I was raised on a sheep farm. We raised 400-500 head and as strange as it may seem they are born in the winter. I remember going out at all hours of the night to check on the sheep that looked like they were ready to lamb. If you didn't find them shortly after their birth you had lamb popsicles on your hands and I for one think they taste foul.
A point by point rebuttal of a point by point rebuttal. Will the wonders never seize;-)
>>How many "common customers" use 4-way NT boxes? >>Very few, in my experience.
>This statement is a brilliant testimonial to the >sheer naivite of Linux advocates, showing a very >deep misunderstanding of how servers are >deployed and used. This kind of comment strongly >supports the view that many Linux developers are >holed up in a bedroom somewhere, tweaking code >on a home PC in their spare time.
I work in a small computer shop in Boise Idaho. We buld "servers" for customers all the time using NT. Most are simply normal machines, PII or III's with 128M of RAM sitting there serving files and printing. We've made dual processor machines twice. They were very cool. I also build Linux machines in my spare time (ha!) and sell them to customers as Samba servers, IP-Masquerading via diald or DSL, and intra-office e-mail servers. This is the so-called normal NT server. My completely unsupported wild claim is that there are more of these types of setups then 4-way monsters serving databases. I think that is what the author was refering to.
>>Note that not all of the features supported by >>Linux are included by default in every >>distribution, but they all can be added if >>missing.
>OK, and who will support these functions when >they are added? The distribution suppliers? Not >if it isn't in their product. The hordes of >volunteer help-desk personnel idling on USENET >groups? Only if it's a K00l question, dude. The >profusion of promising startups dedicated to >supporting commercial Linux sites? Better check >that fine print again...!
I think the profusion of promising startups are there for exactly that reason. Where do you turn when BlueHat won't support your install? LinuxHare! (names changed to protect the guilty). Rather, I don't think they would _not_ support you just because you had modified your kernel. Speaking of which....
>Assuming they know how to compile a kernel...
IMNSHO, recompiling your kernel is an intergral part of using Linux; i.e., if you are installing Linux in the enterprise and you _don't_ know how to make menuconfig, you ought to be fired. Similar to installing NT and not knowing how to configure it to support dual processors.
>>Linux's stability is only based on anecdotes. >>Microsoft seems unable to differentiate anecdotes from testimonials.
>OK, and where are these "testimonials" again >(and I'm not counting USENET or Slashdot postings)?
Here he is quoting Microsoft's page. Microsoft says that Linux stability if based entirely on anecdotes and testimonials. He (the author) is not required to do their homework by looking some of those anecdotes up. And, by the way, what is wrong with USENET postings? Slashdot postings are suspect, of course, the same as those posted to microsoft.com are. That's a nonissue. However, USENET is valid forum for discussing the benifts and disadvantages of various OS's and a wonderful place to find anecdotes. I would also direct you to web pages for and against the respective "contenders".
>This is just wrong, and you are not doing the >Linux community any favors by essentially lying >about Windows NT's capabilities. Here's a simple >test for you: put two identical systems next to >each other, one running Windows NT 4.0 and the >other Linux. Boot each of them up. Then pull >both power plugs out, and reinsert them at the >same time. Which system will be up and running >faster?
This is what is known as a strawman. Yes, the NT system will be up and running faster. No, that doesn't mean that is a full journaled file system. There is another posting on this page which details explicitely the _new_ features of Win2K, one of which is (you guessed it) a journalling filesystem. That is, a fully journalling filesystem.
>>Free doesn't mean low TCO. Actually, it does. >>Microsoft's TCO calculations are based against >>other commercially marketed Unixes, which have >>very expensive initial acquisition and support >>contract costs and traditionally high education >>costs.
>And Linux support contracts are free? There >won't be any education costs to move users to >Linux?
