I'm not convinced that the normalization on a "standard" distro is a bad thing. Choice is freedom for some and confusion for others. I like the fact that Ubuntu provides a standard interface for hardware manufacturers to say "here are the working drivers", and they release a.deb for the hardware. I'd love to get the source code too, but that's not possible all the time, so I'll take binary. And it's possible to create packages for other OSes by using the files contained in the.deb package and recycling them, which allows other more knowledgeable users to take advantage of them.
Given a choice between "We release drivers for Ubuntu (and/or maybe some RedHat derivative)" or "We don't release drivers for linux", I know which one I'll take.
And it's not a false dichotomy, because lots of companies don't have the resources to release packages for every distro out there, and many of them don't own all of the IP to release open source drivers, so binary is the only option. In those cases, I welcome the Ubuntu packages.
I'm of two minds when it comes to learning linux today.
See, I learned Slackware back in 1996 or 1997. After coming from Windows 3.1. On one hand, things now are a completely different world than they were then. The support available from websites (and tons of other people, because among the techies, it's mainstream) is huge. The software and driver support is SO. MUCH. BETTER.
But on the other hand, I installed from a 2x CD-ROM, which means I sat there and read the name and description of every package that got installed. Since reinstalling when I was learning happened frequently, I knew what every package was, what it did, how big it was, and so on. And once you were done with the install and you rebooted, you got a shell prompt. The end. Login and make stuff happen.
You had to work for it then, and definitely acquire a large amount of knowledge before you could do anything interesting. After using Linux for over 10 years, it's literally second nature.
Had I started out in today's world, I doubt I'd be as proficient, just because I wouldn't have had to work harder in the beginning.
My Ubuntu on the desk and CentOS in the server rack don't tell you that I ran Slack for 10 years while you were still trying to figure out how to make the magic black screen go away;-)
As a 10 year veteran of Slack, I really like that Patrick is still doing the work, but I don't even have to go to the page to know that PAM still isn't supported, and that there's not a package manager that can compete with yum/apt-get/ports.
Last year I switched to Ubuntu on the desktop and CentOS on the server. I look back at Slackware with a lot of fond memories, but managing even a medium sized installation of Slack machines was just too time consuming to continue.
While you care about Half Life 2, some people really just want to edit their documents in peace.
Just because something was made to run on legacy hardware doesn't mean it can't run on the modern stuff.
Up until a bit over a year ago, I was installing an operating system (Slackware) that was made so that it could be run on an original Pentium. I installed it on 2.5ghz servers with 4GB of RAM. Ran great.
But if the end result of Linux on the desktop would make more business sense, and that department's ignorance is the holding point, cross training them sounds like a good idea.
If you look at the economics of it, remember that Linux itself is free, but training would cost money. Compare that to the cost of upgrading operating systems. Measure the cost of training everyone in the company vs purchasing everyone in the company a new copy of Vista. You might actuallly want to measure the cost of upgrading everyone a couple of times, since you're under vendor lock-in essentially.
It's really an economics-of-scale issue. Incur the cost of training everyone now, or the costs of upgrading operating systems perpetually. Factor in inflation and the fact that your money is worth more now than in the future, and it looks more promising.
Of course, not everyone's client base allows them to forgo Windows. If it weren't for my clients, it would be universal, with the exception of the Mac geeks who have to have their aluminum mac book pros.
This is a great point. If any other company treated you like Microsoft does, you wouldn't take it, you would change. If you couldn't change at the moment, you would position yourself so that you could change sooner rather than later.
It's a reason as much as an excuse. I seriously doubt that any business would be stupid enough to force a client to change the way they do business in order for the company to be able to open an office document.
I'm all for open standards, but the real world isn't the shining white ivory tower that RMS lives in.
I've got a couple of things I need Windows to accomplish as well. I keep it in a little VM that I fire up from time to time. You might see if you can get by like that. At least your entire computing experience wouldn't suck then.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you can hardly call an end user a sysadmin. And this was a case of ignorance, not stupidity.
Ignorance is skin deep. Stupid goes straight to the bone.
I'm not convinced that the normalization on a "standard" distro is a bad thing. Choice is freedom for some and confusion for others. I like the fact that Ubuntu provides a standard interface for hardware manufacturers to say "here are the working drivers", and they release a .deb for the hardware. I'd love to get the source code too, but that's not possible all the time, so I'll take binary. And it's possible to create packages for other OSes by using the files contained in the .deb package and recycling them, which allows other more knowledgeable users to take advantage of them.
Given a choice between "We release drivers for Ubuntu (and/or maybe some RedHat derivative)" or "We don't release drivers for linux", I know which one I'll take.
