Further Tales of Horror!
"This is not the experience you get when you use Windows NT Server. However, with Windows 2000 now out in the marketplace, the current assertion is that all of the problems we encountered with Windows NT have now been solved. Didn't we hear this when NT 4.0 was first released ? Needless to say, with every problem Windows 2000 has solved, it introduces another, along with a plethora of arcane and unnecessarily complicated new concepts that have already spawned a score of books that attempt to explain them. All this is supposedly to provide us with the ultimate server solution. I have a better solution--switch to Linux." http://www2.linuxjournal.com/cgi-bin/frames.pl/articles/culture/0024.html -- -- ----/ / _ Fred A. Miller ---/ / (_)__ __ ____ __ Systems Administrator --/ /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / Cornell Univ. Press Services -/____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ fm@cupserv.org
Mail this link to as many editors and columnists as possible. OMG and I thought medicine was a bitch. The problem is clear. The execs (like the politicians) don't have a clue. If a guy like me (a newbie and at best a novice) can figure out that M$ is spewing propoganda to make sales and their statements about their product are at best less than factual, why can't the CTOs/CIOs/and CEOs get a clue. They don't seem to grasp the fact that all the down time that costs money to the businesses could be avoided. Look to the banks - there all base in Unix, aren't they? On Friday 25 May 2001 02:21 pm, Fred A. Miller wrote:
"This is not the experience you get when you use Windows NT Server. However, with Windows 2000 now out in the marketplace, the current assertion is that all of the problems we encountered with Windows NT have now been solved. Didn't we hear this when NT 4.0 was first released ? Needless to say, with every problem Windows 2000 has solved, it introduces another, along with a plethora of arcane and unnecessarily complicated new concepts that have already spawned a score of books that attempt to explain them. All this is supposedly to provide us with the ultimate server solution. I have a better solution--switch to Linux."
http://www2.linuxjournal.com/cgi-bin/frames.pl/articles/culture/0024.html
Because there isn't a number on their spreadsheets labeled, "downtime
due to BS OS". Whereas new hardware/software is RISK. And if you
take risks, you haven't CYA.
Just my cynical, bitter $0.02USD,
Jeffrey
Quoting Curtis Rey
Mail this link to as many editors and columnists as possible. OMG and I thought medicine was a bitch. The problem is clear. The execs (like the politicians) don't have a clue. If a guy like me (a newbie and at best a novice) can figure out that M$ is spewing propoganda to make sales and their statements about their product are at best less than factual, why can't the CTOs/CIOs/and CEOs get a clue. They don't seem to grasp the fact that all the down time that costs money to the businesses could be avoided. Look to the banks - there all base in Unix, aren't they?
On Friday 25 May 2001 02:21 pm, Fred A. Miller wrote:
"This is not the experience you get when you use Windows NT Server. However, with Windows 2000 now out in the marketplace, the current assertion is that all of the problems we encountered with Windows NT have now been solved. Didn't we hear this when NT 4.0 was first released ? Needless to say, with every problem Windows 2000 has solved, it introduces another, along with a plethora of arcane and unnecessarily complicated new concepts that have already spawned a score of books that attempt to explain them. All this is supposedly to provide us with the ultimate server solution. I have a better solution--switch to Linux."
http://www2.linuxjournal.com/cgi-bin/frames.pl/articles/culture/0024.html
-- I don't do Windows and I don't come to work before nine. -- Johnny Paycheck
Mail this link to as many editors and columnists as possible. OMG and I thought medicine was a bitch. The problem is clear. The execs (like the politicians) don't have a clue. If a guy like me (a newbie and at best a novice) can figure out that M$ is spewing propoganda to make sales and their statements about their product are at best less than factual, why can't the CTOs/CIOs/and CEOs get a clue. They don't seem to grasp the fact that all the down time that costs money to the businesses could be avoided. Look to the banks - there all base in Unix, aren't they?
[snip] Nope, not all banks are unix based. The bank I worked for had a VMS core, UNIX layer 1 and PC/Windows clients. Many of the service protocols that banks use, are proprietary windows based protocols ( exchange, screenreaders amo. ) and only the real money-transferring protocols are unix/vms/os390 etc, like SNA/SNA+. Databases are most often run on true iron, although I know of at least one bank that runs their databases on windows. All in all, despite all horror stories, a truly competent NT system administrator can with a minimum amount of headache set up a NT server in such a way that the BSOD and frantic reboots are virtually unknown. In the same way can an incompetent linux/bsd administrator set up a server that requires total attention all of the time. The most important factors that should be looked at when putting together a mision critical system should always be the availability of competence and TCO, and as any other thing in this world, this coin has two sides as well. If competence is scarce on one platform, but in-house for the other, it will most likely be cheaper for the corporation to install the platform they know, despite high starting cost, in contrary to perhaps recruiting and training new staff. All in all, this anti-microsoft pro-anythingelse fight has led to what may seem to become a large-scale war between Microsoft on one side, and unhappy windows users on the other. Probably not wat was intended, as the "normal" user ends up being the casualty.... -tosi
From Tor Sigurdsson to Curtis Rey and suse-linux-e@suse.com about Re: [SLE]...:
All in all, despite all horror stories, a truly competent NT system administrator can with a minimum amount of headache set up a NT server in such a way that the BSOD and frantic reboots are virtually unknown.