I think you missed the adjetives. Very Expensive initial aquisition costs is Very True for most commericial unices. The initial cost of Linux, as we all know, is very small. Also, a Sun contractor who shops where I work charges $250 per hour. You can undoubtably find a linux contractor who charges the same, but I would be willing to bet that the average rate is lower across the board. Yes this is unsubstantiated conjecture, so sue me;-) Secondly, the training for users to move to Linux is a (mostly) one-time expense. Yes, it inflates the TCO in the beginning, so you must sit down and measure the benefits to the disadvantages and go with whatever suits your needs. I don't run your business, so I can't tell you what that is.
>>Support costs can be very low, as purchased >>support can be supplemented with award-winning >>Usenet support.
>I'm sorry, I am picking myself up off the floor >from laughing so hard. I have submitted many, >many questions to various Linux discussion >groups over the years and the quality of answers >is *wildly* uneven, with the majority of answer >ranging from irrelevant to plain old wrong. Any >IT professional who depends solely on USENET for >Linux support should be fired.
As my debate teacher would use to sing "Strawman, strawman, you've got the brain of a strawman". Please note that he says "supplement". As in, while you are waiting for a call back from your support company (or, while waiting on hold) you can post to USENET to see if you can get an answer that way. I fail to see where he said to rely on USENET for everything.
>>Microsoft itself charges for support for a >>product that they licensed (not sold!) you at >>considerable cost without warranty.
>And Linux support programs *do* come with a >warranty? Please, show me these programs!
Again, you must love straw. He was refering to the fact that they charge you a _lot_ to basically lend you some software that they don't garuntee. This is to contrast with Linuxland, where they will give you the software for free or low cost, and still not warranty it. He was also not refering strictly to support programs at this point.
>>The Linux User community, operating at no >>charge, garnered the 1996 InfoWorld Product of >>the Year award for Best Technical Support.
>InfoWorld has a long history of anti-MS >sloganeering, and seems to give out its awards >simply based on the fact that they aren't MS >products. After all, this is the magazine that >for the previous five years had given OS/2 their >product-of-the-year award. If I as an IT >professional had made a purchasing decision >based on InfoWorld's recommendations in 1994, I >would be in fairly deep trouble right now.
And if we had all blindly purchased computers for the last 15 years based on Gates famous quote "We will never need more than 640K of RAM", we would be in fairly deep trouble. Hind sight is 20/20. I have no beef or stake in Infoworld, but to attack them for not forseeing something is rather small of you.
>>Microsoft claims that your security >>administrator must be an expert to properly >>configure security. My own knee-jerk reaction >>to this is, "When do you NOT want an expert >>supporting your systems? If you can't afford >>one full-time you hire a consultant"
>OK, and you just got through going on about how >low Linux cost-of-ownership was?
Low does not mean zero. Security is important enough to dedicate some money and/or time to. This applies whether you are running NT or Linux, which is exactly what the author was saying.
>>Properly configuring Linux security is mostly a >>matter of removing those services that are not >>needed and religiously applying security >>patches as they appear. This should be standard >>operating procedure for any, regardless of the >>platforms used.
>Correct, so why should it be any different for >NT?
It isn't, except for the fact that you mostly have to apply service packs, which include not only security patches, but bug fixes, new features, and other "improvements", requiring extensive testing against all of you software, and of course must be reapplied everytime you change your system. However, this thread was beat to death a couple weeks ago, so I won't rehash everything.
>>For business use, the major general purpose tool >>Linux lacks at the moment is a Lotus Notes >>client.
>And an Exchange client (although that is hardly >surprising). So now we have taken about 90% of >the messaging users off the table.
If by messaging you mean e-mail, and thereby imply that Linux is incompatabile with 90% of the email solutions out there, I would beg to differ. If you are reffering only to intracorporation "messaging", then I have no idea, but you don't back up your numbers either.
In summary, "If the point of this document is to show that [you are] just as capable of generating FUD as [the next man], then it has succeeded. As a tool for [evaluating the truth of the original article], though, it is quite useless."
just another techie, dbishop
p.s. my user info is out of date, please send all flames to billg@microsoft.com and rational replies and critiques to david@NOFRIGGINSPAM.bishop.dhs.org
Slashdot Mirror
I was raised on a sheep farm. We raised 400-500 head and as strange as it may seem they are born in the winter. I remember going out at all hours of the night to check on the sheep that looked like they were ready to lamb. If you didn't find them shortly after their birth you had lamb popsicles on your hands and I for one think they taste foul.
