like irc that were connected before the lock stay connected and work fine. Its not a memery problem as far as i can tell shows over 8 megs free and mem usage does not go up after the lock, and top doesnt show any processes hogging cpu time.
suse 6.1
tried
kernel 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.9
tried 2 modems...no irq or mem conflicts
modem is on com 3 irq 7..both a usr sportster 33.6 internal isa and a generic 28,8 ti chipset modem
also internal isa
network card is a realtek set to ne2000 irq 11
and works fine.
*sigh*
email addy is ktk007@geocities.com if anyone has any ideas....
Note: any opinions stated are my own and not my
employers.
Wasn't it an old 486 Ambra he had on his desktop? :) . :)
Those computers were really top of the line
I think people should really listen to this guy, if he has a Ambra he must really know what he is doing
Oh please! Just because some people may grunt and fling dung, does that mean you must too? Go read the article, it's tripe and deserving of critics.
-MikeR-
I'm sure if I had never touched Linux in my life either, I'd be able to come up with the same conclusion. My compliments to the author.
Regards,
Neezam Haniff
Neezam_Haniff@tsb.ca
www.internetwk .com is running Apache/1.3.4 (Unix) mod_perl/1.16 on Solaris
( Netcraft )
"refusing to submit to the fact that linux isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread?"
:)
If I read this right, then what is really being said is that the author of the article stated that Linux *is* the greatest thing since sliced bread.
How much does this "NT Server enterprise" cost? Why would I buy it if is unstable? And not open source so that I can modify it however I want?
He really must be an expert on the subject.
If you need both a micros~1 natural keyboard AND a special trackball to counter the strains of RSI, you must have done a hell of a lot of research on the topic at hand.
However, my experience is that people that have
these nice 'gadgets', are generally just simple
trend followers and easily impressible with simplistic lingo from 'too slick' marketeers.
(Just a thought).
Guess Mr. Genius didn't walk down the hall to ask the guys that actually use the OS.
Sounds like you should have brought the PDC down and let the BDC's take over.
Wasn't that a question on one of the MCSE exams ? : )
btw - This scenario is identical to ANY system using a single authentication model. NT is not alone here.
You have absolutely no argument; no rebuttle of his point whatsoever. So think before you speak, you ridiculous little kid.
Unix's strength is at the command line. How many application work can work with one another through stdin, named pipes, socket redirection, and fd duplication? Who many really? I could easily count at least several hundred, other may count more than thousent. In Unix, it is a simple matter to produce dynamically documentation in postscript. Just last week, my cs professor had hard time converting a .doc document to ascii. You say their applications are well integrated? that is enough, even *interactively* the conversion would not come out correctly.
Oh no! Gates didn't *drop* out of school. He was thrown out for stealing!
Yes he does have good points. But he presents the fact that if you want something in the kernel and the core team doesn't except it. Then your SOL
Ever heard of patches? it's not hard to do and you can apply it to your own kernel. So what if the kernel team doesn't put it in, it's not that hard to recompile in a patch
"...I love pointy-clicky things".
That's great...cheered me up!
From the technical content, I don't think this guy uses Linux? In fact, I dont think this guy uses Windows in a technical environment (probably just to write stupid articles . What apps does he think are unstable beats me ???
Intuit's Quicken, Everybody's accounting program, seems to have disappeared from most mail order catalogs.
It seems to be going the way of WordPerfect or Lotus 123 on Windows. The OS is closed source, how in Sam Hill can you write a bug free program if you don't know what you're writing for?
Just you watch, Quicken will be squeezed out in the next year, and the standard will be MS Money.
It will happen as quickly as the market shift from WordPerfect to MS Word happened.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, JP.
How about Kerberos? It works with Linux pretty well.
Is this guy a politician or what? How else is it possible for someone to write a whole page and say nothing?
./ think it was so ground breaking I needed to look at it?
Futher more why did someone at
Another one of the "Dime-a-Dozen" crowd industry "Experts" who presumes to claim, implicity or explicity, that he knows everything there is to know about this phenomina and then demonstrates through his writing that he doesn't know his ass-end from his elbows.
For example:
I can't help but think that most of this admiration is emerging from a revulsion to Microsoft Windows
A common mistake for the dime-a-dozen crowd. While Microsoft and Windows are both pretty repulsive, I use Linux for the same reason I used OS/2 a decade ago -- it is the most stable and most flexible environment available for my system. If anyone -- including Microsoft -- comes out with a system that is more stable and more flexible, I'll jump ship in a heartbeat. Seeing as how Microsoft has zero history of actual innovation, I really don't see them coming up with anything as good as Linux anytime soon. A MS version of Linux may occur at some point because MS knows how to copy a good thing when they see one, but they'll have to do some amazing programming to match the quality of, say, the Debian distribution and frankly I don't think they're capable of it.
Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released.
Nonsense. First and foremost, you do NOT have to upgrade your internal kernel every time one is released. If it isn't broken, why bother fixing it. Second, in the unlikely event that you do need to upgrade your kernel, most of the time you should just have to apply your fixes as a patch and retest it to make sure it works correctly. It is very rare that changes significant enough to affect the modules you're working on will occur. Especially if you're rolling your own modules.
The only possible place where this statement is true is if your company releases binary-only drivers for your hardware and if your company does that it is violating the spirit if not the letter of the linux development process and you deserve what you get for it.
Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition.
Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft has strongarmed the Industry into pre-loading their OS on every system shipped out the door. That and a lead of 60 million units is going to require some catching up. Given the rather steep growth curve, Linux is going to catch up extremely quickly.
The only "value proposition" I can see in Windows is if you happen to be a Support and Planning(*) contractor, in which case the bi-yearly upgrades, utter instability of the platform and rapidly ballooning hardware requirements are going to guarantee you a steady stream of income from your customers. It doesn't play for a Support and Planning(*) company to install Linux on a system because you'll never have to go back. I know this for a fact -- 4 years ago I installed Linux for a fellow in New York. He had 4 phone lines and wanted to do load balancing across 4 modems, which I implemented for him. Took about 2 days to set the machine up. I talk to him every once in a while. He's upgraded to a T1 but he's still using the same Linux box and tells me it's running great. If I'd installed Windows for him I could have guaranteed I'd be back there every few months to fix a new problem. My only conclusion is that if you're a Support and Planning(*) company ignoring the Linux option, you are doing your customers a great disservice and padding your own wallet at their expense.
Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing.
Funny. I've been running it on a dual P166 for 3 years now. You dime-a-dozen people sure do have a strange view of "Just".
Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies and single applications.
Even if Linux were Single Processor Only, the network load balancing and clusering options available make a hell of a lot more sense than having a huge server representing a single point of failure.
Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems.
One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been that it ships (relatively) cheaply on cheap systems. One of the reasons no-nothing administrators who don't know how to do the job have proliferated is because windows convinces people that administration of a mission critical system is as simple as editing a Word Document. One of the reasons so many companies have major problems with their IT systems is because they hire these people.
Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these systems.
Actually, it does. Many educational institutions have shifted over to using Linux due to its (lack of) cost and licensing issues. More of our youth being exposed to Linux means more UNIX savvy workers are entering the workforce. It's already happening. Ask any CS graduate coming out of the top schools in the country which he feels more comfortable with and 9 times out of 10 he will say "UNIX." In a decade your UNIX admin might come from Mexico, where the entire school system is on the Linux bandwagon.
Linux is a college student's project gone astray. The version that will be supported by Sun Microsystems and IBM on its hardware will fall far short of each of these company's own Unix operating systems in features and capabilities.
I beg to differ. Linux is a college student's project gone wonderfuly right. Having used and administered Solaris, HP/UX, SCO, AIX and DG/UX systems I can tell you that Linux already far exceeds each in terms of features, consistency and the stability of the core applications. I can only infer from your statements that you have a personal vested interest(*) in seeing Linux fail. Too bad for you that isn't going to happen.
(*) JP Morgenthal is president of NC.Focus, (**) which provides strategic planning, analysis and consulting of application integration technologies.
(**) I assume your company has a web page but it appears to be down at the moment, otherwise I'd visit it to see what your company was about.
"Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing. Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies and single applications".
Gee it's obvious this guy's a computer *EXPERT*
"If you're managing multiple servers for increased scalability, you're better off using multiple NT servers all participating within the same domain".
Yeah. Uh huh make sure they're "in the same domain" that's the key
It's not like I'm pro Linux or anti-NT but after I read this I'm definitely anti-stupid tech writers. Holy dumb fuck batman!
He had one so here's my thow-away line:
You need to know what you're talking about before you get to be a columnist. Otherwise you should go back to being cub reporter, news-release cut 'n paster where brains are less of a requirement.
Pretty good advice "look before you leap", pretty clever too.
Here's some more for the author of the article.
Think before you speak.
Research before you write.
cause i've had to rebuild my NT laptop 4 times in the past 4 days.
that's why.
-red
I have an aunt that looks like a duck and can quack like one. I'm not about to see if she tastes like one, but I'm pretty sure she's not.
He said that if your modifications don't get
adopted into the main linux distributions then
each time they come out with a new kernel you
will have to retest it. Firstly, you don't
have to upgrade each time a new kernel comes
out. You don't generally need a new kernel to
run the latest software (unlike Microsoft).
Secondly, WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT MICROSOFT
WILL FOLD YOUR MODIFICATIONS IN THE NEXT RELEASE
OF WINDOWS 2000? More likely they will sic a
lawyer on you for illegally modifying their
software.
Let me tell you, if you know enough to make
modifications because of some bizarre need of
your company, you're going to know how to support
it.
Good job! Thank god for letters like yours. He'll probably be a jerk and quote only the flames he'll get, though.
bah. theres kerberos which is encrypted, tcfs, cfs, (roughly the equiv of encrypted NFS) and lots of others. check out ftp.replay.com/redhat for redhat crypto packages.
Hey - being a QBASIC wizard myself (and quite ashamedly so, at that) I suggest one change to the last paragraph -- move the "" on first so that they surround the words "programming language" !
nonymous - daniel Holth, dholth@stetson.edu
thats a load of BS. NT is highly reliable. All of my 5 NT servers have uptimes ranging from 5 to 7 days. Of course linux is slightly more reliable, but not significantly so..
%>w
2:53pm up 153 days, 13 mins, 2 users, load average: 0.07, 0.02, 0.16
...
:)
even if the points about linux were facts, it would
not contain much useful information. heres why:
he has a poorly developed thesis and his comments
do not directly pertain to it. its just a bunch of off the cuff
banter aimed at nothing in particular, as if we were his wife and
he was chatting to us in the morning over tea and biscuits.
so why did you post this on slashdot? the poor bastard
will undoubtedly get flamed into a smouldering heap
of ashes.
send this retard the facts, mabye he will stop spewing lies...
--
This is OpenBSD land around here...
One a quit night you can here Windows users scream.
Well, as the linux scene moves on to higher
ground with things like RH's IPO happening
soon, we will of course see alot more of this
sort of bullshit.. bad journalists writing
trite little "I spent a day researching Linux's
capabilities and shortcomings" articles..
I personally find it humourous how all of a
sudden these pseudo-IT-wizard journalists who
think windows is marvelous are coming out of the
woodwork to share their 'expert' knowledge with
the masses.. ie "stick with windoze's proven
reliability, stability, scalability (HA!)"
etc.. seems more like they are sharing their
"fight change" conservative life philosophies
more than their technical expertise..
it's pretty clear from the article that
this guy wouldn't know linux from a hole in
the ground.. saying Linux can't do SMP,
implying that it performs poorly on non-intel
systems, and giving the impression that a
company will have to continually revise their
in-house software (he makes it sound like every
kernel patch is going to be cause for recompiles),
that's just straight up misinformation that
exposes the man's incomptence (or rather
illustrates that he's in over his head and should
just keep to noodling with NT with all the other
little boys...)
I mean, everyone's got an opinion, yeah, but
an informed opinion is worth alot more than some
idiot's knee-jerk surface-gleaming opinion..
I have yet to see the negative response to
the building linux hype that does it's homework
and faults linux for REAL, outstanding technical
problems and imperfections. Just more FUD from
people who have gotten lazy, and from others who
have clear hidden agendas..
Frankly this guy sounds too stupid to
have any hidden agenda.. I think he might
need help getting dressed in the morning,
let alone compiling a kernel.
!p00f!
;)
Running RH 6.0.
I've set up 3 separate PPP connections in about 20 minutes... 2 w/out scripting 1 w/scripting.
The one w/scripting was much easier than setting up the same account under 95...
With Linuxconf I just typed what to expect and what to send for both the user and password...
Under 95 I had to actually write the script..
>I will give just one example to show tremendous
>scalability already achievable under Linux.
>The incredible computer generated special
>effects for the movie Titanic were rendered with >a cluster of LINUX machines each acting as a
>graphics server! They did consider NT for the
>task but Linux won.
Actually a bit of clarification here...
The computer generated WATER and the wake that Titanic left as it passed through it was rendered under Linux, mostly because that was the easiest OS to port the SGI version of the software from.
For many scenes the ship itself was rendered in Lightwave. The people falling to their deaths from the bow of the ship were Softimage.
Cybie@141.com
I guess that makes Microsoft some college dropout's project gone astray...
... who is going to more likely put the changes in? Microsoft? If it is worth anything they just take it. They have in the past. And most changes can be done with a module or a device driver outside of the core kernel.
He makes it sound that if your application isn't excepted by the core team that it won't work in the next revision. What is it he is thinking? How many business apps require changes to the kernel... and if they did
At least Linus knows that you can't factor primes.
Shesh.
Some point regading the printing:
:-)
1. The editors removed the key point regarding available applications. The
line "With Linux, these services will soon be available as a multivendor
product" should have read, "Commercial versions of currently used IT
products will soon..." Announcements from Oracle, IBM, Progress Software,
BEA, are what should have been referenced here, but due to size they decided
to take a dangerous shortcut.
2. The SMP point has been argued both ways. Yes, there are versions of
Linux that work on SMP, but not all Linux distributions until recently.
Thank you for your points. Hey, all writers are entitled to one "off"
article.
JP
-----Original Message-----
From: Lord Spurius [mailto:spurius@earthling.net]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 5:09 PM
To: jp@ncfocus.com
Subject: Corrections
JP MORGENTHAL
June 14, 1999
It seems I cannot pick up a paper these days
without seeing Linux touted as the greatest
thing since sliced bread. Upon reading these
rave reviews, I can't help but think that most
of this admiration is emerging from a revulsion to Microsoft Windows,
as well as the relatively low cost for the Linux operating system
compared with other versions of Unix.
1. Relatively low cost = free. Compared to NT unlimited user license
of what, 20,000$? Either you don't know this or you are trying to
distort the facts with your wording. I do not know the costs of other
versions of unix, but I assume they are equally high.
But I think it's critical that we, as a community, keep a
perspective on the impact of Linux for the following
reasons.
Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes to the
kernel are subject to review and approval by a small
team that controls this portion of the operating
system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted
into the core distribution, may find themselves in
a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux
is released.
2. Look at POSIX and the other standards. The development team doesn't
just say "Do this however you want and we'll tell you its wrong". There
is a strict form to how everything works together. I haven't heard of a
single piece of code that has been sent back and had to be recoded,
apart from changes like from libc to glibc, etc. Which, when you compare to
the revisions of windows, is not bad at all.
Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because
Microsoft provides a better value proposition. Windows NT Server
Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services,
including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and
firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be available as
a
multivendor product. Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to
work with one another and the operating system's services, users may
spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components
under Linux. The most critical of these integrations will be security
and
access control.
3. What users say that? You? All versions of linux ship with all of
those, and many many more. With my experience, using versions of
redhat, any service I select, with few exceptions, is fully configured
apon install. Question - have you ever used linux? For more than a
week?
Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing.
Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies
and single applications. If you're managing multiple servers for
increased scalability, you're better off using multiple NT servers all
participating within the same domain.
4. I run a dual p-pro 200 system with 128 megs of ram. Dual processor
SMB, by far the most common, has been highly supported in all 2.xx
kernels. And 4 processor SMP is supported well in 2.2 kernels. You
point this out, and then don't point out that Windows NT doesn't even
run on sparcs, and runs in 32 bit mode with poor support on alpha
systems, which are used as higher end servers. Again, why are you
attempting to distort the facts? Do you even know what a beowulf is
(I.e. the most powerful computers in the worlds are beowulfs)? have you
ever even heard of a beowulf based on NT? I certainly haven't. There
isn't one in the top 500 worldwide list.
Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for
Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and
maintaining Unix operating systems. Simply because a low-cost
version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate
more people capable of managing and configuring these systems.
5. "Linux is still unix" - Thats like saying that Windows 95 is still
dos. Linux has a large number of configuration tools to date. Are you
aware of this fact? Have you ever used any? I guess not.
Linux is a college student's project gone astray. The version that will
be
supported by Sun Microsystems and IBM on its hardware will fall far
short of each of these company's own Unix operating systems in
features and capabilities. If you're responsible for operating system
selection in your company, be wary of the Linux play. Hey, I'm all for a
competitor to Windows, just give me more than what Microsoft has to
offer-not less.
6. Show me your version of NT that is run on Sun's hardware. I know
several people who use linux on suns, and a few on alphas - they don't
fall short *at all*. Linux is a true 64 bit operating system, unlike
NT, and is capable of taking full advantage of the system. And - as to
your comment, "more than what Microsoft has to offer", take a look at
features supported by both. NT has some features linux has, but linux
has more than NT has. Where do you get at that it has less? And linux
is free. And linux has more support on the net (usenet, irc, etc).
Hell, even redhat tech support has won far more awards than Microsoft
tech support, which is notably bad.
I find your article to be a gross distortion from someone who doesn't
know what they're talking about. Please learn what you're writing about
before you write about it. Use linux for a few months like you've used
NT (I assume you've at least used NT for a few months). Configure
services, talk to people on newsgroups if you have a problem, use it as
both a desktop and a server. You'll learn not to accept crashes/reduced
performance from long uptime. You'll learn not to accept shoddy
services. You'll learn how quick the interface is to manage when you
learn it, and how truly powerful it is.
And its all free. And its open source. Noone can hold your project
hostage, noone can take away your right to use it, change it, do
whatever you want with it.
This is linux.
Learn it before you write about it.
Thank you.
- Anonymous Coward
>When it takes me an hour to setup a reasonably
/.
>hassle-free way to form a PPP connection on my
>Linux box and it takes me roughly 10 minutes to
>do the same on my Windows box,
uhhh... it took me 2 minutes to set up a PPP connection on my (red hat 5.2) linux box, and that was using a GUI tool.. *and* I didn't have to "restart the computer" to finish setting it up.
urchlay at geocities dot com (no I don't have a
account, this is my first post, flames welcome...)
You're going to compare a bunch of people who love computers and love an OS to a worldwide hate group?
Honestly, if you walked up to a "linux nazi" on the street, and said "hi my name is bob and I run windows" they wouldn't hate you. Some Linux users that come across as harsh, aren't really that bad, its more of an online persona.
Just because some people feel strongly in something YOU don't believe in, doesn't make them nazis.
2 Wrongs don't make a right. If we call Bill Gates hitler, and you call us nazis, we're all in the same boat, and we're both stuck out in the same sea.
One of my pet peaves is when people go into toxic shock when somebody disagrees with a certain persons views (Linux community, and Windows community are both guilty of this).
Bah, why can't we all just get along?
He admitted making some mistakes and at the same time said he was right on some points.
To quote him :
Every author is entitled to an "off" article
I guess that says it all
Btw, I just saw slashdot go offline, and five min later it was back up (take that, ebay). Cool. I didn't know that actually happened.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's a duck.
Linux is Unix.
Yes he does have good points. But he presents the fact that if you want something in the kernel and the core team doesn't except it. Then your SOL. Well, how many companies are going to *require* that a new feature be put into a kernel. (I personally believe that your company will have better luck with Linux than Microsoft, and if they don't except it ... at least you *can* still do it yourself) The kernel is supposed to be small portion that only contains *required* componets. Almost everything else should go to user space or be an extension like kmod or a device driver. yes?
And I thought he was gonna be unbiased...
Early in the piece he talks about why you have to be wary if your company adds a feature into the kenrel and that addition isn't accepted by the kernel team. Umm, how many companies add their own features to the NT kernel? So, really, wouldn't that point be moot?
He then goes on to say that, "Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition." First off, I have to ask, Is integration of every service into the OS a better value? From my experience... NO! I now have to challenge his little ditty about the number of supporters. From my experience as an MCSE there are lots and lots of NT servers out there because some office manager deems himself an NT guru because he can use Win95. Not because NT is a better product.
He then goes on to say, "...With Linux, these services will soon be available as a multivendor product." in regard to the inclusion of internet services with Linux. What? Is the guy downloading a kernel and booting it by itself? Purchase most any distribution and you get all of those services on the single CD.
"Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems." Yes, and thank goodness that Linux is still Unix. The Unix that I learned in College applied to Linux. I was wayward for a while. Pointing and clicking but never to my heart's content. I can administrate the "It's still Unix Linux" from any workstation on the network with telnet or ssh. That work station can be a PC running Windows 3.1, 95 et. al, a Mac or a real Unix workstation. The single most important benefit of Linux's Unix roots.
"Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these systems." I can counter that, With Windows of some sort on 99% of all PC sold hasn't brought a plethora of qualified NT admins... I'm in no way degrading real NT admins. I'm talking about the office managers types that I mentioned earlier. I don't have any trouble finding work install Linux servers to replace NT boxes.
Linux has less to offer? Again, I have to ask the question, Does this guy download a kernel and boot it by itself?
From: Pranab Banerjee- -
...
... Upon
... Companies that
... Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work
:) With open source
... Simply because a low-cost
... The version
... If you're
... Hey, I'm all for a competitor to
...
e-mail: dnp@gtemail.net
-----------------------------------------------
I could not help expressing my views after reading the
article titled "Look Before You Leap Into Linux Adoption"
by JP MORGENTHAL in the June 14, 1999 issue of INTERNETWEEK.
So here they are
> It seems I cannot pick up a paper these days without seeing
> Linux touted as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
There are bad and good reporting in ANY field and reports on
Linux are not exceptions. It seems the author came across
some articles that portrayed Linux as the "the greatest
thing since sliced bread" but I also hope the author took the
time to read the numerous well written and technically accurate
articles about this great operating system developed by highly
talented software developers who have shown great love for
what they do and not motivated by financial gain. Linux may not
be the "greatest thing since sliced bread" but it certainly is
a great software that is revolutionizing the software world
through a paradigm shift that makes softwares open, accessible,
and open to "peer review" which is the best quality control
there can be.
>
> reading these rave reviews, I can't help but think that most
> of this admiration is emerging from a revulsion to Microsoft
> Windows, as well as the relatively low cost for the Linux
> operating system compared with other versions of Unix.
Most of the reviews that I have come across do care to describe
the technical merits of Linux and why it is impressive. It is
only natural that the comparison to Microsoft's products are
made therein because Microsoft has a dominance of the desktop
market. But Linux is not great because it is better than
Microsoft's OS but it is great because it does very well what
an OS is supposed to do. I think there are very few non-Microsoft
OS that are technically not better than Microsoft Windows. So
being better than NT or Win98 is not really a big achievement.
However, Linux has shown the user community that there are
ECONOMICALLY SENSIBLE and TECHNOLOGICALLY SUPERIOR alternatives
to paying someone to make a well designed hardware display the
blue screen of death 27 times a day.
> But I think it's critical that we, as a community, keep a
> perspective on the impact of Linux for the following reasons.
>
> Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes to the
> kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that
> controls this portion of the operating system.
No - changes to LINUX kernel are NOT subject to review by a "small team"
but the kernel is open to review by ANYONE that walks on this planet
and who cares to review it! In fact, this is the strength of
open-source software. While it is true that a Linux kernel is
eventually approved by Linus Torvalds himself as a formal release
but he does not develop all the changes himself - developers from
all corners of the globe have been continously contributing,
directly or indirectly, towards the growth of the Linux kernel
and Linux applications. The author can review the kernel too,
if he wishes - he has free access to the whole kernel in source
form. And yes, he can contribute to the kernel development effort
too if he intends to.
>
> add features they need, but that are not accepted into the
> core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and
> retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is
> released.
If a company has to add "features they need", they CAN do it with
Linux but they CANNOT with any "closed" OS including those from
Microsoft's. Yes, there is a cost involved in maintaining the
custom changes if they are not incorporated in the kernel but
if these changes are needed, they can at least be done with LINUX
and other Open Source OS instead of praying that some vendor
someday listens and implements it in their OS. And what are the
chances of any vendor incorporating a feature into their OS if
it is a very unique and uncommon feature? Highly improbable.
> Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because
> Microsoft provides a better value proposition. Windows NT
> Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of
> Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging,
> database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux,
> these services will soon be available as a multivendor
> product.
Almost all LINUX distributions these days come with full TCP/IP
support, a rich set of Internet connectivity tools, web server,
ftp server, firewall etc. I personally see the availability of
multivendor products to be actually good for the consumer because
choice and competition push technology to higher standards while
keeping the cost down.
>
> with one another and the operating system's services, users
> may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate
> these components under Linux. The most critical of these
> integrations will be security and access control.
If I had to believe that Microsoft's products are superior because
they are "designed to work with one another and the operating
system's services", then I would not see my machine crash when
running Microsoft's own office suite under NT
OS like Linux, ANYONE can design application software to take
advantage of "operating system's services". It is not entirely
possible with Microsoft's operating systems because they have
been known to not disclose many features of the OS to developers.
My own experience has been that multiparty softwares (such as
Staroffice office suite, GIMP etc.) under LINUX are INFINITELY
MORE STABLE than running Microsoft's own software under NT.
> Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric
> multiprocessing. Without robust SMP, Linux servers can
> support only small companies and single applications.
I guess the author thinks of Burlington Coat Factory and
the Canadian Railways to be small companies!
> If you're managing multiple servers for increased scalability,
> you're better off using multiple NT servers all participating
> within the same domain.
I will give just one example to show tremendous scalability already
achievable under Linux. The incredible computer generated special
effects for the movie Titanic were rendered with a cluster of
LINUX machines each acting as a graphics server! They did consider
NT for the task but Linux won.
> Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons
> for Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and
> maintaining Unix operating systems.
Most system administrators (who maintain both UNIX and NT machines)
I have talked to are of the opinion that they spend a lot less time
administering the UNIX/Linux boxes than Window's machines. And the
reason for Windows growth inspite of its substandard quality
is not because it is less complex but because of Microsoft's
unfair business practices and the fact that vendors previously
would not sell machines with anything other than Windows
preinstalled (even when OS/2 was a far better product). I have
seen people who had to reinstall Windows pull their hair in
frustration.
>
> version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically
> generate more people capable of managing and configuring these
> systems.
Most computer science students coming out of Universities are very
familiar with UNIX environment and now with LINUX becoming more
and more visible, the interest in UNIX is only going to grow. Besides,
LINUX system administration is getting easier and easier through
projects like KDE (www.kde.org) and GNOME (www.gnome.org). These are
already usable and improving fast.
> Linux is a college student's project gone astray.
Sometimes it is better to acknowledge the brilliance of a college
student instead of being jealous! Linux is not a project "gone
astray" but it is a symbol of global cooperation, democracy,
freedom, and brilliance! It is a shame that Microsoft, even
with its Billions of Dollars, can't produce an OS that is
even comparable to Linux in terms of stability and quality.
>
> that will be supported by Sun Microsystems and IBM on its
> hardware will fall far short of each of these company's own
> Unix operating systems in features and capabilities.
Some specifics would have been nice!
>
> responsible for operating system selection in your company, be
> wary of the Linux play.
The well informed does not have to be wary of Linux - they embrace
Linux with great enthusiasm and experience the gain in productivity
right away. And they don't waste their money on Windows either.
>
> Windows, just give me more than what Microsoft has to
> offer-not less.
Need more than what Microsoft has to offer? How about rock solid
stability that puts NT to shame; a 64 bit OS now (not in year 3000);
a far better technical support from global Linux community online;
access to full source code without any hidden special features;
cheaper than ANY of Microsoft's operating systems; built-in firewall
software; runs on more hardware than NT ever will; use significantly
less hardware resources; supports more file systems than NT can
dream of; and so on
> JP Morgenthal is president of NC.Focus, which provides
> strategic planning, analysis and consulting of application
> integration technologies. He can be reached at
> jp@ncfocus.com.
------------
Pranab Banerjee is a software consultant at Pasadena, California.
He can be reached at dnp@gtemail.net.
At first I dismissed this as
the FUD you expect from the entrenched mass media who fear that Open Source will jeopordize their advertising revenue (how much as RH spent on marketing vs. MS?).
However, I checked out JP's company and YIKES!
The purpose of JP's company, NC Focus, is:
"Assisting companies to build systems faster, cheaper, & better!"
To do this JP's company provides the following service:
"We offer the best of the analyst and implementation consulting worlds. NC.Focus provides subscription-based research to keep companies updated on emerging tools and technologies. This research is written from the perspective of the customer implementing solutions today."
The company's web pages are almost free of references to Bill gates many products, instead extolling the virtues of Java, XML, COBRA, etc.
Almost sounds like the perfect home for Unix, Linux or FreeBSD, eh?
Given JP's internetweek column, I wonder what NC.Focus is it advising it's customers regarding Linux?
Executive Profile
JP Morgenthal,CEO & Director, Research
JP Morgenthal has been involved with the computer industry since 1986. He successfully ran his own software consulting practice from 1994 through 1996 when he transitioned to become one of the leading analysts covering the middleware and distributed computing market.
Morgenthal is a recognized leader in the industry. Over his career, he has acted in the roles of developer, educator, author, analyst, columnist and conference chairperson. Most recently Morgenthal was named the Vice-Chairperson of the Enterprise Integration Council, a new collaborative effort developed to assist companies navigate the onrush of new technologies in the Enterprise Application Integration space. He has also been named chair of the XML Working Group for ACORD-a group delivering standards for the insurances industry.
In addition to being Director of Research, Morgenthal provides high-level strategic consulting on corporate IT directions regarding E-Commerce, ERP, supply-chain integration, and data architecture.
