If the system administrator typically uses "UNIX" configuration tools, like "useradd" then the differences will be minimal, but if some AIX user uses "SMIT"("SMITTY") or the Solaris user uses "admintool then they will be confused and frustrated. AIX is actually a pretty good system, but it is really weird in that it is a UNIX system that the AIX culture uses Mainframe terminology with: "IPL from the DASD", and Solaris is weird because it leaves stuff out that makes no sense. Adding users doesn't install a ".profile", but a "local.profile" that some user that can barely logon is supposed to figure out how to fix later, and "vt320" is still an unrecognized terminal type after 15 years. I personally find Solaris to be one of the most frustrating because all of the tools are half assed, and I get tired of fixing Termcap, Terminfo,/etc/skel and installing a working user admin tool every time I install a new system. HPUX is OK, but it still has a bit of BSD hidden in the cracks. I can't get used to the fact "/etc/init.d" is in "/sbin/init.d". I find RedHat Linux to be one of the most complete with the fewest bizarre idioms, a nice mix of modern and traditional. (This is where the Debian user's shout at me, but I think it's convenient that "X" is configured by default.)
Why do so many people miss the point?
on
The Evolution of Linux
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why do so many people read Linus comments and try to simplify them further missing the point completely? Obviously When Linus says that the Kernel evolves through "sheer luck", he is not trying to say that the changes made to Linux were not intentional. Each individual believes his change is good and necessary, and many are... Linux and his support staff, like Alan, are there to audit the changes and ensure that the ones that matter get in. In the end, however, each change is not what moves Linux forward at the pace it does, it's the fact that moving all of the bits around finds "lucky" combinations that create sparks of genius which create new intentional changes that make some of those earlier changes, that at the time seemed like the most important, to become irrelevant in the light of the newest revelation.
My company is a fairly large globally recognized International Telecommunications Corporation. (Yea the one with the BIG advertisements in airports) We have recently started a pilot program in one technical department using Linux desktops running Red Hat/Ximian Gnome/Star Office. Results so far are mixed. Some like it, some don't. Problems are still being ironed out but there have been no show stoppers. We agree that it would be easier a year or two from now, but if everyone waits, Linux on the Desktop will be as common as the Amiga.
Slashdot Mirror
OpenSSH For Windows is what I use. It works pretty well. The Server only works on NT/2000 I think, but the client works on everything.
http://www.networksimplicity.com/openssh/
If the system administrator typically uses "UNIX" configuration tools, like "useradd" then the differences will be minimal, but if some AIX user uses "SMIT"("SMITTY") or the Solaris user uses "admintool then they will be confused and frustrated. AIX is actually a pretty good system, but it is really weird in that it is a UNIX system that the AIX culture uses Mainframe terminology with: "IPL from the DASD", and Solaris is weird because it leaves stuff out that makes no sense. Adding users doesn't install a ".profile", but a "local.profile" that some user that can barely logon is supposed to figure out how to fix later, and "vt320" is still an unrecognized terminal type after 15 years. I personally find Solaris to be one of the most frustrating because all of the tools are half assed, and I get tired of fixing Termcap, Terminfo, /etc/skel and installing a working user admin tool every time I install a new system. HPUX is OK, but it still has a bit of BSD hidden in the cracks. I can't get used to the fact "/etc/init.d" is in "/sbin/init.d". I find RedHat Linux to be one of the most complete with the fewest bizarre idioms, a nice mix of modern and traditional. (This is where the Debian user's shout at me, but I think it's convenient that "X" is configured by default.)
Why do so many people read Linus comments and try to simplify them further missing the point completely? Obviously When Linus says that the Kernel evolves through "sheer luck", he is not trying to say that the changes made to Linux were not intentional. Each individual believes his change is good and necessary, and many are... Linux and his support staff, like Alan, are there to audit the changes and ensure that the ones that matter get in. In the end, however, each change is not what moves Linux forward at the pace it does, it's the fact that moving all of the bits around finds "lucky" combinations that create sparks of genius which create new intentional changes that make some of those earlier changes, that at the time seemed like the most important, to become irrelevant in the light of the newest revelation.
My company is a fairly large globally recognized International Telecommunications Corporation. (Yea the one with the BIG advertisements in airports) We have recently started a pilot program in one technical department using Linux desktops running Red Hat/Ximian Gnome/Star Office. Results so far are mixed. Some like it, some don't. Problems are still being ironed out but there have been no show stoppers. We agree that it would be easier a year or two from now, but if everyone waits, Linux on the Desktop will be as common as the Amiga.