Actually, what set you to troll status was the fact that you said windows will randomly crash. Anyone who's spent any time administrating windows knows that windows, by itself, doesn't randomly crash. Hasn't since the 2000 days. It's software and drivers ( note: the same thing that will abend your high and mighty netware servers ) that'll do it. Well, and flaky hardware. All of which are common problems for all OSes.
I've worked several places with SLES, netware and the various versions of windows running side by side. Windows was the most reliable ( as defined as the lowest amount of unexpected downtime ), followed by SLES, followed by netware. And I'm taking in to account similar services running ( file and print services ). Now, let's talk about running an SQL server on netware...oh you can't. SLES, you can run just about everything but MSSQL, which is prominent in the business world.
I'll grant you the troubleshooting issue you have with windows. Untrained, yes, windows is very hard to troubleshoot and diagnose. Took me years to get to the point where it's as easy to diagnose as linux.
Based on my experience, windows is more stable than netware, more versatile and offers greater management possibilities. eDirectory doesn't really offer anything over active directory that would interest a majority of businesses, and it comes with client software that is just another layer to worry about to boot.
On top of all of that, it's easier to find windows admins than it is to find edirectory/netware/Sles admins, thus HR over head is cheaper.
I was told the same thing, by admins who were in the process of recovering from an abend ( the window servers had no unplanned downtime in recent memory ).
So that throws reliability out the window ( pun not intended ). Next up, capability; Everything today is written for windows, and there are only a few edge cases that edirectory addresses that active directory can't do. So ya, toss that one out too. Bloated? That's a fuzzy term really, that most people fail to understand. Sure, the base install is large for 2008, but it doesn't cause any issues so I'm not counting that as a "problem".
Price is a matter between you and your vendor. I know novell CAN be more expensive, but it usually isn't. But when you factor in the "soft costs" ( actually using said software ), the costs tend to even themselves out.
So the case for MS is pretty cut and dry. I'm still unsure why anyone would willingly subject themselves to novell.
You're basically talking about eDirectory vs Active Directory, right? And you are implying that eDirectory was the better product?
Uh no. That was true 15 years ago, but as soon as Active Directory came out it was time to jump ship to MS. Still, to this day Novell has a few hold outs ( and sadly, I've worked at several of them ). The difference between AD and ED is startling. Why any company would put up with ED is beyond me; I'm fairly certain that some of the CIOs involved were getting kick backs from Novell. That's the only thing that makes sense.
Or it means that some movies are released in some areas in 3D only ( *cough* tron 3D *cough* ). I couldn't find a 2D showing within 100 miles of my location, and I had already promised the child that we'd go. So there I was, paying almost 20 bucks a ticket.
3D is a scam the industry is using to push the upgrade cycle along. Next, when this fails, expect to see equipment mysteriously lasting much shorter time spans.
That your IT department it willing to entertain your request tells me they are probably a reasonably good IT department, the kind that works with users to provide what they need not the No you can't have it," kind.
I disagree, that they are even entertaining the request means they don't understand the risks associated with a non-managed server sending data out to the internet. Given HIPAA requirements...well, IT is more than just tinkering with computers. As you may know, we are the only ones who understand security liability in most organizations.
They should have disconnected the server and physically confiscated it, only releasing it back to the user after it had been securely wiped. The user should be reprimanded ( but of course, it sounds like the user is management so that won't happen ). Then IT and the division need to sit down and understand exactly what services are being requested and then IT should design and implement ( ostensibly, because they are the experts after all ).
In IT, we get a lot of flack for saying no and I understand that's frustrating to the end users. Good IT folks know how to say "let's figure out how best to solve this problem", with an eye always to solving a legitimate business need while ensuring security of the data. Bad IT folks deal in black and white ( Yes or No ).
One of the things that always bugged me about zombie flicks was how the zombies seemed to be able to run perpetually without a steady source of energy ( ie: brains...or anything else ). Now it makes sense. The zombification process obviously employs a type of photosynthesis. This is further confirmed by the seemingly universal trope that zombies are most active during the day time.
In either case, it has begun. This research will mutate with the common cold virus, resulting in a zombieland.
While you're at it, why not just a star trek-like transporter. Surface to station transporting would solve 90% of the problem!
The space elevator is a gimmick whose sole purpose is to generate budgets. The engineering challenges alone puts this as a pipe dream for at least the next 100 years. Or, to put it another way, we'll have flying cars before we get a space elevator.
I don't want to dismiss the relevance of oss stuff. My point is that when it comes to certain tasks, you go with what works over your ideologies. Windows Workstations + Windows Servers for the basics ( AD, GPOs, file and print serving ) are the lowest headache approach.