Morgenthal has a very strong technical background. He has over a decade of experience designing and implementing distributed applications for the banking & finance, brokerage, computer software, and manufacturing industries. Throughout his years of experience, Mr. Morgenthal has implemented and researched most of the major distributed computing technologies including: TCP/IP, DCE, CORBA, COM/DCOM, XML, Java & Web/Internet. He is considered an authority on enterprise application integration technologies, such as directory services, security, distributed file systems, asynchronous messaging, and database middleware.
-- not anonymous, my company's firewall is just really annoying. nosilA (alison@andrew.cmu.edu)
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
You don't like sick humor? ;) or IT whores?
Posted by Reitzel:
It's abundantly clear that JP is a fucking bureaucrat. The only tech manuals he reads are the MTBS (Marketing-Type BullShit) with the six color glossies.
Linux IS *nix, in the best KISS tradition. Extremely complex apps can be welded atop the kernal, without resort to the Favorite Microsoft _Fully_Incompatible_API() calls. And code that runs on Linux runs on scores of other *nix's.
Dork.
Posted by Mary CW:
Without getting into whether JPM is an idiot etc. (which has already been well covered in other posts)...it's worth considering where, for whom and in what context this article was posted. InternetWeek is primarily written for corporate IT generalists and non-IT business managers. The article was posted in the "Grey Matter" section (advice and editorials, not "objective" news).
For this audience, these issues in the article are appropriate (regardless of whether they are accurate in this instance!): linux is a different animal from the usual corp/capitalist model. So there's a need for ongoing debate and education about it.
Remember the tech adopter curve from Crossing the Chasm: mainstream corporate adopters do NOT pick up new/leading edge tech, they wait until it has become (is perceived to be) industry standard. Corp IT types do this not because they're stupid, but because they know that you don't last long in the corp world if you're perceived as being too "out there" (ie putting the business at risk).
FYI there was a much more positive article on linux a month or so back in Internetworld ("Open Source: What's Next for Linux"), so having an opposing view may also be perceived as good journalism. Again, I'm NOT endorsing this article, just commenting on bigger picture issues.
Posted by d_iana:
I'm a writer in Washington, D.C., working on a piece about Linux. Are there any network administrators/IT/MIS types who might be able to answer a few questions? I want to know what you use Linux for, what effect recent support of Linux by folks at IBM and HP, etc will have, what kind of businesses will benefit from widespread Linux use, etc.
Posted by d_iana:
versus UNIX or NT? How about weaknesses?
tx diana
Posted by WildDev:
Haha, we should create a parody page for people to post replies like this
There's one reason I have Unix experience - The low cost of experimenting with Linux.
A long time ago, some author wrote, "You can't throw an apple out of a window without hitting a college student that has Linux experience." They're right. There's a crop of budding sysadmins out there. While most of us are still stuck in college, just watch out in 2-3 years. I have a feeling a lot of us could blow away any MSCE. (Or at least I hope I have that ability, and I've only finished my freshman year.)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
He said something towards the end about Sun's and IBM's Versions of Unix having better support ( I'm guessing he means OS hardware support)... I have to believe that this guy is not as intouch as he would like his editor to think he is. Let's remember that Sun and IBM are making plans to allow native Linux binaries run on there versions of UNIX. Of course this says to me that alot of IBM and Sun users want to be able to run Linux applications on Unix at work. I guess my question for him would be "How much Linux support do you want?" It's my opion that Linux could be the binding ingredient that helps all the Unix flavors to conform to the same standards for binaries. I also don't believe his reasons for Window becoming popular. ( I'm not even going to get into how much all the MS software he mentions cost my company for just one server ). If I could have run Unix in 1985 on my home computer I think I would have. ( anyone remeber dos 4.1? ) Who in there right mind would have Used DOS if they could have multitasked?
This story is pretty typical of a window users point of view. Shouldn't these people be worried that they spent too much of their life learning one Operating system.
Last one in jail is a fascist.
Wuh.... ... got to find some weaker ... uh ... no ppp on my daughters machine. ... oh my gosh ... let me see.
.... 45 sec ...
:o).
Regain conciousness
stuff
What to do
point#pppsetup
Fill in boxes
point#pppgo
A surfin' we will go.
Thats a Slakware ppp setup, the evil user hating
distribution.
How long does Red Hat take anyone. Hell I'm old
I could hurt myself doin' all that pointin' and
clicken' trying to get NT to connect
CC
"Pray arm me further by your reply" Winston Churchill
>Linux made me into a sysadmin and it will make thousands more.
Exactly. This is the fear that's driving the anti-Unix/Linux camp. When people learn the basics of Linux,they are also pretty much learning the basics of Unix and saying to themselves,"Hey you know something? Unix isn't as hard or as bad as lot of people has made it out to be".
Linux has revived interest in Unix again and this can be nothing but a good thing for the future of us all.
Linux is not based on anything. The original motivation to write Linux may have come from Minix, and most of the interfaces come from Unix (now POSIX), but the code is clean.
Paranoia isn't an infectious condition, it's a way of life
So Linux is controlled by a small group of hackers who continue putting out patches, forcing people who have customized kernels to keep re-testing. And this is a bad thing!
...
Lovely argument there, eh? It's not enough to have free OS code that you can customize, the hackers who wrote it must also step aside and stop working on it so that they don't break customized, unreleased versions of the software maintained by your shop!
Nobody forces you to use the latest kernel. Moreover, if you obey the major interfaces within the kernel, your code will remain compatible. If you upgrade to a new kernel, you have to re-test and possibly change your code. This is no different than if you were doing application level coding in any operating system. If you develop, say, a middleware service application for NT, you have to re-test everything if you decide to support the lastest service pack.
I recently upgraded the Mobitex radio modem driver from supporting only the 2.0.x kernels to 2.2.x. It was pretty easy despite the quantum leap in kernel revisions. Some of the network driver interfaces had changed---for the better, I might add. Adapting the code made some of it it simpler and cleaner. The only real sneaky thing was that the tty line discipline receive callback can now be run in a true interrupt context right from the underlying serial driver, rather than as a mere bottom half callback! So the reentrancy assumptions in the driver had to be re-evaluated, and stricter locking had to be put in (at which point I went straight to using the new SMP friendly spin locks). So most of the porting issues were caught at compile time, and the rest by prudent code re-reading and re-evaluating of old assumptions.
But we are talking about a serious jump between major release series, not from one version to the next within a series. Incrementally supporting successive kernel releases tends to be trivial. Being a responsible developer means that of course you redo all of your usual test cases before approving the software as working with a given kernel, and you document which kernels it was tested with with.
In the case of unreleased in-house changes, it's even easier because you don't owe it to any outside users to support a variety of kernels. You can simply pick a kernel and stick with that for a while as a matter of internal policy.
If you are working on modifying some area of the kernel that is also being ``churned'' by the main developers, and you want them do to certain things your way, then you have to communicate and resolve the issues. Chances are that they won't listen to you if the issues are related to proprietary modifications that aren't being released back into the community. Well doh!
How anyone can twist availabily of source code into a FUD argument against Linux is beyond me. If you don't like the churning, don't stop for drinks at the Kernel of the Week club on the way home every Friday night. Have a prudent roadmap for upgrades.
This fruitcake disgusts me. I have no respect for people who parrot other people's FUD without understanding what they are talking about.
I see no evidence that this dude knows anything about operatng systems internals, and I doubt that he has ever written a line of kernel code. I also don't believe that he has any experience maintaining custom patches against a code base whose mainstream releases are controlled by someone else.
So when he writes that rapid kernel development is a problem for people who maintain modifications, it must be taken with a sizeable crystal of salt. Ditto when he says this or that about Linux SMP; he just heard it from someone, who in turn heard it from someone else, and so on
Coda servers are available for Linux, tarballs, SRPMs and RPMs.
There are LDAP PAM modules so that you can use LDAP for authentication, as well as NISLDAP gateways.
I'm not at home, so I don't have any URLs, but I plan on trying to set up an integrated authentication/security system this fall at school.
Speaking of NIS+, I think that glibc2.1 has support for it, making it easier to configure. There is a server for Linux, but I'm not sure how stable it is (still beta, AFAIK).
Into Linux Adoption
JP MORGEN-THRALL
June 14, 1999
It seems I cannot read these days. I'm often seeing Linux touted as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Upon reading these rave reviews, I can't think. Most of this admiration is lost on me because I only know Microsoft Windows, as well as the relatively low IQ I have.
But I think it's critical that we, as a community, keep a perspective on the impact of Linux for the following reasons.
Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes are subject to review and approval by people. Companies that add features to the kernel, and then change to a different version will have to change the version, in much the same way as if you do something, you may actually do it.
Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because I love pointy-clicky things. Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition has many fun things that I think come as standard because I never pay for them myself. I haven't a clue what comes with Linux, and I'm too lazy to find out, so I'll just make something up. Whereas Microsoft's products are buggy and barely usable, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux, most of which I spent working out how to get the | symbol on this keyboard. The most critical of these integrations will be security and access control. I have no idea what this means, but it sounds impressive, yeah?
Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing. Huh huh-huh...I said retrofitted! Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies and run a single application (honest!). If you're running NT you'll be required to manage multiple servers for increased downtime, and you're better off using an abacus.
Also, remember that Linux is still not Windows. One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of obtaining a computer without it. Simply because a low-cost alternative is now available, it does not automatically generate more revenue for Microsoft.
Linux is a college student's project gone astray. There are pornographic pictures embedded in the kernel, and it drinks all your beer before throwing up on your brand new carpet. The version that will be supported by Sun Microsystems and IBM on its hardware will fall far short of each of these company's own Unix operating systems in marketing and hype. If you're responsible for operating system selection in your company, be wary of the Linux play. Hey, I'm all for a competitor to Windows, just make sure it's not a serious one.
JP Morgen-Thrall is president of NC.Focus, which provides strategic planning, analysis and psychic predictions of application integration technologies. He can be reached at jp@ncfocus.com.
dylan_-
--
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about concerning app crashes.
You may be talking about desktop issues, which is perfectly valid. But remember that Linux is just now starting to provide comprehensive "idiot desktop" software. We do have a bit of catching up to do in this area - something we're rapidly doing. But if you look at the tried-and-true server issues - Web serving, dialup serving, file/print, DHCP/DNS, mail - you find that they have quite satisfactory stability.
The same with your criticism of the PPP setup. Again, *easy* PPP setup is still a bit new. Before, we all were good enough hackers to not mind the extra setup.
Now, most of the technical criticism directed at NT from the Linux crowd centers on several issues where Linux does have the advantage:
- Speed.
- Stability.
- Flexibility.
As it just so happens, these tend to be server issues more than workstation issues. I personally think it's a pain when my Windows workstation at work crashes, and I long for my Linux desktop at home; however, when my NT Server crashes, I'd consider that more than just a "pain".
I think most of us will admit that Windows has us beat on usability - today. Considering the rapid rate of advancement we've been seeing, combined with Windows' inertia, I'm sure we'll be caught up soon.
Meanwhile, there are still many things we can beat up on Windows for.
ObRelevance: Besides, most of this Morgenthal's criticisms are still off base. Some of them are demonstably wrong - the integrated list of bundled services in NT EE comes to mind, along with the assertion that none of that comes with Linux - and others are criticisms of strengths, such as the slam on its development model.
I've found myself pondering the same thing as this guy over the past few months, both in my head and in the open with other people. I'm a Linux supporter, no doubt there, but I'm not blind to the fact that Linux isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, that it's not even as good an operating system as Windows in some key areas.
Everyone talks about open-source and stability as if it's the end-all be-all of the OS market. Guess what, Linux the operating system may be stable, but even with good administration, most of the apps aren't. What good is an operating system to a company if its programs have to be continually restarted? WinNT's instability can be overcome with even moderately good system administration; it's all a matter of how the system is run. I chatted with a customer of ours the other day who runs WinNT exclusively because its cheaper. Why is it cheaper? Because its easier to use, maintain, and runs on almost anything their Intel-based systems can offer. Linux, on the other hand, he said, costs them more to maintain because they have to pay for compilations, extensive management, and the repeated solving of problems given by the apps. And, he says, they get much better support from Microsoft.
Part of Slashdot's (and the Linux community's in general) problem with articles like these is that they conflict with the ego created by Linus' "world domination" speeches. We tend to get so full of ourselves because we feel we're using an inherently better operating system than our competitor and when someone attacks that notion (and this article did it rather succinctly and not maliciously) we ignore what they're actually saying and start attacking the attacker.
Get off your high horse! I've been off mine for a while. When it takes me an hour to setup a reasonably hassle-free way to form a PPP connection on my Linux box and it takes me roughly 10 minutes to do the same on my Windows box, I can literally see the problem areas of Linux and why using it could be more expensive than using a Windows alternatives. Learning curves cost money, too. It's not all about free software and it's not all about open-source in the corporate world. To think thus is to put the same blinders that prevent looking at alternatives in the first place.
You're right, someone who's gone through a PPP setup process can get it done fairly fast. My issue wasn't necessarily getting PPP working, it was getting PPP working properly with the setup I wanted (it still isn't, I've just given up).
And regarding programs, yes, some programs stay up for six months or longer on Linux. Big deal, some Windows stations stay up for that long as well. My point is that a lot of programs that Linux is counting on to provide the same services as Windows aren't up to speed yet, but advocates are pointing to them saying, "See, we have this and we have this." GNOME is the perfect example. I stopped running GNOME, not because I didn't like it (I really did), but it simply crashed too much, even after version 1.0.6. I don't want my GUI crashing on my when I use it. KDE didn't fair much better. If I had been in a mission-critical situation, I'd have been pissed. Not only that, my support options would've been limited. I would've had to pay someone to figure out the problem. Corporate produced software at least provides support and they have the incentive to make sure their product works properly, because people will buy it and they don't want to lose customers (or time to technical support).
People dismiss this as FUD. No, it's not FUD. It's FUD to you because it doesn't happen to you, but it's very real for a company evaluating Linux vs. NT. Their users are not going to be like you. They're going to be more like me, someone who taxes their system by screwing around with it, except that they're a) not going to know their doing it and b) not going to know how to fix it. Say what you will about NT, but it's stupid easy. Windows sells because it's stupid easy to use. You have no reason to go mess with permissions. You have no reason to go fscking with the internals. It works, and when it doesn't work, it tells you it doesn't work and gives you an easy out. When my GNOME panel crashes because it didn't like what I dropped on it or my kppp crashes because it didn't like failing with three different devices, it just disappears. That's not FUD. That's life.
I know how well Linux runs some apps and I know how poorly Linux runs some apps. The majority of stuff that I download is pretty poor code. Linux itself is rather nicely refined, but I would hate to rely on the programs that are available out there.
The author of the article, again, hit on some very good points. I've seen two people address them directly. Everyone else just cried, groaned, or tried to piss on him. I like Linux, too, but unlike some people, I'm not trying to build it up as something it's not.
"But I think it's critical that we, as a community, keep a perspective on the impact of Linux..."
I wonder which community he could be referring to?
"Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that controls this portion of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released."
Belittle Linux by calling it a "project".
Has he ever heard of backward compatibility?
"Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition. Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be available as a multivendor product. Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux. The most critical of these integrations will be security and access control."
Stating the obvious with the "outnumber" thing.
"...better value proposition."?!? How does he arrive at that? Look at a copy of SuSE 6.1. What company offers more software with their product for the low price of $29.99 at Best Buy and FREE if you download it?