A point by point rebuttal of a point by point rebuttal. Will the wonders never seize ;-)
;-) Secondly, the training for users to move to Linux is a (mostly) one-time expense. Yes, it inflates the TCO in the beginning, so you must sit down and measure the benefits to the disadvantages and go with whatever suits your needs. I don't run your business, so I can't tell you what that is.
>>How many "common customers" use 4-way NT boxes? >>Very few, in my experience.
>This statement is a brilliant testimonial to the >sheer naivite of Linux advocates, showing a very >deep misunderstanding of how servers are >deployed and used. This kind of comment strongly >supports the view that many Linux developers are >holed up in a bedroom somewhere, tweaking code >on a home PC in their spare time.
I work in a small computer shop in Boise Idaho. We buld "servers" for customers all the time using NT. Most are simply normal machines, PII or III's with 128M of RAM sitting there serving files and printing. We've made dual processor machines twice. They were very cool. I also build Linux machines in my spare time (ha!) and sell them to customers as Samba servers, IP-Masquerading via diald or DSL, and intra-office e-mail servers. This is the so-called normal NT server. My completely unsupported wild claim is that there are more of these types of setups then 4-way monsters serving databases. I think that is what the author was refering to.
>>Note that not all of the features supported by >>Linux are included by default in every >>distribution, but they all can be added if >>missing.
>OK, and who will support these functions when >they are added? The distribution suppliers? Not >if it isn't in their product. The hordes of >volunteer help-desk personnel idling on USENET >groups? Only if it's a K00l question, dude. The >profusion of promising startups dedicated to >supporting commercial Linux sites? Better check >that fine print again...!
I think the profusion of promising startups are there for exactly that reason. Where do you turn when BlueHat won't support your install? LinuxHare! (names changed to protect the guilty). Rather, I don't think they would _not_ support you just because you had modified your kernel. Speaking of which....
>Assuming they know how to compile a kernel...
IMNSHO, recompiling your kernel is an intergral part of using Linux; i.e., if you are installing Linux in the enterprise and you _don't_ know how to make menuconfig, you ought to be fired. Similar to installing NT and not knowing how to configure it to support dual processors.
>>Linux's stability is only based on anecdotes. >>Microsoft seems unable to differentiate anecdotes from testimonials.
>OK, and where are these "testimonials" again >(and I'm not counting USENET or Slashdot postings)?
Here he is quoting Microsoft's page. Microsoft says that Linux stability if based entirely on anecdotes and testimonials. He (the author) is not required to do their homework by looking some of those anecdotes up. And, by the way, what is wrong with USENET postings? Slashdot postings are suspect, of course, the same as those posted to microsoft.com are. That's a nonissue. However, USENET is valid forum for discussing the benifts and disadvantages of various OS's and a wonderful place to find anecdotes. I would also direct you to web pages for and against the respective "contenders".
>This is just wrong, and you are not doing the >Linux community any favors by essentially lying >about Windows NT's capabilities. Here's a simple >test for you: put two identical systems next to >each other, one running Windows NT 4.0 and the >other Linux. Boot each of them up. Then pull >both power plugs out, and reinsert them at the >same time. Which system will be up and running >faster?
This is what is known as a strawman. Yes, the NT system will be up and running faster. No, that doesn't mean that is a full journaled file system. There is another posting on this page which details explicitely the _new_ features of Win2K, one of which is (you guessed it) a journalling filesystem. That is, a fully journalling filesystem.
>>Free doesn't mean low TCO. Actually, it does. >>Microsoft's TCO calculations are based against >>other commercially marketed Unixes, which have >>very expensive initial acquisition and support >>contract costs and traditionally high education >>costs.
>And Linux support contracts are free? There >won't be any education costs to move users to >Linux?