Now web servers? Ya, different story. I'd much rather have apache than IIS, but like you I often run into situations where that's just not possible ( given vendor preference ).
...funny, that is EXACTLY why as an administrator I use Linux. I build a server,... And it keeps running.... 24/7..
Both platforms are capable of this. I know, I administrate a ton of both. But when I'm working with MS desktops, I prefer to pair them up with MS servers. For any number of reasons ( proprietary lock in, dirty business tactics ), MS servers tend to pair up better with MS desktops. And, done correctly, they are just as bullet proof as linux servers.
Sure. And while, yes, that's dirty tactics...I don't care. I want something that will work, and if that's how MS plays AND I have to use MS...then I will use their servers too.
Yes, I ignored Server CALs but primarily because no one understands how they work. If you have 50 clients, you don't need 50x CALs per server. Those CALs are per organization. Mind, we're talking about server CALs right now, not SQL CALs, which is a different beast.
Even figuring ~100 per cal ( for both server and sql cal ), that adds another 5000 to the cost. Again, what's the cost difference between a linux and windows admin?
To be clear; you don't patch your server OSes against security risks? Is that what I read? And while yes, *nix does have the edge over windows in reboots, I've just gotten in the habit of it I guess. A scheduled reboot isn't that big of a deal anymore ( especially where about half of my customers are closed during the reboot ).
In all my time consulting and at various jobs, I have seen more oddness from your average linux file server than windows. But then, keep in mind I'm paranoid about a couple things with my servers;
1) Security. My file servers don't access the internet. Period. If I need files, I either set up a local mirror or I download it on my client, then send it on to the server. I also keep them up to date on patches and, typically, I have a firewall running preventing unneeded access to the server from client machines.
2) Hardware. If it's going to be a file server, it's going to have a good, server grade NIC in it ( along with everything else, but I don't cheap out on the NICs ).
Now, with all that in mind, I have seen a linux box just randomly lose it's domain auth, to predictable results. I have seen some odd conflict between samba and the file system where a user could create files, then delete them, but be unable to modify or delete older files. And granted, this is the worst of what I've seen. So both systems really fall within the acceptable use category ( especially when you consider the NUMBER of file servers I have setup ). But in all my admin time, I have spent more time tinkering with samba to get it working how I want than with windows.
Sometimes I'm a bit biased towards OSS stuff, samba in particular. For me, it's a 5 minute operation to get samba up and running, joined to an AD domain and get shares going. However, I have been doing that for almost a decade now. You have to keep in mind all the funkiness that goes in to getting winbind stable, setting up permission shares correctly, working with file security differences, ect...
To say nothing about when the inevitable problem DOES occur. Troubleshooting window file shares is a far simpler affair than a samba shares. Not to mention the frequency of said issues. This may run counter intuitive, but I've had fewer file sharing problems with windows over the past 10 years than with samba. I attribute this to samba being an attempt by an outside vendor to work with proprietary technology.
I am a lazy admin. I want to set things up to work, and they "just work". I will use whatever technology I need to get that done. In some cases, that's linux. In some cases, that's windows. I don't hold ideologies about technology; it either "just works" when set up correctly ( and the set up has to be relatively simple ), or I keep looking for a solution that does.
You overstate the implementation. So you need 3 AD servers ( any directory service you'd want 3 servers, so no fat trimming there ). 1 Print and 1 file server ( although I'd have these both set up to take the load from the other in the case of failure ). 1 Sharepoint server, 1 system center, 2 exchange servers( which, for the same of brevity, i'm going to equate to sendmail. Not fair to MS here, btw ), 1 SQL server.
So 10 servers. Given the load out of the apps, I would run the same number of linux servers for that load ( assuming equitable services ). Now sure, you have to pay an MS tax of 650ish per server, whereas with linux you don't. I'll grant you, 6,500 is a lot to spend. But then, how much does it cost to hire a linux admin vs a windows admin? That difference can quickly be eaten over the course of even 6 months.
There are issues with MS and their server software, but number of servers ain't one of them.
Not holding my breath. It's not that I don't have faith in the samba folks, but rather I accept that the company that BUILT the desktop might have the drop on server implementations necessary to manage said desktop.
Having a cause is nice, but then after you've fought for a couple years shoehorning your "kinda" products in to production, complete with their own unique and troublesome glitches, you begin to understand that the "Evil Software Company" may actually know a thing or two about their own desktop software. You stop wanting to fight problems for hours on end. You simply expect things to "just work", and to keep "just work"ing until something changes.