He makes it sound as though it's the Linux communities fault that MS apps won't integrate with Linux. Who says a "user" would want to integrate them anyway? Besides, who would want to rely on NT's security? (or lack thereof)
"Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing. Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies and single applications. If you're managing multiple servers for increased scalability, you're better off using multiple NT servers all participating within the same domain."
"...retrofitted..."? I suppose NT was "born" with it? Again with the belittlement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but NT is now more scalable than Linux right now. It doesn't even offer clustering right now (it's in "development").
"Also, remember that Linux is still Unix."
NOT!! Just because it has a command line interface and most of the commands are the same doesn't make it UNIX.
"Linux is a college student's project gone astray."
More belittlement. Astray is such a negative word.
"If you're responsible for operating system selection in your company, be wary of the Linux play."
"...be wary of Linux play."?!?
Need I say more. "play"?!? Come on. Give me a break guy! Just what we need, more FUD from the so-called mainstream press.
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
The implication of the argument is that only if you buy all your software from the same source can you guarantee that the applications will work together. In other words, an Information Monoculture.
I cannot think of any other Industry where this occurs (apart, perhaps, from the Kansas wheat fields). To take his argument to its conclusion, uou should only buy your computer hardware from Intel, and ensure that all your car parts are produced by Ford.
What he doesn't seem to realise is that open standards and open source mean that you can download or buy software that suits your requirements, not those of the company that supplies the software.
Speaking from Manchester. Where Whitworth's screw making machine meant that you could get nuts from one supplier and bolts from another and guarantee they would work together.
Ahh... So THAT is where he got his ethics training from. ;-)
Loren Osborn
Sure, you can use NIS and NFS to have the same account on each of those 8 boxes with setting it up only once, but NIS is a security breach par excellence (speaking of passwords going round the Network uncrypted, every one can read the password map etc.)
You may try NIS+, which is far worse to install and maintain, but it is somewhat more secure - and there is no NIS+-Server for Linux.
But yes, you might check out OpenLDAP and Coda as a Filesystem, but I don't see any Coda servers for Linux either.
So: If you only have trusted users in your network environment - go for NIS (and be sure, that noone from outside your network is allowed to NIS).
Ralph
I am a bit disappointed that your recent article contained several inaccuracies with respect to Linux. I'm sure other people will point them out too, so I will just pick out one that I have had personal experience with.
You wrote:
Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing. Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies and single applications.
Where I work, we have been using Linux multi-processors in a production environment for over two and a half years. Unless you are a geologist, this doesn't count as 'just beginning'. In fact, Linux is just FINISHING a re-working of the SMP system so it works better with higher numbers of processors.
According to netcraft, the site is running Solaris:
:)
www.internetwk.com is running Apache/1.3.4 (Unix) mod_perl/1.16 on Solaris specifically.
See for yourself or visit netcraft to check out other sites' identities.
I sent the following to the author, at the end urging him to post either a correction or a retraction. I strongly urge Slashdot readers with knowhow to fill in the blanks that I left (with cool manners, pocket those flamethrowers) and all Slashdot readers to urge him (again with manners) to post a retraction/correction.
. html . html t m h tml s .html
Sir,
Your article posted on InternetWeek was poorly researched, and quite
inaccurate in most respects. Allow me to point out the deficiencies of
your half-hearted attempt at objective criticism.
"Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft
provides a better value proposition."
This, sir, is a most disingenuous statement. Windows supporters (by which
I presume you mean users) outnumber Linux supporters because Windows has
been the only OS in town for many years. Linux is younger than Windows,
and is fighting a legacy marketshare, not a quality-based one.
Microsoft's business tactics (as shown in the DOJ trial) do little else
but maintain this artificial market dominance which grew out of IBM's
initial market dominance of the PC market in the early eighties. It is
hardly because of proven product quality that Microsoft currently enjoys
the market share that it does.
"Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of
Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database,
transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be
available as a multivendor product."
In fact sir most, if not all, of these features are already available in
Linux and other free UNIXes, including the BSDs (I personally favor
FreeBSD). For Web services, Apache is readily available and comprises
over half of the webservers in existance(1). Further, proxy and firewall
services are already implemented in Linux and other *nixes, I myself have
set up a FreeBSD firewall on a network I manage. The capability is built
into the OS, it only requires a competent sysadmin. Messaging can be
taken care of in the form of Sendmail(2). For databases, Oracle has
release Oracle8 for Linux(3) and IBM has released DB2 v6.1 for Linux(4).
Surely these databases are strong enough for whatever a company needs.
"Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies and
single applications. If you're managing multiple servers for increased
scalability, you're better off using multiple NT servers all participating
within the same domain."
SMP support currently exists, as explained on the LinuxSMP site. "The
current ix86 kernel supports Intel MP v1.1 and Intel MP v1.4 compliant
motherboards with between 1 and 16 486/Pentium/Pentium Pro processors."(5)
Clustering can also take care of scaling issues, as the Beowulf project
website can tell you(6). While neither of these technologies are perhaps
completely mature yet, it is reasonable to consider that, given the growth
of Linux in the past four years of its eight year history alone, maturity
will be achieved in short order, perhaps a year or less.
As for your statement of Linux being worthy of only small-scale
operations, perhaps you would be wise to investigate the Linux in Business
website.(9)
"Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for Windows'
growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix
operating systems. Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now
available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of
managing and configuring these systems."
Actually, availabilty of low-cost versions of UNIX (again, the BSDs are
available as is Linux) *does* in fact guarantee that more UNIX capable
people will be generated. It is a matter of availabilty that has kept the
number of UNIXphiles low. Previously, UNIX had been available only for
companies needing the robust and flexible nature of UNIX, and at Academia
in the computer departments and natural science departements. An entire
generation of nerds, technophiles, and engineers is now being exposed to
UNIX. This exposure will absolutely generate more capable people.
Teenagers are learning the joys of the UNIX world, people in college are
getting a chance to experience alternatives to Windows drudegery, and IT
people who would never have thought of using UNIX are trying it, and
liking it. Within a few years, the number of skilled UNIX workers will
have increased dramatically.
Furthermore, as I stated before, the reason for Window's "growth" has
simply been because of historical opportunity. Microsoft was at the right
place at the right time, and had an inside track. Namely Gates' mother
was on a charity board with one of IBM's top executive(7). DOS was the
defacto OS on IBM PCs, and then the clones. Windows was built on the DOS
empire, and NT was built upon that. Linux is inherently more stable, with
less downtime than NT, as exemplified by the following story from
Replacing WindowsNT with Linux(8).
"Life after moving Cats to NT was a nightmare. The system was crashing two
to three times a day with no reason that I could find. I was on the phone
with Microsoft and Cats constantly, but nobody could figure it out.
Microsoft had me apply Service Packs one through three and a few HotFixes,
which helped, but it still was crashing at least twice a week with the
infamous "Blue Screen of Death". After many weeks and about $1500.00 in
phone support from Microsoft, the technical support rep told me that I
should find a better software package than The Cat's Pajamas.
The only option left was to replace the server now and the only thing I
had was the Linux server, so I restored Cats off our Windows NT tape
backup machine to the Linux server and changed the login scripts to
connect the users to this server for the Cats drives. Within one hour, we
,were back in operation.
"After completing the morning duties, we normally run a complete Cats
backup before we continue with closing which usually would take two hours
to complete on the Netware server. The Linux machine was able to do the
entire backup in 45 minutes, cutting a little over an hour off our closing
time. This increase in speed came from a decrease in hardware because the
Linux server was running only 32 MB in RAM and IDE hard drives where the
Netware server had 64 MB in RAM and SCSI drives. The speed increase has
been noticed in daily work also. I get almost daily remarks that the
system seems to be running faster and more reliable."(8)
You may find further such case studies at the Linux in Business
website(9).
In conclusion, sir, I can only strongly suggest that you do more thorough
research before posting a comments such as you made as fact. To do
otherwise is irresponsible at best, and brazenly pernicious at worst. I
am sorely disappointed in the quality of your work, and the bias of your
opinion which I presume to be based on your "facts". I strongly recommend
that you post a correction to your story and perhaps even a retraction.
Certainly you owe it as a point of honor and integrity to correct your
errors.
1.)http://www.networkcomputing.com/1011/1011f13
2.)http://www.networkcomputing.com/1011/1011f12
3.)http://technet.oracle.com/tech/linux/index.h
4.)http://www.software.ibm.com/data/db2/linux/
5.)http://www.uk.linux.org/SMP/title.html
6.)http://www.beowulf.org/
7.)A&E's Biography series
8.)http://citv.unl.edu/linux/LinuxPresentation.
9.)http://www.bynari.com/collateral/case_studie
...and neither are you. I know it's sort of a tired reply, but you sound like an Astroturf minion to me.
What good is an operating system to a company if its programs have to be continually restarted?
Which programs have to be restarted? I know personally of a couple of situations with Linux file/print/samba/email servers that have been running for 6 months without anything being restarted. If you're going to make an inflammatory claim like this, please give specific examples. Otherwise, it sounds like you're flinging FUD.
When it takes me an hour to setup a reasonably hassle-free way to form a PPP connection on my Linux box...
Which distribution are you using? I can set up a ppp connection with Debian, with a clickable icon on the desktop in either KDE or Gnome in about 3 minutes, no kidding! Granted, I know how to do it, and a newbie would have some trouble here (this is an area that really should have improved by now, I admit) but saying that it takes an hour is really just ridiculous and, again, smells badly of FUD.
I thought I would present a well-reasoned reply as to the problems with your argument before all the childish flames start. And don't say, "Oh, I was critical of Linux and you automatically claim FUD", because I have given specific examples and reasons why I feel it's FUD. You failed to do so in your arguments.
I don't think you'll be able to justify your one hour ppp setup claim, but I think we'd all appreciate a response as to which programs you claim need to be restarted regularly? And don't say Netscape, either. That has to be restarted under any OS, and has nothing to do with server operations.
Looking forward to your reply,
Matt
I am now fairly convinced you're associated with MS in one way or another. *sigh* Here we go again....
.debs (about a week ago and it hasn't crashed once yet. hrmm...), but before that used KDE since beta4. Beta4 locked up on me occasionally, but since 1.0, KDE has never crashed or locked up on me. From reading all the articles I do, and from reading the posts on Slashdot, KDE is nothing but solid. Either you've got some corrupt binaries, have some very bizarre config problems (I didn't change anything in my KDE setup, except to apply the Bryce theme. I really don't see how you could have messed anything up unless you were hand-editing config files), or you're just a FUD-meister.
My point is that a lot of programs that Linux is counting on to provide the same services as Windows aren't up to speed yet. GNOME is the perfect example.
The article, and my comment towards you, was about servers , not about the desktop. I'll grant you, for the majority of people, based on the thousands of end-user apps available, Windows is still a better desktop solution. NONE of the important server applications that are available for Linux are anything but rock-stable. GNOME is there so you can have a nice graphical environment to view pictures, browse the web, etc. Most people (myself included) who run Linux as a server don't even install the graphics libraries and programs. This saves a great deal of all system resources.
KDE didn't fair much better.
Umm, excuse me? I recently starting using the latest GNOME/E
Most of your remaining arguments are about Linux as a desktop OS, and I've pointed out that that's not the discussion here (though it is a very valid discussion to have). There is one final comment that really irks me, though:
The majority of stuff that I download is pretty poor code.
Again, a very general statement. You've got to provide examples!! If you don't, it's nothing more than FUD! What programs had bad code? Where was the code bad and how could it have been improved? I'm not a programmer, so I wouldn't understand what you meant, but there are (obviously) many programmers who read Slashdot, and maybe they'd appreciate your input. But just to say "Most of the code I've seen for Linux is bad" with no specific information, no particular apps, no mention of the kinds of programming errors you've seen, well sir, that's just a lot of hooey we here like to refer to as FUD.
Cheers..................
... is that by thrusting forward into heretofore unexplored frontiers of cluelessness, this chap might make some people think that someone who's less clueless but still fifty-one cards short of a deck (say, Jesse Berst) actually has a clue. He's stretched the spectrum, and Jesse will now appear to be closer to the center.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
>> Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these systems.
About 5 years ago I was whining to a friend that I really wanted to learn Unix, but it was too damned expensive to obtain for a single user at home. Shortly thereafter I heard about Linux and began playing with it. I'm certainly not an expert, but I am comfortable with my level of understanding. I am comfortable enough to manage and configure Linux systems.
>> Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux.
Yeah, Microsoft's integration of products has sure been beneficial to everyone. Like the integration of the browser into the OS (security issues), and the inclusion of a programming language into the office suite (Melissa). And let's not forget about the active components included in the forthcoming Outlook 2000, which will let a program be executed just by opening the message. Gee, with such wonderful integration why would anyone NOT choose Microsoft?
Maybe, just maybe, tying all of these things tightly together is a BAD THING? Who on earth would want to spend that much effort to tie them together under Linux? I think the idea is to maintain control, not to surrender it.
>> Linux is a college student's project gone astray. The version that will be supported by Sun Microsystems and IBM on its hardware will fall far short of each of these company's own Unix operating systems in features and capabilities.
Hmmm. So Linux won't replace Solaris or AIX? Is the implication that NT will? If the job is too big for Linux, then it is probably better-suited to Unix.
If Linux is "a college student's project gone astray," then NT is a corporate dinosaur's project gone astray. At least Linux allows us to manage the technology. NT allows the technology to manage us.
If IIS goes belly up and you lose 10,000 pieces of e-mail because of it, or if NT causes your battleship to be dead in the water for 3 hours, there's still no one to sue. Your EULA, the one you implicitly accepted by opening the package and installing the software, disclaims Microsoft, Inc. from any and all damages caused by the use of their software.
And anyone who has had the delusion of sueing Microsoft need only look as far as the EULA to see just how impractical it is.
I read your assessment of "Linux vs. NT". While reading through, I thought you had some reasonable points up until the concluding paragraph. Oh, and I hope you can believe not ALL the the rude flaming are really from Linux users (we have our bad apples in the bunch, but we don't pay them to flood ZDnet and newpaper colums like Microsoft's failed "astro turf" campaign)... apologies for the bad apples.
OTOH, you really did not give justice to Linux, but perhaps that is in backlash of all the good press Linux is recieving? Here's what I noticed:
>Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into
the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released.
Are you serious? People are still using 2.0.36, and even 1.x, and support for them will far outlast Microsoft support of Windows 3.11, but I don't see how this fits into your comparison, since you can't modify the Windows at ALL. You can "modify Windows" by writing a driver and you can also modify Linux with a kernel module. It's very unlikely the kernel team would reject something that belongs in the kernel especially if it's an conditional compile and not harmful to the mainstream users. You state this as if it has happened but do not provide an example, and this reduces your credibility. As a counter example, they've allowed kernel support for offbeat projects like Amiga/Atari/Mac68k, MIPS, etc. even though Linus said on day one it would never be portable to other platforms. Implying people have to reengineer their software for the "latest" kernel is pure FUD.
>Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services
True, and they also force a web browser into the NT kernel - security, stability and user's wishes be damned. Transaction processing is not supposed to be in the kernel anyhow, and for the price of the NT EES you describe you could well buy one for Linux and plow the rest into additional system RAM. IMHO, BSD UNIX like Yahoo uses makes for a much better free unix if you want a server platform.
>Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux.
Linux CAN be time-consuming to configure, but so can NT. You do need to look before you leap with NT.. know what you want before you commit and don't jump on one or the other without research. Your point about integration however is laughable - Linux prides itself on adherence to established standards, and since the source code is open it's a heck of a lot easier to integrate custom apps on Linux. Microsoft products only work well together if you commit to an ENDLESS cycle of pay-upgrades, as BackOffice and Exchange users have found.
>Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies
You neglect to mention that Linux requires significantly less horsepower than NT, which means it runs faster on the same hardware. Exotic configurations like Mindcraft's studies are good for focusing on problems like this. You did not mention it only took a few days to fix some of the SMP bugs that hampered Linux SMP.
>Linux is a college student's project gone astray.
Nice FUDDY sound bite, but if you did your research you'd know Linux wasn't a school project.
>The version that will be supported by Sun Microsystems and IBM on its hardware will fall far short of each of these company's own Unix operating systems in features and capabilities.
On what evidence do you base these charges? If you can't think beyond the cynical world of closed software, sure, maybe they would hope for this. There's no way for Sun/IBM to hold back Linux however, and the reality is Linux is improving much faster than NT, by Microsoft's OWN admission. This isn't "Java" or browser standards... Microsoft can't kill Linux.
Sun and IBM might be just hedging their bets, but the OS will "get there" on their hardware, or no one will buy those systems. It's harder and harder to justify thousands for a UNIX system upgrade - they know this - and they also know their real business in the future will be hardware and consulting. IBM stands to make a killing at this and doesn't consider Linux eating their lunch. SGI also understands this. The OS has gotten this far without ANY help from Intel.
Scott Prive
"...apps can be welded atop the kernal (sp)..."
Uh, I bought a computer, not a welding kit.
No, the problem is that the article was worthless. Yes, zero value. Nothing to say. NEXT!
Oh great, now we have Micros~1 hunter seeker drones and troll bots on slashdot. You are an absolute nitwit.
support gun control: take guns from cops
Subj. line sez all.
-----
".sig,
From: jr@scms.rgu.ac.uk
To: jp@ncfocus.com
Subject: Re: Look before you leap into Linux adoption
Well, I've just read your article, and would like to raise a few points:
First of all:
Huh? This makes little sense. Under linux, it is actually _possible_ to modify almost anything in the OS without paying extortionate licencing fees and signing NDA's. The fact that anyone can modify the kernel source code this easily is to seen as a strength, not a weakness. That not all modifications make it to the 'standard' distribution is also good, for without quality control, the kernel will rapidly become more bloated and less stable. Rather like NT, in fact.Next:
Almost none of the products come with a standard NT server or workstation licence package. If you pay in the region of $10,000 you might have a server licence for each + 5 client licences. Let's check linux:- Web: apache web server. Unlimited client accesses. Admittedly, this is also available for win32, but is not yet as stable or efficient as the NT version. Cost: free.
- proxy: Squid or apache. Again, cost is free.
- index: Not sure what you mean here; LDAP is certainly available for free under linux.
- messaging: Email? Linux is well served by sendmail, qmail and several other MTA's, all of which are free.
- database: Postgres and MySQL are both free for 99% of uses, and Oracle is also now available.
- Transaction: Again, I don't know what you mean here.
- Firewall: built in to the kernel, so it comes with all releases. There are also distributions of linux which are designed to be used as routers/firewalls.
In short, linux has all of those things you mentioned. For free.Re: integration of these packages:
I've never had any problems with access controls being specified for multiple packages under linux/unix (both use the same security model). NT has several stupid access requirements for several packages, although this can in general be attributed to idiotic programmers (one package actually stores temporary data in win.ini!).SMP:
Excuse me? Linux has had SMP support for several years. Admittedly, the support under the 2.0.x kernels was not one of the best, but this has improved dramatically with the recent 2.2.x kernels. I'm not sure of the extent of the MP capabilities, but certainly 4-way is possible on intel, and further capabilities may be possible with alpha/sparc architectures. Since NT is only up to 8-way on proprietary HAL's on Alpha's, it's not that far behind. No it isn't. Linux is a unix-like OS (pedantic, I know..). In any case, I don't view this is a penalty as I find unix a far better OS for my needs. I have to struggle with NT whenever it is inflicted on me, but unix/linux is far more easily configured and tweaked.Skills:
It is far easier for a cash-strapped student to get linux and install it than to get Windows NT and install it with a range of add-ons (email, usenet, www etc). This will result in more students having linux/unix skills on leaving university than there will be with NT server skills simply due to opportunity. Give it 3 years, and see which skills are most common.--
--
- Microsoft is a beter "value proposition"
- Microsoft is more integrated
- People only like Linux because they hate Microsoft
- You can't configure anything without your GUI admin interface (implied from, "This is Unix, remember...")
- "Student Project Gone Astray"
- No SMP support
- No vendor support
- Splintering development paths (i.e., if you change the kernel itself)
- blah, blah, blah...
True, I agree with his basic premise - that you shouldn't dive into Linux as the foundation of your enterprise servers without doing some thinking first - but he hasn't added any new to the discussion. He doesn't mention anything about the strengths of Linux, other than the fact that it's cheap and it's not Microsoft.Sounds like someone who simply swallows the propoganda coming out of MS, without attempting to do any real research of his own.
Sheesh...
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Most of these articles are allowed
- to be 1 page of material with 2 scrolls.
- they can't be novels since you would lose most readers
- they can't be too short because the banner adverts have to show up more than once on the page
Basically you have around 400-500 words to make your point, get the sponsors seen, and get the hell out and hope to generate some "fervor". Bonus points if you have a banner ridden feedback loop area on the web site.If this was a high school essay and you were to grade it he would get a B or a C. There are no references. It is mostly an opinion article that is given street cred because the author is a company president. The company might just be one that summarizes major publications in the IT forum in a readily digested manner to aid those IT professionals too busy to read since they are kicking/integrating/troubleshooting their NT servers. I am just guessing ;)
One thing did ring true. His photo. I looked at it and said to myself... whoa... nice whiteboard... did you learn to draw from the back of a TV Guide? CAN YOU DRAW CAPPY? IF SO YOU CAN BE AN ANIMATOR OR ARTIST.
Anyway... I just read through some of his other stuff. To be honest it appears that he sticks to subject matter that is closely parallel to his own company. BIG SHOCKER THERE. Also, if you are a MS person you have enough to keep up with regarding this being killed, extended etc... but look at this article:
http://www.internetwk.com/columns/logic051099.htm
or this one: http://www.internetwk.com/columns/pers0309.htm
This is quoting him... so in a year... you go from the quoted to the writer of a column... its called promotion. And if you are a fan of Jesse Berst just remember that an audience that gives feedback is an audience that generates revenues for the ads these places sell. Just keep that in mind when you click on the response boards.... you are just paying them with each click.
Synopsis: The best way to get around this is to recommend that your workplace cancel all subscriptions to these types of mags with a note referencing the desire for more factual articles than "Look Before You Leap".
Latra,
Jay
"You cannot uncook Mushoo pork once is has been cooked" -- wiseman
http://fudge.org
I just sent this letter to the author:
I read your last column about Linux with interest. I noted, however, that there were several errors of fact
that I felt I should draw your attention to.
You said:
Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, including Web,
proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be
available as a multivendor product.
Not quite. Yes, the top-of-the-line NT package does ship with those services. Moreover, there are
probably more shrink-wrapped applications of this type for NT. You forget, however, that Unix (and Linux
especially) were born on the network, instead of later integrated into it. Every Linux distribution of which I
am aware ships with these services for free. Linux's handling of network streams is superior to almost
every other operating system out there, with the possible exception of FreeBSD.
You said:
Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services,
users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux. The most
critical of these integrations will be security and access control.
Once again, almost but not quite. It is true that integration of various services is higher in Microsoft
systems. I am convinced, however, that this is a flaw, not a benefit. Bugs in one part of the system can --
and frequently do -- lead to bugs and security holes elsewhere in the system. A more modular arrangement
allows for easier isolation of possible problems. Moreover, this modular design allows the operating system
to be administered several different ways -- from a console, over a telnet or ssh session, or from another
Unix box. NT's design makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to admin remotely.
Specifically with regard to security, Linux inherited the time-tested Unix security model, a model that is
implemented throughout the system. It is not by chance that the most secure operationg systems in the
world are Unix-based. NT 3.51, on the other hand was only able to get a C2 rating in a locked case with
no peripherals, no external drives, and no network connection -- not a very likely configuration for a domain
controller. All subsequent versions of NT have not even garnered this minimum rating.
You said:
Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing. Without robust SMP, Linux servers
can support only small companies and single applications. If you're managing multiple servers for increased
scalability, you're better off using multiple NT servers all participating within the same domain.
You bring up two different issues here, so I will deal with them separately. First, you note that Linux's
support for SMP is still immature. This is true, especially considering the incredible SMP capabilities of
Solaris, Irix, or some of the other Unices. When compared against NT, however, the picture is changed.
For dual-processor systems, Linux beats NT in speed and stability. For quad processor systems, it's the
other way around: NT beats Linux. From four to sixteen processors, they essentially tie. I personally would
have to give the nod to NT on this issue, as strong quad-processor capability is considerably more complex
than strong dual-processor capability. But the issue is close.
Where I disagree with you is on your second point, scalability and clustering. If scalability is your need,
my experience would suggest that Linux is far more scalable than NT. In my experience, NT is simply
unable to respond gracefully to high loads, whereas Linux can. Linux is also far more scalable the other
way, too; a 486 with 16 MB RAM can be productive under Linux. Not so with NT. While NT would
probably boot under such a configuration, it would be so slow as to be useless.
On the other hand, if clustering/high availability is your need, I would not go with NT or Linux. Many
other Unices would be far better suited to this task. Linux clustering is, like SMP, still immature, and NT's
clustering ability is limited to failover. If NT or Linux were your only two choices, though, I would go with
Linux. The stability of Linux and the instability of NT would make that an easy choice. Moreover, even at
this early state, Linux provides more clustering capability than NT.
You said:
Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of
configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems. Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now
available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these
systems.
This is your strongest point. It is much easier to administer an NT box than a Linux box. This, in my
opinion, is the main stumbling block against more widespread adoption of Linux in the enterprise. I don't
agree with your second point, however. Having versions of Unix available for low cost makes it much more
likely that college students, hobbyists, and even IT professionals will install and play with Linux, thus
improving their Unix skills. It is much easier to develop a cadre of capable Unix admins when simply trying
out the operating system doesn't cost a thousand dollars.
Finally, you said:
Linux is a college student's project gone astray. The version that will be supported by Sun Microsystems
and IBM on its hardware will fall far short of each of these company's own Unix operating systems in
features and capabilities. If you're responsible for operating system selection in your company, be wary of
the Linux play. Hey, I'm all for a competitor to Windows, just give me more than what Microsoft has to
offer-not less.
This is a low argument. It is true that Linux started out as a college student's project. But to say that it
has "gone astray" is a form of the ad hominem argument, arguing against something because of its nature,
rather than its merits. With regard to Linux vis a vis the other Unices, only time will tell. SGI's recent moves
to bolster Linux, though, at least present a counterargument that Linux could possibly end up the best of all
the Unices, cherry-picking the best features and incorporating them into one.
I am a systems adminstrator. I administer Macintosh, Win95, Win98, WinNT, Linux, HP-UX, and
NetWare systems routinely. Of all the systems I deal with, Windows NT is among my least favorite. It
frequently gives me the most problems and the lowest returns.
In short, I'm all for a competitor for Windows, too. I am not necessarily a Linux partisan, but knowing both sides of the
equation, I had to set the record straight. If Linux replaces windows, you won't hear me crying.
You have to remember that Microsoft's 'customers' are the people who actually make purchasing decisions, not the poor sods who actually have to maintain the systems. You don't persaude an IT manager to upgrade by saying 'we fixed all the bugs', because in companies of any size, he has no up-front experience of the bugs. He wants to be able to claim he saved the company X amount of money per week by implementing some fuzzy combination of buzzwords.
Linus doesn't have a PhD. He has a masters degree that had something to do with Linux. Couldn't find anything about if that was what he initally wanted to do (google failed me :-( ). He started coding linux from Andrew Tanumbaum's minix because he didn't like any other OS that he could afford at the time (read windows/dos and Mac).
The gospel of Linus as I understand it
Hayden
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
I recall reading something about them being willing to `bend the rules', somewhat, to get Unix98 certification for Linux, because it would officially give Unix a greater presence on `low-end' hardware.
Did anything ever happen with that?
-rozzin.
Well, I count just one.
Errr... soon to be? Every distribution I can think of ships with most, if not all of these components.
His article reads as though he ingested a bunch of Microsoft press releases without reading anything on the other side. Others have dissected the article far better than I would have, but I do want to add that KDE's KPPP has really done a great job at simplifying PPP configuration. Give it a try.
D
----
Until someone pays the Open Group a shitload of money to have Linux tested, it's not. Unix is a trademark.
All dark, caffeinated, sweet carbonated drinks aren't Coca-Cola either.
In an article full of wrong things, the wrongest of them all is:
Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems. Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these systems.
I got my Linux for free (from lsl) two weeks ago. (at price=$0.00 the decision was easy to make:) I'm now capable of managing and configuring a linux system. In short, low-cost Unix made me, and I'll wager, 10,000's of others like me.
By default, I earned the title of resident Linux guru at my company and my boss has already asked me to set up his laptop next week.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Too right!! .. the sooner the world is free of fucking idiots like this 'JP Morgenthal' the better for the rest of the world that want to move on to using a faster and more stable OS.
.. WTF?? .. it's had it for ages!! .. and 'Linux is a college student's project gone astray.' is just a sure sign the guy is a dickhead.
.. 'not the best way to start a monday' .. No, it surely isn't.
..
I couldn't believe my eyes reading such bullshit as 'Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing.'
As someone mentioned earlier in this posts
Grumble grumble rant rant
Delphis
There's been many scathing observations already made by the ever-alert Linux community, so I'll only add mine:
Automobiles are a wagon-maker's project gone astray.
The author of this article neglected to reason that this is also one of Linux's strengths OVER WinNT. If MS releases something that sucks (like that would never happen), NT's "integration" prevents the user from using an alternative. In other words, they're stuck. With Linux, on the other hand, you can pick and choose components based on specific needs. Further, if a specific component isn't up to snuff, you can either find a better one, or write your own. Despite its high cost, this is NOT an option with NT.
While I personally don't think the free software model will work over the long term (which doesn't preclude the success of Linux), THIS guy is after one thing and one thing only: JOB SECURITY.
Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that controls this portion of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released.
So, if I make a few changes to the above, how is this any different?
Windows is a closed-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a corporation that controls all of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Windows is released.
It's funny, isn't it? Usually when critiquing to products, when you want to promote one you usually focus on it's strong points, and where the product you are comparing doesn't measure up. Yet he seemed to be content to point out why the "strong" points of Linux weren't really that strong, without realizing what he was really saying.