And it's not a false dichotomy, because lots of companies don't have the resources to release packages for every distro out there, and many of them don't own all of the IP to release open source drivers, so binary is the only option. In those cases, I welcome the Ubuntu packages.
I'm of two minds when it comes to learning linux today.
See, I learned Slackware back in 1996 or 1997. After coming from Windows 3.1. On one hand, things now are a completely different world than they were then. The support available from websites (and tons of other people, because among the techies, it's mainstream) is huge. The software and driver support is SO. MUCH. BETTER.
But on the other hand, I installed from a 2x CD-ROM, which means I sat there and read the name and description of every package that got installed. Since reinstalling when I was learning happened frequently, I knew what every package was, what it did, how big it was, and so on. And once you were done with the install and you rebooted, you got a shell prompt. The end. Login and make stuff happen.
You had to work for it then, and definitely acquire a large amount of knowledge before you could do anything interesting. After using Linux for over 10 years, it's literally second nature.
Had I started out in today's world, I doubt I'd be as proficient, just because I wouldn't have had to work harder in the beginning.
Judge me by my distro do you?
My Ubuntu on the desk and CentOS in the server rack don't tell you that I ran Slack for 10 years while you were still trying to figure out how to make the magic black screen go away ;-)
hrmph.
Seconded
Thank god there was a floppy option. Can you imagine downloading a 640MB CD image at 14.4?
Stuff like this is the textbook example of the ideal use of Slackware, imo.
Not in giant server farms, but in places where you need something solid that can run for 3 years and not hiccup.
Just remember to rotate your logs ;-)
+1 LOL
I remember those days, and the warnings involved
"You *can* physically break your monitor if you set the values wrong"
"Ubuntu ate my computer" is a great phrase. I've got to figure out how to work it into daily conversation ;-)
Me too. Of course at the time, it was hard to learn since I've never been good at sanskrit...
I'd also like to note that we continue our Slackware subscription because we appreciate what Patrick and Slack has done for us.
As a 10 year veteran of Slack, I really like that Patrick is still doing the work, but I don't even have to go to the page to know that PAM still isn't supported, and that there's not a package manager that can compete with yum/apt-get/ports.
Last year I switched to Ubuntu on the desktop and CentOS on the server. I look back at Slackware with a lot of fond memories, but managing even a medium sized installation of Slack machines was just too time consuming to continue.
Damn. I was going to say
"What does God need with a black hole?"
You have to admit, it's a good set of lines though ;-)
Maybe in a few years, Fox News will come out with the same exact phrasing regarding The O'Reilly Factor.
You get one too for recognizing it ;-)
cornflakes
Didn't you read the thread about the guy reanimating things yesterday? Jesus inhaled sulfur dioxide when he went into the cave. ;-)
There is such a thing as righteous anger as well, but there are also different types of love.
Of course it's happening in your head, but why on earth should that mean it's not real?
LIAR!!!!!
While you care about Half Life 2, some people really just want to edit their documents in peace.
Just because something was made to run on legacy hardware doesn't mean it can't run on the modern stuff.
Up until a bit over a year ago, I was installing an operating system (Slackware) that was made so that it could be run on an original Pentium. I installed it on 2.5ghz servers with 4GB of RAM. Ran great.
But if the end result of Linux on the desktop would make more business sense, and that department's ignorance is the holding point, cross training them sounds like a good idea.
If you look at the economics of it, remember that Linux itself is free, but training would cost money. Compare that to the cost of upgrading operating systems. Measure the cost of training everyone in the company vs purchasing everyone in the company a new copy of Vista. You might actuallly want to measure the cost of upgrading everyone a couple of times, since you're under vendor lock-in essentially.
It's really an economics-of-scale issue. Incur the cost of training everyone now, or the costs of upgrading operating systems perpetually. Factor in inflation and the fact that your money is worth more now than in the future, and it looks more promising.
Of course, not everyone's client base allows them to forgo Windows. If it weren't for my clients, it would be universal, with the exception of the Mac geeks who have to have their aluminum mac book pros.
This is a great point. If any other company treated you like Microsoft does, you wouldn't take it, you would change. If you couldn't change at the moment, you would position yourself so that you could change sooner rather than later.
It's a reason as much as an excuse. I seriously doubt that any business would be stupid enough to force a client to change the way they do business in order for the company to be able to open an office document.
I'm all for open standards, but the real world isn't the shining white ivory tower that RMS lives in.
I've got a couple of things I need Windows to accomplish as well. I keep it in a little VM that I fire up from time to time. You might see if you can get by like that. At least your entire computing experience wouldn't suck then.