In my experience, it's all a matter of how experienced (or not) your ITS administrator is. IF he/she is someone who's windows certified out their ass and windows, and windows, and windows windows windows with a "I've used linux before" experience package....then obviously Windows + MS Office is probably what will work best for that outfit.
On the other hand, if your admin is someone who's a unix/linux vet of many years (especially starting to count them in decades instead of years) then you will most likely experience a near perfect Linux environment that would spank any MS-software run environment in performance and reliability.
I've seen uber corporate Linux environments that run a mix of Solaris & Fedora servers, with 100% Fedora workstations, and a few windows laptops here and there. In this environment users were extremely satisfied, got everything from engineering renderings to graphic publications to regular office work done just fine. This all without any MS products involved. Apps such as Matlab, Gimp+Pixel, OpenOffice, 99% Gnome desktops, there were 2 KDE users, all using Firefox and Evolution with some sort of groupware that was being upgraded to Zimbra I think. But this is because their admin and his subordinates were competent in the area of *nix implementation.
Put a Windows guy on that site and he'll be in hell. I think the success of OpenSource implementation and especially integration with MS products all has to do with how competent the Admin and ITS staff are, as well as *what* they're knowledgable in. Because just because you're a computer guy doesn't mean you can program, or setup servers and fix networks, and vice verca. And even if you were both, that doesn't mean that you can do it with both *nix and Windows equally well. And if you can do all/all/all that then i tip my redhat to you.;-p
Slashdot Mirror
i lol'd ;-p
In my experience, it's all a matter of how experienced (or not) your ITS administrator is. IF he/she is someone who's windows certified out their ass and windows, and windows, and windows windows windows with a "I've used linux before" experience package....then obviously Windows + MS Office is probably what will work best for that outfit. On the other hand, if your admin is someone who's a unix/linux vet of many years (especially starting to count them in decades instead of years) then you will most likely experience a near perfect Linux environment that would spank any MS-software run environment in performance and reliability. I've seen uber corporate Linux environments that run a mix of Solaris & Fedora servers, with 100% Fedora workstations, and a few windows laptops here and there. In this environment users were extremely satisfied, got everything from engineering renderings to graphic publications to regular office work done just fine. This all without any MS products involved. Apps such as Matlab, Gimp+Pixel, OpenOffice, 99% Gnome desktops, there were 2 KDE users, all using Firefox and Evolution with some sort of groupware that was being upgraded to Zimbra I think. But this is because their admin and his subordinates were competent in the area of *nix implementation. Put a Windows guy on that site and he'll be in hell. I think the success of OpenSource implementation and especially integration with MS products all has to do with how competent the Admin and ITS staff are, as well as *what* they're knowledgable in. Because just because you're a computer guy doesn't mean you can program, or setup servers and fix networks, and vice verca. And even if you were both, that doesn't mean that you can do it with both *nix and Windows equally well. And if you can do all/all/all that then i tip my redhat to you. ;-p