Huh? If it's bad that you can't get your changes into the "official" source tree, doesn't that imply that it's much worse not being able to modify the kernel at all? Because unless I missed the announcement, JP will not have very much success getting his changes incorporated into the Windows kernel, and probably have a lot less success modifying the kernel at all.
Now we find that companies that add features that aren't accepted into the core distribution will need to redevelop and retest every time a new version of Linux is released. A new distribution? I am afraid that he doesn't know what he's talking about here. Does he mean a distribution as in Debian? Nay, he appears to mean a distribution as in 2.2.9 -> 2.2.10. At any rate, I guess one of the benefits is that once you've developed for Windows, no further development or testing needs to be done. Your code will run on all further releases and updates to Windows as is. Huh? I suppose this is why everytime Microsoft releases a Service Pack, software needs to be tested against it to see what it breaks.
I shouldn't even need to waste my time on this one. Whereas Microsoft's products are integrated so tightly with one another that you can't replace any part with any other, Linux is built on an open-API, POSIX compliant subsystem, allowing modularized applications with the ability to have a flexible solutions that allows you to meet your needs in every situation. Sounds like Linux's "weak" point is stronger the Windows there too.
Well, I'm not going to write a whole essay on his article, other people have said enough. However, his last comment needs a reply. He's shown what Linux can do that Windows can't, if he's serious he should show what Windows can do that Linux can't.
-BrentThis is long. I'm sorry, just couldn't help it... Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that controls this portion of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released. This is clearly not the case. Because Linux is freely redistributable, you can make whatever kernel changes you want and sell your (commercial) product with the (free) modified kernel. And, I don't see why a company would even *want* to make kernel changes? Besides, if you can want to change the kernel *sources* or even *binaries* of Windows without infringing a copyright, you'll have to pay big bucks to Micros~1! Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition. Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be available as a multivendor product. Okay, quoted directly from www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch: Is NT Server really worth its price? See NT Lies: Lie 6 - NT Server is worth more. What is not trivial, however, is that a networked operating system in this price range should ship without a telnet server, SMTP server (e-mail), disk quotas, news server, or at least a DNS server that works to customers' satisfaction (many NT administrators feel compelled to go with third party DNS solutions). In order to match the functionality of a BSDI installation, additional Microsoft products and third-party solutions would bring the final price of a comparable NT solution to around $4,000, according to BSDI. So, someone tell this guy to get his facts right. (And we are not even talking about databases here!) The most critical of these integrations will be security and access control. Yeah, and as we all know, Micros~1 is real good at security and access control. Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing. Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies and single applications. If you're managing multiple servers for increased scalability, you're better off using multiple NT servers all participating within the same domain. Sure! So, he is basically saying that instead of a single Linux SMP machine (which is not very stable/fast yet), you'd better take multiple small NT servers! Hmm, I'd rather do it the other way round (one big NT/SMP server, or, preferably, multiple small Linux servers). And btw, you can put multiple Linux machines in one domain, too :-) One more comment: define 'small'? I tought this site *is* running on a single Linux machine? Do you call this site 'small'? And btw, we are not even talking about clustering/load balancing yet.... One last question: how many servers does Micros~1 run? How many does ftp.cdrom.com? Just asking... One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems Does KDE or GNOME ring a bell? Redhat maybe? Or Caldera Openlinux? Anyone? OK, I'll be the first to admit that Windoze is easier to install, but after installation there is no big difference (IMHO, at least). I'm now trying this out on my parents :-) Besides, someone who doesn't know much about computers can't install Windoze, too.... Then again, for a company, easy installing is not the only thing. How about downtime/ maintenance cost? So, this was just a no-brainer. I'm not even sure what his point actually is: first he's talking about server-purposes, then about the missing nice GUI (which you don't really need for a server, do you?) And this guy is supposed to be president of NC.Focus? Someone tell him to get his facts right, or I'll go get my Snarf darts gun Just my fl. 0.02
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
We did resolve the issue by doing (essentially) just that. The issue is not how we fixed it but that it happened in the first place.
The other issue is that, yes, a single authentication model has this issue... With NT you do not have a choice in the matter (in this case we were using Exchange) with Linux you do.
The tight integration of the MS BackOffice is exactly what is pusing me (a MCSE of 3 years - now a RHCE) back to Linux.
Microsoft has so tightly intertwined the BackOffice applications that corruption / issues with one can adversely effect the other.
For example: At a recent (NT only) account, the netlogon service on the PDC had a memory leak. It accepted logon requests but did not properly respond. For this reason all domain logons (and services dependent upon logons (read - everyting)) came to a halt. One service, on one box, stopped the show.
When you create such tightly-coupled relationships with such buggy software you are always in for a ride.
I still do NT, but almost always I throw a Linux box into the mix typically as an Exchange replacement that provides core network services as well (DHCP, DNS, etc...)... And I am looking to do more.
The funny thing is: Microsoft states that they are responding to the customer's will with the new features. Everyone I know is about exhausted with new features - we want stability in the product. Yet all we get is more bug-ridden features. More bug ridden code to cover what was poor system design in the first place.
What's so frustrating about this article is that it really is nothing more than FUD. There are some interesting issues that could be raised in an NT v. Linux argument, but this is a throwaway piece. There isn't any back-up, there isn't any proof, it's all just opinionated statements thrown off as if they were facts.
If this fellow is a serious consultant, I would hope any client of his would ask a whole lot of follow-up questions... as nothing he says has anything resembling reason or proof.
Linux, NT, MacOS... whatever you want a client to use, I would hope you'd have the courtesy of explaining why.
-- Chris
Allright. When I see this person here complaining, saying, "It took me forever to set up ppp" and whatnot, I was curious. Then I saw he was using slack. Now I am not.
Don't get me wrong, slack is a neat distribution. It's not as nazi-ish as redhat nor as huge as debian... but let's face it. It is NOT the easiest distribution to configure in the world.
If you can't set it up because you were machocistic and said, "I'm a good computer user, I bet I can handle slack." It's not linux's fault, or slack's fault. It's your fault for taking on too much.
Oh, and in case you didn't notice GNOME is not supposed to be really all that stable. It's only version 1.0.6. If you really need that tightly structured a desktop environment, KDE is the way to go 100%
Only two people addressed that article? Let me add to the total:
P1) When companies add to the operating system, the may need to revise when new versions of that operating system come out.
CP1) Duh! THis is true for ANY OS! Of course, it's interesting that a company can add a kernel module or even extend the kernel in any way, without even asking. Can you do this with windows????? Can you?
P2) Windows comes with a suite of network apps preconfigured and easy to use.
CP2) No, it dosen't. Sorry. It just dosen't. Does it come with an SQL server? A high power web-server? Proxy 2.0 was EXPENSIVE last time I checked. All these critical tools! They come with many linux distros!
P3) The author of this post says linux software is buggy.
CP4) Uhh, not really. Have you had ipchains crash? Apache crash? MySQL crash? I haven't. I've done some downright stupid things to them and they still don't crash. Meanwhile, back on the windows box, I still can't run NT for more than a few days straight. You may say it's a matter of management, but when I have an easier time managing linux than NT, thats scary.
CP5) The quote "more than windows - not less" is absurd. For the money you spend, you get a ridiculous amount more with linux. It's almost scary. Anyone who says windows comes with more is either misinformed or lying.
Just my take on this absurd and poorly thought out article, and the stupidity that tries to give it merit.
- Paradox
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
A college dropout's project gone astray
Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the coredistribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released.
Even if your changes are accepted into the kernel, you still would have to do redevelopment and retesting every time a new version of Linux is released, same as you would have to do with any in-house code when you upgrade operating system versions.
Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be available as a multivendor product.
Web-apache. Proxy-squid. messaging-sendmail. database-sybase/informix. firewall-services built into the kernel. there are probably tools to
take advantage of these controls, even if only for testing purposes. I could probably think of some more if I considered it for a while, which I don't currently have time to do.
More importantly, however, the whole proprietary-single-vendor-works-better thing wasn't true for IBM, or DEC, or anybody else, as far as I know, and I don't see why it should be any different for Microsoft. Communism looks good on paper, but, pragmatically speaking, it has some serious weak points (at least, in the way it's been done so far, but that's a different discussion) that become apparent when you try to run a largish country.
Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux. The most critical of these integrations will be security and access control.
How are Microsoft's products integrated with NT when it comes to security and access control? Answer: they're not. S&AC belongs to the operating system, not apps.
NT needs to not throw any stones when it comes to security. As for access control? Sort-of. Better than Linux on the FS side.
Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing. Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies and single applications. If you're managing multiple servers for increased scalability, you're better off using multiple NT servers all participating
within the same domain.
So....You can use multiple Linux servers, or multiple NT servers, huh? How is one an advantage and the other not? NT might be more scalable than Linux on the low end, but from a scalability point of view, they're both disasters at this point.
One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems. Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these systems.
No, training generates more people with those capabilities. Or did you think that that whole MSCE thing was just for dumbasses?
Also, there was no sufficiently powerful Unix that ran practically on PCs when Windows grew. I was around when Windows got big, and nobody was saying, "well, we could use Unix, but Windows is so much *easier*," simply because Unix wasn't even an option. Where were you? And if that's the reason for Windows' growth today, then why are you writing a column about Linux?
Linux is a college student's project gone astray. The version that will be supported by Sun Microsystems and IBM on its hardware will fall far short of each of these company's own Unix operating systems in features and capabilities. If you're responsible for operating system selection in your company, be wary of the Linux play.
Hmmm....This is half opinion, half true, half unsubstantiated. Yeah, Linux isn't Solaris. It isn't AIX. But for a lot of stuff, you don't need Solaris or AIX. The vast majority of servers out there have one processor, and don't need a journaling FS (which linux should have in less than six months anyway). *That* is Linux's current market. Server-wise, I'm not sure what NT's market is, really, despite the fact that we have a lot of NT servers around here.
Now, I'm not the type to call everything critical of Linux FUD. I've got a few gripes with Linux myself (and yes, I use it quite a bit. I've got gripes about every operating system I've ever used). However, this guy sounds like Bernama discussing opposition politicians. He's either paid or just ignorant.
-k. ^-^ ^D
you should be able to use NIS, i think. i "know" there are ypclients for linux; i don't (yet) know about servers.
-k. ^-^ ^D
I akways figured the reason for the certification was because the products that have tests are poorly designed. That is to say, so bloated and poorly implemented that reading a book and taking a 1300$ test is the only way to learn how to use it. I have yet to have that problem with non-Windows based stuff; especially NeXT. Oh, how I miss the black boxes.
What?!?
For US$3500 you can get ten users using web, index and transaction services. Firewall? Perhaps he means the limited packet filtering that comes standard on WinNT. Database? I don't remember them throwing in SQL Server. Proxy 2.0 is anonther US$2000. Basically, Enterprise edition with all the stuff he mentioned runs:
$13,000 for an "integrated" WinNT Enterprise solution for 10 users...
Mayhaps he meant Windows Small Business Server. Still, I think the guy needs to see his dealer about the quality of his rock. It's giving him delusions...
Chris
So Buddha walks into a pizza parlor and says: "Hey, make me one with everything."
The products you listed are no more free than IE is free. You PAY for it when you BUY the OS. Do you think that the M$ developers that work on those products work for nothing? You BUY their products and M$ pays it's developers. It most certainly is not free.
no offense :)
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
>>How else is it possible for someone to write a whole page and say nothing?
:)
I think a number of us managed it in school / University
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
-- in china, chinese food is just called food.
Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that controls this portion of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released.
So, if I make a few changes to the above, how is this any different?
Windows is a closed-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a corporation that controls all of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Windows is released.
I was under the impression this was one of the primary reasons behind the Micro$oft vs. Everyone trials.?.
[deletia]
Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these systems.
Of course not! I can't think of anything that automatically generates more people for any task; can you? However, I owe most of what I know about computer systems (configuration, hardware, etc), networks, and programming ( GNU!) to my play-time on Linux. Last time I had reason to buy coding tools was back in '92; one of my first-year Uni' courses required Borland's TurboPascal, running on Win3.1.
I couldn't have afforded it otherwise.
--The more you know, the less you know.
>Which distribution are you using?
/var/log/messages it seems to make the connection between the serial port and the ppp interface - I just don't ever get any local/remote IP addresses returned to me.
Well, not to add fuel to his arguments, but when I tried Slackware I had a very rough time with PPP. (I know another distribution - such as Debian - would most likely be vastly easier, but I'm _supposed_ to be learning how to use Linux, right?)
The first time I installed it, everything went hunky-dory. Almost. I couldn't get the connection set up unless I ran the 'ppp-go' script and manually invoked the PPP daemon. Then it would return my IP addresses and away we went. However, my disk had some problems and I had to do some repair work, and so decided to start over fresh with Slack.
After the reinstall, I couldn't quite get Slack PPP working again. It seems to connect, and when I poke around in
I've spent quite a few hours beating on this, so his claim in this area isn't totally inaccurate. On the other hand, I'm a certifiable Linux moron; in my four years of using Digital UNIX (I guess now it's Tru64) at college, I never did much mucking around with it beyond that of Joe Average user.
On the other hand, I'm using what is perhaps the most manual of distributions. I can't imagine that with a distribution like Red Hat it would take even a fraction of that hour to get PPP working.
Setup one Linux box as an NIS server and the others as NIS clients or backup servers. All user managment etc is handled from the main server machine.
/home directory etc to the client machines then the user will have the exact same config and access to files on any Linux box they log onto.
If you use NFS with it to share the
Also check out Coda and OpenLDAP
Today I attended a tutorial on XML at JavaOne by the self-same JP Morgenthal.
The coverage of XML was so superficial and pathetic that I left after lunch and requested a refund.
This is the first time I have ever requested a refund at a tutorial.
If his knowledge of Linux is anywhere like his knowledge of XML, his opinion isn't worth too much.
Nitin Borwankar
The more idiot-proof you make it the smarter the idiots get.
When u play it backwards it says somthing like: "wlynuxustdei" which can be heard as "linux must die"
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347
This is just another case of someone in the
media using the same stupid argument. They
think they're making a logical conclusion
by saying "Windoze is better than Linux because
Windoze is Windoze".
They point out that Windoze NT integrated
Windoze products better, and that's a reason
why NT is better. Umm... let's just think
about this. Okay, Linux runs "GNOME" better
than Windoze, so therefore it's better than
NT! It's just a STUPID argument, but a lot
of the media like to use it. They can't
come up with anything real, so they just
sound like the recent M$ marketing campaigns:
It's better because it's the biggest and
has the largest marketshare. Yeah, that's
the reason why it's "better". Sure.
I just hate that groundless logic. But it's
in print, so it must be true, eh? Stupid
media...
"Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides
a better value proposition." Huh? Try because
they force PC makers to ship Windoze with
every computer. THAT's why they outnumber
Linux supporters. A lot of your joe home
computer user *thinks* he prefers Windoze just
because that's the way his computer came.
Basically doesn't know any options, so therefore
he supports his one easy solution.
If people *actually* had a choice (like in
the ideal capatlistic world which will never
happen), then we'd have a lot more Linux
supporters on our side...
-Mike
--- witty signature
Although written with all the right pretenses and buzzwords so as to pose as an enlightened well reasoned article, this is about as FUD filled a piece as I have read about Linux recently.
Remember what FUD stands for: Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
It's making a bunch of observations about things that have just a grain of truth to them (but ignore the positive flip side) so as to scare people away from a product or idea.