See, in IT administration, when you grow up you figure out that IT is less about tinkering with fun bits of tech, and more about making each dollar spent on IT return value to the company.
Ironically, your job could be outsourced for cheaper ( but certainly not better. Been there, done that ).
I think the point of the article is that we're all going to end up on welfare while India and China do our work for us. I'm fairly certain that was the "take away". Personally, having worked with enough commercial/industry software vendors, I find the entire premise laughable. These are not your average consumer grade software packages; installs are often done by humans, poorly, and the applications are more often than not a kludge of different languages and scripts ( yes, scripts! ). In fact, in some areas, it requires more technicians on staff to keep the thing tottering along ( like a drunk at marty gras! ) than it does to do the job the application was designed to take over.
Stop moving things around or radically changing the interface. STOP. You are a business OS, and businesses like known costs...not having to retrain their employees every couple years because you want to be "new" and "different".
Speaking of which, when you include a "classic" interface, it's recommended to actually be "classic". As in, "from previous versions". Classic does not mean "different from the default". When I select classic, I somehow expect to find icons where they were, not a wildly different interface from before. Call me crazy.
That's just plain ignorant. There are a lot of use cases where Novell's products are the best tools for the job, and I have 4 Novell admins here who regularly learn new things and update their skill sets.
I haven't worked with their full catalog, so maybe there isn't a stinker in there. However, what I've used I can't imagine any of them being the "best tool for the job". Mind sharing what you are thinking here?
Yes, and I have to deal with most of their product suite. So, for the sake of brevity, I chose to highlight the company and not the individual products.
I have found not one, but two jobs where the entrenched administration chose Novell and refused to budge. I normally am pretty calm about using any tech, if it works then it works.
Novell, however, is a bloated piece of crap that no user should be forced to use. However, if it were the only game in town, then you're stuck with what you've got. It's not, however. It's not even the best at what it does. The only reason it's still in use is because there is a certain class of 'admin' out there that refuses to learn something new and update their skill set. So they instead drag the rest of their organization down with them in to the nightmare that is Novell software.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, what set you to troll status was the fact that you said windows will randomly crash. Anyone who's spent any time administrating windows knows that windows, by itself, doesn't randomly crash. Hasn't since the 2000 days. It's software and drivers ( note: the same thing that will abend your high and mighty netware servers ) that'll do it. Well, and flaky hardware. All of which are common problems for all OSes.
I've worked several places with SLES, netware and the various versions of windows running side by side. Windows was the most reliable ( as defined as the lowest amount of unexpected downtime ), followed by SLES, followed by netware. And I'm taking in to account similar services running ( file and print services ). Now, let's talk about running an SQL server on netware...oh you can't. SLES, you can run just about everything but MSSQL, which is prominent in the business world.
I'll grant you the troubleshooting issue you have with windows. Untrained, yes, windows is very hard to troubleshoot and diagnose. Took me years to get to the point where it's as easy to diagnose as linux.
Based on my experience, windows is more stable than netware, more versatile and offers greater management possibilities. eDirectory doesn't really offer anything over active directory that would interest a majority of businesses, and it comes with client software that is just another layer to worry about to boot.
On top of all of that, it's easier to find windows admins than it is to find edirectory/netware/Sles admins, thus HR over head is cheaper.
So who's case is weak now?
Ah, a troll. You got me.
I was told the same thing, by admins who were in the process of recovering from an abend ( the window servers had no unplanned downtime in recent memory ).
So that throws reliability out the window ( pun not intended ). Next up, capability; Everything today is written for windows, and there are only a few edge cases that edirectory addresses that active directory can't do. So ya, toss that one out too. Bloated? That's a fuzzy term really, that most people fail to understand. Sure, the base install is large for 2008, but it doesn't cause any issues so I'm not counting that as a "problem".
Price is a matter between you and your vendor. I know novell CAN be more expensive, but it usually isn't. But when you factor in the "soft costs" ( actually using said software ), the costs tend to even themselves out.
So the case for MS is pretty cut and dry. I'm still unsure why anyone would willingly subject themselves to novell.
So you're saying their Mac users?
Suddenly, it starts to make sense.
You're basically talking about eDirectory vs Active Directory, right? And you are implying that eDirectory was the better product?
Uh no. That was true 15 years ago, but as soon as Active Directory came out it was time to jump ship to MS. Still, to this day Novell has a few hold outs ( and sadly, I've worked at several of them ). The difference between AD and ED is startling. Why any company would put up with ED is beyond me; I'm fairly certain that some of the CIOs involved were getting kick backs from Novell. That's the only thing that makes sense.