I think you missed the adjetives. Very Expensive initial aquisition costs is Very True for most commericial unices. The initial cost of Linux, as we all know, is very small. Also, a Sun contractor who shops where I work charges $250 per hour. You can undoubtably find a linux contractor who charges the same, but I would be willing to bet that the average rate is lower across the board. Yes this is unsubstantiated conjecture, so sue me
>>Support costs can be very low, as purchased >>support can be supplemented with award-winning >>Usenet support.
>I'm sorry, I am picking myself up off the floor >from laughing so hard. I have submitted many, >many questions to various Linux discussion >groups over the years and the quality of answers >is *wildly* uneven, with the majority of answer >ranging from irrelevant to plain old wrong. Any >IT professional who depends solely on USENET for >Linux support should be fired.
As my debate teacher would use to sing "Strawman, strawman, you've got the brain of a strawman". Please note that he says "supplement". As in, while you are waiting for a call back from your support company (or, while waiting on hold) you can post to USENET to see if you can get an answer that way. I fail to see where he said to rely on USENET for everything.
>>Microsoft itself charges for support for a >>product that they licensed (not sold!) you at >>considerable cost without warranty.
>And Linux support programs *do* come with a >warranty? Please, show me these programs!
Again, you must love straw. He was refering to the fact that they charge you a _lot_ to basically lend you some software that they don't garuntee. This is to contrast with Linuxland, where they will give you the software for free or low cost, and still not warranty it. He was also not refering strictly to support programs at this point.
>>The Linux User community, operating at no >>charge, garnered the 1996 InfoWorld Product of >>the Year award for Best Technical Support.
>InfoWorld has a long history of anti-MS >sloganeering, and seems to give out its awards >simply based on the fact that they aren't MS >products. After all, this is the magazine that >for the previous five years had given OS/2 their >product-of-the-year award. If I as an IT >professional had made a purchasing decision >based on InfoWorld's recommendations in 1994, I >would be in fairly deep trouble right now.
And if we had all blindly purchased computers for the last 15 years based on Gates famous quote "We will never need more than 640K of RAM", we would be in fairly deep trouble. Hind sight is 20/20. I have no beef or stake in Infoworld, but to attack them for not forseeing something is rather small of you.
>>Microsoft claims that your security >>administrator must be an expert to properly >>configure security. My own knee-jerk reaction >>to this is, "When do you NOT want an expert >>supporting your systems? If you can't afford >>one full-time you hire a consultant"
>OK, and you just got through going on about how >low Linux cost-of-ownership was?
Low does not mean zero. Security is important enough to dedicate some money and/or time to. This applies whether you are running NT or Linux, which is exactly what the author was saying.
>>Properly configuring Linux security is mostly a >>matter of removing those services that are not >>needed and religiously applying security >>patches as they appear. This should be standard >>operating procedure for any, regardless of the >>platforms used.
>Correct, so why should it be any different for >NT?
It isn't, except for the fact that you mostly have to apply service packs, which include not only security patches, but bug fixes, new features, and other "improvements", requiring extensive testing against all of you software, and of course must be reapplied everytime you change your system. However, this thread was beat to death a couple weeks ago, so I won't rehash everything.
>>For business use, the major general purpose tool >>Linux lacks at the moment is a Lotus Notes >>client.
>And an Exchange client (although that is hardly >surprising). So now we have taken about 90% of >the messaging users off the table.
If by messaging you mean e-mail, and thereby imply that Linux is incompatabile with 90% of the email solutions out there, I would beg to differ. If you are reffering only to intracorporation "messaging", then I have no idea, but you don't back up your numbers either.
In summary, "If the point of this document is to show that [you are] just as capable of generating FUD as [the next man], then it has succeeded. As a tool for [evaluating the truth of the original article], though, it is quite useless."
just another techie,
dbishop
p.s. my user info is out of date, please send all flames to billg@microsoft.com and rational replies and critiques to david@NOFRIGGINSPAM.bishop.dhs.org