Let's examine one of the worst ones in the article, shall we:
Linux is a college student's project gone astray.
PURE flaimbait! Pure and simple! "Astray"?? Gimme a break!
Let's try, "Linux is a college students project starting to become mature." Like a college student when he/she graduates, moving out into the world, making a few mistakes along the way but also starting to make his/her mark in the world.
Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that controls this portion of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released.
And just what the heck is this?
Here he takes two of the most attractive things about open source software (the ability to customize it for one's own needs and the existence of thousands of code testers/debuggers around the globe) and tries to spin this as some sort of negative thing. Get me a shovel!
Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be available as a multivendor product. Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux. The most critical of these integrations will be security and access control.
Again, misinformation and FUD.
A typical Linux distribution ships with all of these things. And since the web was originally designed around UNIX, fitting web and internet functionality into NT is much more of a force fit then running them on Linux IMHO.
Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition.
In all cases for all purposes?
A blanket statement like this, is by very definition FUD. He is basically saying "Linux is not the right choice over NT for ANYTHING."
I'm totally willing to admit that Linux is a young and still maturing OS. It is not the panacea for everything.
But for small to medium sized web based services (html services, mail routing, firewall, etc.) I find it to be THE best "value proposition" available by far.
Far from being an unbiased article, this one was 110% negative against Linux, and therefore, by definition, just a FUD piece.
He's reasonable enough about the way he presents his argument, but it reads as if he's compiled a list of whinges and rolled them out. He's completely missed the flipside of the argument: Open Source (and all that goes with it), stability, and the fact that for some tasks it's a more suitable alternative than NT.
The "available experts" is a good point, though... do we have any numbers indicating the number of Linux-capable admins on the market?
You got it pally. The Linux community is nothing if not responsive.
Good thing (for him) the PHBs don't have 3V, huh?
jaz
Death to Argument by Slogan!! (This post twice-encrypted with ROT-13. Replies not using same will be ignored)
Instead of a million emails to this guy, why don't we take the time to write a concise, polite counter-article/letter and help this man understand the ways of the source. If we tread lightly, we may make an allie instead of burn an enemy.
WTF is he talking about w/ the company adding code that's not accepted. BIG DEAL!! Just pick a kernel version and stick with it. Only switch when necessary for security reasons.
-- Stuart Bain
-- Stuart Bain
Systems Engineer
I know that my school were using the yellow pages service to distribute the password file so we had the same password on every machine, but since you seem to be wanting to centralize even the home directory I don't think this can scale up.
Oh wait, aren't Novell porting NDS under Linux???
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
"...Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux. The most critical of these integrations will be security and access control."
Yeah right. Sure, Microsoft products do integrate themselves into the OS. And the result are user applications crashing the OS kernel. Great idea, guys!
I can't figure out what this guy is saying about security and access control. I hope he isn't suggesting that Windows NT offers more security over Linux!
Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition.
I suppose if you value re-booting all of the time to keep your Micros~1 product upgraded and working.
Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be available as a multivendor product.
Ah. So, my copy of linux came with all of those services for free but they don't count because they weren't created by a corporation?
Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux.
Micros~1 products are designed to work only with other Micros~1 products. What if another company offers a product with more value/ability on the same platform, can you just dump a MS product and insert the competitors? Not without incredible pain. I can replace any product on linux with another and only have to modify a few lines in a script to do it.
The most critical of these integrations will be security and access control.
You must have wrote this article on the back of a napkin in a bar and call asking your pals their liquor-addled thoughts 'research'. Were you actually paid to write this? =P
>all we're doing is supporting the magazine he writes for and making it more likely his editor will get him back for more
Um, he's not a journalist, not that it excuses the crap he wrote but:
"JP Morgenthal is president of NC.Focus, which provides strategic planning, analysis and consulting of application integration technologies. He can be reached at jp@ncfocus.com."
I think the point of linking to stuff like this is so we're all aware of the voices out there that discredit linux. If they have bad/wrong info, we can at leat discredit it. If they make some valid points, it is something for us to think about then use to improve linux.
At first reading, I wasn't even going to dignify this article with a response; but then I "noticed" that Mogenthal is merely suckered into Microsoft's way of thinking about business:
"I can't help but think that most of this admiration is emerging from a revulsion to Microsoft Windows..." ... or perhaps we all just want to use a more stable product ...
---
"... all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that controls this portion of the operating system ..."
--- The difference is, if I PERSONALLY know something about that piece of the kernel, I can also submit my opinion and knowledge of that piece.
The very next sentence:
"Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may ... A far more superior method of developing and customizing than using, say, Visual C++.
find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released... "
----
"Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition..." ... oh yeah, and also because Bill Gates can afford to market his product with a Rolling Stones song, like "Start Me Up." Say what yopu will about Microsoft, but they CERTAINLY understand the magic of marketing themselves....
----
"Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, ...
including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be available..."
--- I'm not saying a friggin' word about this one
"If you're managing multiple servers for increased scalability, you're better off using
multiple NT servers all participating within the same domain."
---- I don't believe this is true. Give us another 8-9 months, and it WON'T be true at all by then.
"Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems." ...
---- True, but let's not confuse desktops with mainframes
"Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate ....
more people capable of managing and configuring these systems."
---- No argument here. Same goes for qualified Oracle DBA's, A+ candidates, MCSE's
"Linux is a college student's project gone astray."
---- Worse case scenario, Linux will become a staple in undergraduate courses on OS theory (similiar to how QBasic has become rather common as a "first" programming language). The Linux kernrl of today will suffice for my future children to learn about what an OS should be. By the time my children are born, OS will be as free yet crucial as BIOS.
"He who questions training trains himself at asking questions." - The Sphinx, Mystery Men (1999)
Don't hate the media, become the media.
--
Paul Lange
pel@spaceship.com
"If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, shoot it!" -- Hugh Laurie
...and he's obviously been spending too much time gazing at those Office97 avatars. sure he makes some valid points, but then he shits all over them with his subjective, misleading FUD.
i don't even understand the point of linking too him. all we're doing is supporting the magazine he writes for and making it more likely his editor will get him back for more. someone should write to the editor and say what a piece of shit the article is and how it reduces the credibility of their whole production.
--
Rare Window - free your photos
I always consider the use of Linux (or any other OS for that matter) in the corporate environment as falling under the old Engineering adage, "If it works, it works". Linux works for many tasks. It works well, in fact. So *why not* use it?
/quick n' dirty/ server, if you have a license handy.
It's not appropriate for all situations, but then no OS really is. You should make your selection based on what the core task of the server will be, and what product has strengths in that area.
This guy obviously hasn't spent that much time behind an NT administrative console beating his head on the keyboard trying to figure out why the darn thing won't stay up, or contemplating why even-numbered NT Service Packs break more things than they fix.
Then again, NT does make a nice
If you want to get technical, Liux was written to be a unix clone.
this space for rent
I use both a natural keyboard and a trackball. If If i use a normal keyobard ort mouse fora long period of time my wrists start hurting very badly. Just because someone uses an m$ keyboard or a trackball does NOT make them trendy. Leave you ego at the door and let people use what they want without judging them.
this space for rent
I don't really understand what audience he's targeting. You would think IT people, but wouldn't he assume that IT people know a lot more about their own jobs than he does?
I think it's interesting, that if he wrote articles of this quality about politics, local news, sports, etc., he would have been pulled a log time ago.
My name is Aaron Landry, and I approve this message.
I've switched over to Linux about 2 months ago (the best move i've EVER made when it comes to computers) and, on many suggestions from people, started with the Red Hat distro. The first time I set up PPP it took me all of 20 min ( I had NO previous Linux experience ). Now, 3 min, tops.
- --
-----------------------------------------------
"There's nary an animal alive who can outrun a greased Scotsman !"
Reading this is about the worst way to start out a Monday...
Fact: As the OSS tide sweeps over MS, we're going to be hearing a lot of flailing, silly, shouting-in-the-wind FUD about OSS--Linux, in particular.
But it really does get boring after awhile. Is there anyway for me to filter out FUD articles like this one?
Note: I'm still interested in reading genuine, honest challenges. But this FUD is just getting tedious.
Linux is a college student's project gone astray.
So what exactly does that make Microsoft?
BLAMMO shaken not stirred
First topic - app stability... Which apps are currently not stable for use under Linux? Do these apps bring the _entire_system_ to its knees when they become unhappy? As for the initial assertion of app instability, I would present the anecdotal evidence that in the 3 years that I've been running Linux, I have yet to see a non-beta app actually crash. I have seen memory leaks and the like in things like netscape and KDE, but these are certainly not OS issues. And these _do_not_ bring the entire system down.
Next issue - costs of ownership - take a look in May's Wired. The research has been done. Linux is significantly less costly to own, run and administer. With the advent of 24x7 support at prices significantly less than Microsoft charges, this gulf will increase. With the work put in by the people developing various configuration tools, the costs of administering Linux boxes are decreasing without sacrificing the control and flexibility we have come to expect.
Next issue - PPP setup - 1 hour?!?! Come on! Using Slackware (without any of the cute little GUI tools that come with Red Hat), I had my first PPP connection up within 15 minutes, and had it scripted within another 15. My cable modem took me 15 minutes total on Linux (compared to 45 on Windows 98).
Look, I couldn't care less about 'world domination' - but if you're going to attack the choices I make with lies and FUD, I won't stand for it.
... obviously this guy didn't look before he leaped into Microsoft adoption...
"You have absolutely no argument; no rebuttle of his point whatsoever. So think before you speak, you ridiculous little kid."
Well, aren't we just the mature adult. Shut up you rediculous old fart!
Geez!
The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient... - High Road to China
Just a second... do your homework first. Homeboy doesn't work for Internet Week, at least it doesn't look like it, but he is the president of NC.Focus (see the article's footer).
:)
I just investigated that site ( http://www.ncfocus.com/) and it's hosted by a company which runs "Unix Ultra Sparc Servers".
You're on the right track, but acosting the wrong site
ReadParse
I was gonna flat-out ignore homeboy's posting, until I read this:
What good is an operating system to a company if its programs have to be continually restarted?
Huh? I'm sure you meant to say, "What good is anoperating system to a company if the operating system has to be continually restarted?
Let's see, if I make a change to a daemon's configuration files, since that information is stored in memory... yes, I must restart the daemon. And that takes maybe a second or two.
On the other hand, install 10 programs on NT and tell me how many of them require a full system reboot (which can require several minutes of downtime). I'm guessing 6 or 7 of those installs would require it.
Try changing network settings, God forbid. "Oh, you want to change your DNS server? I'll have to restart for that one".
ReadParse
Yours is the second post referring to what internetwk.com is hosted on... that's beside the point. I posted regarding NC.Focus' site ( http://www.ncfocus.com), of which Morgenthal is President.
That's the issue here... let's not chastise Internet Week for Morgenthal's ignorance.
Cheers,
ReadParse
Really? Well it's no wonder that you're using NT for your own company's web site... oh wait, you're not, are you? Your company's site ( http://www.ncfocus.com/ is hosted by i-2000.com, which uses "Unix Ultra Sparc Servers" (doesn't say if it's Linux or Solaris).
Hmmmmm, it seems NT isn't even good enough for Mr. Morgenthal when it comes to performance and reliability.
>tried 2 modems...no irq or mem conflicts modem is >on com 3 irq 7..both a usr sportster 33.6 >internal isa
For a start, reconfigure the com port to a standard IRQ - 7 is for the parallel port. Try IRQ 5, or try configuring it for com2/irq 3. Both those modems work fine under Linux.
However, I'd begin your testing using an external modem connected to com1 (that way you can see the lights, useful for diags) - when you've got that dialing out properly, say with ppp (try KPPP with Suse), then move on to the next step. I can't be specific, because I've never tried this. However, try one step at a time, with a simple config until you can understand what's going on.
If you're a bit more specific with how far you've got, someone else may be able to give better help. Also, there is (IIRC) a single floppy solution for what you're trying to do.
for some reason I didn't see half your post - the important bits ;-). Anyway, com3/irq7 is probably most of your problem. Also test large downloads using dial-up from that box (kppp etc.) and see how that goes
Doesn't sound very objective to me. I guess he wasn't trying for credibility with this piece. Let's see... we have "just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing", heheh. All those internet services NT Ent. Server has "will soon be available as a multivendor product" under Linux. And, this wonderful piece of FUDware: companies may add features to Linux "that are not accepted into the core distribution". I guess it never occurred to this Micros~t apologist that it's kinda hard to get your local upgrades into the core distribution of NT...
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Linux provides a better value proposition!
Geeky modern art T-shirts
OK. Time to drop out of "smug mode". I admit it. I screw up more than my fare share of linux configurations. But then... I tend to fix them too. Of course, I'm not too bad at research and the ability to grasp concepts that may be new to me.
The point I'm leading up to is that linux isn't plug-and-play... per se. Quite often you have to know a bit about what you're doing. There are few GUI's within linux to click on lists and warn you when you're doing something that just isn't possible. Linux, instead, says "Yes, sir.. right away" and gleefully follows your configuration into the abyss. OR it flies along brilliantly due to your masterfull instruction.
Linux isn't a brainless OS. That is... it takes some knowlege to run properly. The stranger a configuration you want to do... the more you actually have to understand (be it beforehand or on the fly, like I'm want to do).
I'm OK with that. I really don't mind. Once I get the thing set up... it runs... and runs. If it weren't for patches (not that this is a bad thing either) I could probably forget about it and just expect it to be there when I need it.
But there's a whole section of the consumer demographic that'll have a problem with that. They want the GUI tool to tell them when they messed something up or do it for them. And they don't know enough to tell if those decissions are really correct or not. I'm all for development of linux tools to help those folks out. But in the meantime, I'm certainly happy to avoid shoving a command line at them. Instead... I simply advise finding/hiring someone who can do what they need done. The odd thing to that is... I've done it quite often for customers using the "easy" WinX interface for even the most basic configurations (MODEMs come to mind).
In that light... does linux's "difficult" maintenance interface stand out so much? There are folks who just want to use a computer - doing anything near maintenance on it scares them. Nevermind auto-detecting and wizards. They're much happier trucking down the CompUSA and having some underpaid tech slap in a new device. Does "world domination" demand that we come up with our own wizards for these folks who, most likely, won't use them anyway? Only if we allow Marketing to say so.
And what about that odd-ball configuration? What if you're wanting to do something a bit different than the norm? Note... this doesn't have to be something amazingly new... just something that beyond "computer talks to internet".
Windows is always held up as the "oh so easy" example. Forget an admin... buy WinNT! Odd that there's such a demand for MCSE's. The folks I know (heck.. used to be one) who do NT admin for one of the US Government's largest organizations are well beyond the "Windows for Dummies" and random point-and-click. They have quite a grasp on a level of complexity their bosses (who subscribe to the "lets hire less admins, all they do is point and click" mentality) have no hope of comprehending. Sounds kind of like a Unix shop.
Remember the Halloween document from M$? This is simply the result of that. Microsoft is out there with their spin doctors spreading the smear campain on Linux. They get some "journalists" (I use the term very loosly) into their pockets and they start the FUD machine.
It's pretty obvious.
--- "It's not enough that I succeed...everyone else must fail."
"Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing. " .. and the firewall "feature" that comes with M$ proxy is laughable..
excuse me?
"Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services."
To my knowledge you have to purchase all those features separately
He mentiones the above when he argues for "Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition"
He hasn't even looked at ANY Linux distribution, because I know that all of the services he mentiones come standard with all the dists. I tried.. more FUD if you ask me..
Nobody has and why should we. If the man wants to live in a M$ dreamworld with all the bugs that come with it, it is his problem, not the Linux communities problem.
Life is a lie with foundations in bullshit !
This guy is writing directly to IT managers and non tech types, not programmers. After displaying his bias and ignorance it's a wonder he gets any business at all. He sounds like he's repeating soemthing someone else told him.
He epouses the common myth that free must mean worthless. Unfortunately the mentality among large companies with large established IT staffs holds to that myth.
It might be a good idea to warn people about this bozo.
Dear Mr. JP Morgenthal:
It is unfortunate that you have chosen to write on a subject of which you are so obviously ignorant.
"Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released."
What are you talking about? The ability to create custom functionality is a feature of Linux that is completely absent in the MS community.
Further, almost all development can be supported with modules which will be upwards compatible with newer kernel releases. You are apparently complaining about one of the most powerful aspects of the open source Linux community.
"Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition."
Recent poles appear to indicate that Linux installations outnumber MS products providing service on the Internet. MS may own the desktop but Linux owns the Internet service closet.
I have replaced a number of NT4 installations (some I installed myself) with Linux systems because NT4 was finicky, difficult to service and hardware hungry. Many Linux server installations can function reliably for months on end on common hardware which crawls unreliably under NT4.
e.g. I have a Linux server that provides; web, sendmail, ftp, DNS, file, PPP dial-in, telnet, router, masquerade, time, firewall, logging, print and tape backup... all on an aging AMD586-133MHz with 32 megabytes memory and 16+ gigabytes storage. This setup is more than able to keep up with a fully loaded 10BaseT connection to the Internet AND provides significant file service to a 10 W9* box LAN. It is true that this company is not Forbes 500 but their needs are more than served by this modest hardware/software solution. I can do almost all software upgrades over the Internet so on most occasions I do not have to visit this client in person. This is not the case with W9* which either requires a patient and observant person sitting in front of the offending box talking to me on the phone OR an expensive trip by me to the office.
I could easily justify purchasing more expensive hardware for the above installation but it is has not proved necessary to date - maybe next year (perhaps not).
This particular client has expressed a desire to try Linux on some of his desktop machines (staff) rather than buy W98 upgrades. The cost of administering W9* on the desktop is basis of this interest - not the sticker price of the W98 upgrades.
"Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services."
Every Linux distribution that I am aware of is shipped with everything you describe and more! I have installed, used and had numerous tedhnical transactions with MS; Their help service is friendly but inefficient time wise. You must purchase a separate service contract to jump the telephone que and then the service is immediate but is often slow to develop effective solutions! I have had excellent success with the Linux system of HowTo's, FAQs and newsgroup feedback. Because the Linux source code is available for examination, there is no "Black-Box" mentality of depending upon a single source for solutions and undisclosed/unsupported functions (I can't tell you how many times a solution to an NT4 problem was an undocumented or obscure directive).
"Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies and single applications."
You are confused! It is appallingly clear to me you have never set up or run a Linux server. It is my personal experience that a single processor Linux box is more than able to provide reliable multiple functionality for almost all small to medium corporate requirements! Unless you are running "Hotmail" or "eBay", the kind of services and throughput is better served with redundant $5000 Linux boxes versus a single $100,000 quad SMP NT4 box!
It should also be noted the SMP support in NT4 can hardly be called a mature product OR robust. Linux has a far superior service record as a robust and reliable OS in comparison to NT4. Do you have any direct experience with Linux of any description?
As an early employer of NT4, I can attest to the fact that the last four years have been a ongoing BETA test for the problem ridden OS. Linux may have been much less fashionable and attractive than NT4 but it has always been a functional and versatile workhorse. It was out of a feeling of object frustration with NT4 that I began introducing my clients to Linux.
Despite the steep learning curve, I was able to provide workable solutions to my customer's needs rather than developing first name relationships with MS online support personnel. Linux worked and continued to work while I was still rebooting NT4 for yet another attempt to track down some mystery malfunction.
"If you're managing multiple servers for increased scalability, you're better off using multiple NT servers all participating within the same domain."
Yet another silly statement devoid fact. Multiple Linux boxes serving a common domain is much more logical from a hardware-cost/support-cost viewpoint. The fact that Linux is free has little appeal to most corporate types and can actually create distrust in the executive suites. However the cost of hardware, service, upgrade and administration of NT4 is significant and ongoing.
"Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems."
Another silly statement. Windows NT's growth is a product of the popularity of the W3* and W9* desktop systems, not a function of it's administration and maintenance record (dismall, by most accounts). The fact is many middle management types believe that because they perceive W95/8 to be a simple, pretty and interesting graphical OS to work with on the desktop, that NT4 will be the will be the same in the server closet. They are accustomed to rebooting their desktop GUI several times a week and see no problem with a network server that requires the same kind of support. Windows NT is like the Cadillac of the late 50's early 60's: Popular, ornate, expensive and loaded with "powered features", but frail, high maintenance and not yet fit for the practical long haul!
"If you're responsible for operating system selection in your company, be wary of the Linux play."
It is unfortunate that you know so little about what you are talking about. I am willing to bet you have never administered a Linux or Unix server before making such bizarre fear-generating statements.
I believe the powerful insurgence of Linux into the server closets of the corporate world is just the beginning. As Sys-Admins learn the value of Linux on the desktop for most applications (e-mail, text processing, number crunching, data entry, etc) as a time & cost effective alternative to W9*, Microsoft and Bill Gates are going to have to rely on the fear and confusion created by ignorant people like yourself.
"Linux is a college student's project gone astray."
Linux is the very essence of cooperation of the best minds in the world guided by a soft-spoken genius whose contribution to the intellectual property of Earth is every bit as significant as that of Bill Gates (some would argue more, but...)
Your attempt to marginalize Linux and Linus Torvalds is yet another example of your own fear and ignorance. You are just another uninformed hack, fearful of change, perhaps too lazy to learn anything new and obviously incompetent to render an informed, balanced and unbiased opinion.
I must admit that I love my W98 desktop with it's Internet Explorer 5.0, Outlook Express and high speed games (chromed tailfins & powered seats - how does the saying go? Four buttons where none are needed?). But I rely on Linux for a robust stable server/development platform - in other words, the Real Work. I own NT4 Server and Workstation but they are not currently installed on anything.
The Linux GUI has evolved so dramatically of late that if I had two or two hundred employees, all on a LAN/WAN, I would put Linux on their desktop AND in the server closet. An employee would have to have a specific application that is simply not available in Linux before I would permit W98 on a desktop. Can you say VMware?
I have no problem with Mr. Gates or Microsoft but I believe they will have to address the reliability and functionality of their network products before they can expect people to continue paying big dollars to buy and support NT* in the server closet and W* on the desktop. As for NT on the desktop, why bother?
It is still annoying to boot up W98 and find all my mail missing, or the icons are now unrecognizable, or the windows settings refuse to be memorized, or it locks up tight during an Internet game, or refuses to kill an app despite repeated attempts, or... well, you get the idea.
In closing, I hope Mr. JP Morgenthal is more competent in other areas of expertise than he has demonstrated here. Perhaps something in real estate.
Just one guy's opinion.
Best regards,
Brian
PS: I experienced a W98 system freeze during the compositon of this e-message. It is fortunate that out of long habit and experience with MS OS products that I had frequently updated a backup of this document. I only lost about 15 minutes work and it was quickly duplicated.
Does indeed ship with all those features... but it
costs $3,899! That's the minimum, 25 client
license. I shudder to think what it would cost
to run a medium sized company.
Also, remember that Linux is still Unix.
Funny, JP, I always thought Linux was based on Minix, not Unix. Silly me.
-
Exactly! Any time I need to do any kind of scripting on an NT box at work I just smbmount it on my linux workstation and write a perl or shell script =)
At the risk of reiterating what most Slashdotters already know, I'd like to comment on this. BTW, none of the below is meant as a slight against FreeBSD or any other open source OS. Linux is the open source environment with which I'm most familiar - and of course, the focus of Morgenthal's article.
On the other hand, with Linux,
On the other hand, once this integration is achieved, it will not be dependent on proprietary protocols (such as Exchange), will be upgradeable at the component level, will not be as susceptible to email attacks, will be more secure and more stable. Etcetera. In a lot of integrations, these would be seen as advantages.
Also, of course, the level of interoperability and integration is increasing exponentially, particularly with Gnome, KDE2, CORBA-compliant applications - and this integration is happening with multiple vendor support.
At the same time, of course, NT scales beautifully -- to a bigger, faster, Intel processor, while Linux scales to faster machines and upcoming processors. SMP addresses performance, not integration, and in this area, Pentium-specific NT isn't likely to maintain a lead.
Going beyond basic configuration becomes very hard very quickly with NT, as the menu/dialog-driven utilities allow limited selections, and have limited debugging options. In fact, one of the most useful tools for administering an NT network is a Linux box with Samba and tcpdump.
A medium sized company's networking needs may be able to be met by NT, but configuration management requires every bit as much of a networking guru as the equivalent *n*x network, and troubleshooting can be far harder.
I'm puzzled by the comments of Linux's inferiority to the Big Boys' Unixes - Linux ease of configuration and use seems to compare very favorably to AIX, HP-UX, etc.
The real oversight in this statement is that Windows has grown due to business use. Microsoft made their empire on Win3.1 and Win95/98 not on WinNT.
Windows is based on DOS which I had in my house on a 286 when I was still in elementary school. I learned counter-intuitive DOS commands and filesystem conventions. When I wanted more, I started using the Windows 3.1 GUI to force DOS to (apparently) multitask.
I would imagine that many other windows users started using windows so that they could get more from their existing, (DOS running) hardware. The reason I knew what to do with a DOS prompt and not with a UNIX prompt was because my father bought an IBM compatible PC and not a UNIX workstation.
I was totally lost when I first installed Linux.(root? what the heck is darkstar?) I have seen new windows users just as confused when sitting behind a Win98 box. (where's my file? What's a "C:" drive) You have to start learning to use a computer somewhere, and for most of us that is with Windows. When these users are asked what they would want to adminster in a network, they would want something familiar. Linux is helping more people try UNIX at home. These people will not be afraid to administer UNIX at work too.
Linux gives the next generation of computer users/admins the chance to try out UNIX system administration at home on cheap hardware. They will not be intimidated by Gnome, KDE, the UNIX terminal, or whatever UNIX utilities are yet to come.
A low cost version of UNIX DOES "automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these systems." Linux made me into a sysadmin and it will make thousands more.
This is what JP Mogenthal is afraid of; his value as a Windows guru is about to be flushed and he doesn't want to learn a new OS.
The truth is more important than the facts.
-Frank Lloyd Wright
Writing a concise argument against him, I wrote the following back to the author of the article:
:-)
How long have you tried to use Linux? Are you judging without testemonial.
In
terms of ease of setup, there are many different distributions of Linux
which
offer several different ways to install and maintain a linux system. Which
means that if you don't like one -- maybe it's not simple enough for you --
then try a different one. If you want simplicity of setup combined with an
intuitive introduction into the idea of Linux I suggest SuSE Linux.
As for stability against Microsoft Windows, you forgot to mention that
a 486/100 can handle as much networking traffic as a Pentium II 350 running
NT.
You also forgot to mention that Linux has been shown to run longer than NT
without requiring a reboot. Note also that Linux provides all the services
of
a fully loaded NT BackOffice Suite at no charge! What's more, they work
right
out of the box.
Keep in mind that the only reason that it has taken so long for Linux
to support SMP properly is that it only _very_ recently came into the open
as a
possibility for mainstream servers. Hardware features in an open source
environment do not get programed in unless someone has the hardware to test
it
on.
Against opposing UNIXs, Linux supports more interoperability features
for integration into _any_ network. Not to mention that it is faster than
Solaris on an equally equipped machine. (be that 386 derrivative or Sun
derrivative)
On other points, if you are truly suggesting a commercial competitor (I
emphasize "commercial") then why did your article not mention OS/2 -- even
remotely. You have shown yourself to be a supporter of only Windows with
this
article.
As I have, try using Linux for one or two years before you try to put a
dent in it's progress. It has come from nothing to something and has been
around longer than Windows 98, Windows 95, _and_ NT 4.0 and with or without
help it will continue to grow because it is as good as it is. If Linux was
not
worth the time, it would never have gotten out of its "College Student's
Project" stage.
As for your closing "give me more... -not less" I have a closing for
you: I'm all for anti-Linux articles, if you can write one that can hold a
drop of water.
I challenge you to write an accurate, _complete_ article with all the
pros and cons of both Linux and Windows NT. If you desire to make such an
article truly complete you'll not forget to look briefly into Novell, OS/2
and
the new MacOS X.
Sincerely,
Grey-Ghost
*** And this is the reply I got -- take from it what you will ***
Some point regading the printing:
1. The editors removed the key point regarding available applications. The
line "With Linux, these services will soon be available as a multivendor
product" should have read, "Commercial versions of currently used IT
products will soon..." Announcements from Oracle, IBM, Progress Software,
BEA, are what should have been referenced here, but due to size they decided
to take a dangerous shortcut.
2. The SMP point has been argued both ways. Yes, there are versions of
Linux that work on SMP, but not all Linux distributions until recently.
Thank you for your points. Hey, all writers are entitled to one "off"
article.
JP
The emporer has no clothes -- Kabuki
All those products are free with NT Server enterprise.
And IIS, MTS(transaction server), MSMQ(message que) are free to download for all Win9x/NT systems.
Nailed it on the head.
"A sample size of one is really just statistical masturbation."
that most of this admiration is emerging from a revulsion to Microsoft Windows
Well duh! Revulsion to outrageous licence fees, bugs, crashes, FUD, and vaporware.
s well as the relatively low cost for the Linux operating system compared with other versions of Unix.
Gee, paying next to nothing to get the same performance as others that cost $$$$$$$'s. What a concept. This guy is like Yoda!
Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released.
You don't have to upgrade kernel everytime a new version comes out. But wait, upgrading every few months is the MS way to do things, so it must be the right way. How silly we are to think that we have when everything works right we should leave it alone. Sheesh!
Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition
Or maybe Linux is really just now taking off and Winblows has been preinstalled on every PC made since 1991.
Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services.
Funny, so does Linux. Oh I forgot, you don't spend thousands of $$ for these services so they must not be as good as MS's.
Jeez, the mindcraft benchmark was more objective than this article. I think he is worried about that he might lose his cushy NT consulting job with the increasing adoption of Linux.
Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services
Haaahaaaahahaha. I can't stop laughing at that one.
One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems. S
If automobile manufacturers started advertising their next car due out in one year as getting 200 mpg, having 300 HP, more torque than a diesel, runs on water and never crashes then customers would put off buying the competition too. Score one for MS's vaporware marketing deparment.
We've all seen articles like this before and it is getting so old. Linux can be complex if you don;t know a thing about it and you should look before you leap, but such blind subjectiveness is so ridiculous.