Or it means that some movies are released in some areas in 3D only ( *cough* tron 3D *cough* ). I couldn't find a 2D showing within 100 miles of my location, and I had already promised the child that we'd go. So there I was, paying almost 20 bucks a ticket.
3D is a scam the industry is using to push the upgrade cycle along. Next, when this fails, expect to see equipment mysteriously lasting much shorter time spans.
That your IT department it willing to entertain your request tells me they are probably a reasonably good IT department, the kind that works with users to provide what they need not the No you can't have it," kind.
I disagree, that they are even entertaining the request means they don't understand the risks associated with a non-managed server sending data out to the internet. Given HIPAA requirements...well, IT is more than just tinkering with computers. As you may know, we are the only ones who understand security liability in most organizations.
They should have disconnected the server and physically confiscated it, only releasing it back to the user after it had been securely wiped. The user should be reprimanded ( but of course, it sounds like the user is management so that won't happen ). Then IT and the division need to sit down and understand exactly what services are being requested and then IT should design and implement ( ostensibly, because they are the experts after all ).
In IT, we get a lot of flack for saying no and I understand that's frustrating to the end users. Good IT folks know how to say "let's figure out how best to solve this problem", with an eye always to solving a legitimate business need while ensuring security of the data. Bad IT folks deal in black and white ( Yes or No ).
One of the things that always bugged me about zombie flicks was how the zombies seemed to be able to run perpetually without a steady source of energy ( ie: brains...or anything else ). Now it makes sense. The zombification process obviously employs a type of photosynthesis. This is further confirmed by the seemingly universal trope that zombies are most active during the day time.
In either case, it has begun. This research will mutate with the common cold virus, resulting in a zombieland.
While you're at it, why not just a star trek-like transporter. Surface to station transporting would solve 90% of the problem!
The space elevator is a gimmick whose sole purpose is to generate budgets. The engineering challenges alone puts this as a pipe dream for at least the next 100 years. Or, to put it another way, we'll have flying cars before we get a space elevator.
I don't want to dismiss the relevance of oss stuff. My point is that when it comes to certain tasks, you go with what works over your ideologies. Windows Workstations + Windows Servers for the basics ( AD, GPOs, file and print serving ) are the lowest headache approach.
Now web servers? Ya, different story. I'd much rather have apache than IIS, but like you I often run into situations where that's just not possible ( given vendor preference ).
I always go for the right tool for the job.
...funny, that is EXACTLY why as an administrator I use Linux. I build a server,... And it keeps running.... 24/7..
Both platforms are capable of this. I know, I administrate a ton of both. But when I'm working with MS desktops, I prefer to pair them up with MS servers. For any number of reasons ( proprietary lock in, dirty business tactics ), MS servers tend to pair up better with MS desktops. And, done correctly, they are just as bullet proof as linux servers.
Sure. And while, yes, that's dirty tactics...I don't care. I want something that will work, and if that's how MS plays AND I have to use MS...then I will use their servers too.
I'm pragmatic about the whole thing.
Yes, I ignored Server CALs but primarily because no one understands how they work. If you have 50 clients, you don't need 50x CALs per server. Those CALs are per organization. Mind, we're talking about server CALs right now, not SQL CALs, which is a different beast.
Even figuring ~100 per cal ( for both server and sql cal ), that adds another 5000 to the cost. Again, what's the cost difference between a linux and windows admin?
To be clear; you don't patch your server OSes against security risks? Is that what I read? And while yes, *nix does have the edge over windows in reboots, I've just gotten in the habit of it I guess. A scheduled reboot isn't that big of a deal anymore ( especially where about half of my customers are closed during the reboot ).
In all my time consulting and at various jobs, I have seen more oddness from your average linux file server than windows. But then, keep in mind I'm paranoid about a couple things with my servers;
1) Security. My file servers don't access the internet. Period. If I need files, I either set up a local mirror or I download it on my client, then send it on to the server. I also keep them up to date on patches and, typically, I have a firewall running preventing unneeded access to the server from client machines.
2) Hardware. If it's going to be a file server, it's going to have a good, server grade NIC in it ( along with everything else, but I don't cheap out on the NICs ).
Now, with all that in mind, I have seen a linux box just randomly lose it's domain auth, to predictable results. I have seen some odd conflict between samba and the file system where a user could create files, then delete them, but be unable to modify or delete older files. And granted, this is the worst of what I've seen. So both systems really fall within the acceptable use category ( especially when you consider the NUMBER of file servers I have setup ). But in all my admin time, I have spent more time tinkering with samba to get it working how I want than with windows.
Sometimes I'm a bit biased towards OSS stuff, samba in particular. For me, it's a 5 minute operation to get samba up and running, joined to an AD domain and get shares going. However, I have been doing that for almost a decade now. You have to keep in mind all the funkiness that goes in to getting winbind stable, setting up permission shares correctly, working with file security differences, ect...
To say nothing about when the inevitable problem DOES occur. Troubleshooting window file shares is a far simpler affair than a samba shares. Not to mention the frequency of said issues. This may run counter intuitive, but I've had fewer file sharing problems with windows over the past 10 years than with samba. I attribute this to samba being an attempt by an outside vendor to work with proprietary technology.
I am a lazy admin. I want to set things up to work, and they "just work". I will use whatever technology I need to get that done. In some cases, that's linux. In some cases, that's windows. I don't hold ideologies about technology; it either "just works" when set up correctly ( and the set up has to be relatively simple ), or I keep looking for a solution that does.
You overstate the implementation. So you need 3 AD servers ( any directory service you'd want 3 servers, so no fat trimming there ). 1 Print and 1 file server ( although I'd have these both set up to take the load from the other in the case of failure ). 1 Sharepoint server, 1 system center, 2 exchange servers( which, for the same of brevity, i'm going to equate to sendmail. Not fair to MS here, btw ), 1 SQL server.
So 10 servers. Given the load out of the apps, I would run the same number of linux servers for that load ( assuming equitable services ). Now sure, you have to pay an MS tax of 650ish per server, whereas with linux you don't. I'll grant you, 6,500 is a lot to spend. But then, how much does it cost to hire a linux admin vs a windows admin? That difference can quickly be eaten over the course of even 6 months.
There are issues with MS and their server software, but number of servers ain't one of them.
Not holding my breath. It's not that I don't have faith in the samba folks, but rather I accept that the company that BUILT the desktop might have the drop on server implementations necessary to manage said desktop.
Having a cause is nice, but then after you've fought for a couple years shoehorning your "kinda" products in to production, complete with their own unique and troublesome glitches, you begin to understand that the "Evil Software Company" may actually know a thing or two about their own desktop software. You stop wanting to fight problems for hours on end. You simply expect things to "just work", and to keep "just work"ing until something changes.
See, in IT administration, when you grow up you figure out that IT is less about tinkering with fun bits of tech, and more about making each dollar spent on IT return value to the company.
Now get off my lawn.
Ironically, your job could be outsourced for cheaper ( but certainly not better. Been there, done that ).
I think the point of the article is that we're all going to end up on welfare while India and China do our work for us. I'm fairly certain that was the "take away". Personally, having worked with enough commercial/industry software vendors, I find the entire premise laughable. These are not your average consumer grade software packages; installs are often done by humans, poorly, and the applications are more often than not a kludge of different languages and scripts ( yes, scripts! ). In fact, in some areas, it requires more technicians on staff to keep the thing tottering along ( like a drunk at marty gras! ) than it does to do the job the application was designed to take over.
But hey, that's corporate culture for you.
Stop moving things around or radically changing the interface. STOP. You are a business OS, and businesses like known costs...not having to retrain their employees every couple years because you want to be "new" and "different".
Speaking of which, when you include a "classic" interface, it's recommended to actually be "classic". As in, "from previous versions". Classic does not mean "different from the default". When I select classic, I somehow expect to find icons where they were, not a wildly different interface from before. Call me crazy.
That's just plain ignorant. There are a lot of use cases where Novell's products are the best tools for the job, and I have 4 Novell admins here who regularly learn new things and update their skill sets.
I haven't worked with their full catalog, so maybe there isn't a stinker in there. However, what I've used I can't imagine any of them being the "best tool for the job". Mind sharing what you are thinking here?
But it is crap. SLES wasn't that impressive before Novell got a hold of it.
Yes, and I have to deal with most of their product suite. So, for the sake of brevity, I chose to highlight the company and not the individual products.
Clearly, I expected too much from some folks.
I have found not one, but two jobs where the entrenched administration chose Novell and refused to budge. I normally am pretty calm about using any tech, if it works then it works.
Novell, however, is a bloated piece of crap that no user should be forced to use. However, if it were the only game in town, then you're stuck with what you've got. It's not, however. It's not even the best at what it does. The only reason it's still in use is because there is a certain class of 'admin' out there that refuses to learn something new and update their skill set. So they instead drag the rest of their organization down with them in to the nightmare that is Novell software.
...let's waste it on tech we know would work; nuclear.