In the same way can an incompetent linux/bsd administrator set up a server that requires total attention all of the time.
The most important factors that should be looked at when putting together a mision critical system should always be the availability of competence and TCO, and as any other thing in this world, this coin has two sides as well.
If competence is scarce on one platform, but in-house for the other, it will most likely be cheaper for the corporation to install the platform they know, despite high starting cost, in contrary to perhaps recruiting and training new staff.
That's all very possible but if there's a bug in linux/BSD-software at least you know it will be fixed and it will be fixed soon. With Microsoft software you never know if they're gonna say ``That's a known bug, we'll fix it in a future release.'' A future release you'll have to pay for, again. Or install some servicepack and reboot once more.
All in all, this anti-microsoft pro-anythingelse fight has led to what may seem to become a large-scale war between Microsoft on one side, and unhappy windows users on the other. Probably not wat was intended, as the "normal" user ends up being the casualty.... In what way has fighting against the Microsoft monopoly led to normal users being casualties?
-- dieter
Þann föstudagur 25 maí 2001 22:02 skrifaðir þú:
From Tor Sigurdsson to Curtis Rey and suse-linux-e@suse.com about Re: [SLE]...:
All in all, despite all horror stories, a truly competent NT system administrator can with a minimum amount of headache set up a NT server in such a way that the BSOD and frantic reboots are virtually unknown.
In the same way can an incompetent linux/bsd administrator set up a server that requires total attention all of the time.
The most important factors that should be looked at when putting together a mision critical system should always be the availability of competence and TCO, and as any other thing in this world, this coin has two sides as well.
If competence is scarce on one platform, but in-house for the other, it will most likely be cheaper for the corporation to install the platform they know, despite high starting cost, in contrary to perhaps recruiting and training new staff.
That's all very possible but if there's a bug in linux/BSD-software at least you know it will be fixed and it will be fixed soon. With Microsoft software you never know if they're gonna say ``That's a known bug, we'll fix it in a future release.'' A future release you'll have to pay for, again. Or install some servicepack and reboot once more.
Very true, but patching *NIX on a mission-critical server is not the task you'd throw at a typical windows point-and-click administrator more than maybe twice, so there we are back at the TCO again... As much as I hate to give in on the anti-microsoft front, there simply are certain circumstances where linux is not a rational choice, be it deployment-wise or company-wise. As I see it, the same thing is happening in operating systems as happened in hardware a decade ago, when the world decided not to go with the S-100 bus, but instead to choose the ( much inferior in fact :) IBM PC. This transfer WILL take place, but not by yelling how bad Microsoft must be or by pointing left and right at faults in their software. The transfer will take place by writing good software, and by making that good software available and VISIBLE to the world. Remember - every harsh work ABOUT Microsoft is another advertisment FOR their existance, and thus in their favour.
All in all, this anti-microsoft pro-anythingelse fight has led to what may seem to become a large-scale war between Microsoft on one side, and unhappy windows users on the other. Probably not wat was intended, as the "normal" user ends up being the casualty....
In what way has fighting against the Microsoft monopoly led to normal users being casualties?
It leads to uncertainty, confusion, and frustration. I have seen many examples of this, and the storm usually doesn't clear until the user has become advanced enough to make a sound choice based on his/hers own knowledge of the choices available. -tosi
Another thing I hate hearing (this line is especially aimed at SuSE by those annoying "I know it all" trolls that appear from time to time) is the line,"All these gui tools take away the task of the real admin and stop the newbie from learning". These is the other extreme. Gui's if they work make sys admin work a lot faster...And newbies can learn the general idea of what is needed/going on by the questions that it asks.... Matt On Fri, 25 May 2001, Tor Sigurdsson wrote:
�ann f�studagur 25 ma� 2001 22:02 skrifa�ir ��:
From Tor Sigurdsson to Curtis Rey and suse-linux-e@suse.com about Re: [SLE]...:
All in all, despite all horror stories, a truly competent NT system administrator can with a minimum amount of headache set up a NT server in such a way that the BSOD and frantic reboots are virtually unknown.
In the same way can an incompetent linux/bsd administrator set up a server that requires total attention all of the time.
The most important factors that should be looked at when putting together a mision critical system should always be the availability of competence and TCO, and as any other thing in this world, this coin has two sides as well.
If competence is scarce on one platform, but in-house for the other, it will most likely be cheaper for the corporation to install the platform they know, despite high starting cost, in contrary to perhaps recruiting and training new staff.
That's all very possible but if there's a bug in linux/BSD-software at least you know it will be fixed and it will be fixed soon. With Microsoft software you never know if they're gonna say ``That's a known bug, we'll fix it in a future release.'' A future release you'll have to pay for, again. Or install some servicepack and reboot once more.
Very true, but patching *NIX on a mission-critical server is not the task you'd throw at a typical windows point-and-click administrator more than maybe twice, so there we are back at the TCO again...
As much as I hate to give in on the anti-microsoft front, there simply are certain circumstances where linux is not a rational choice, be it deployment-wise or company-wise.
As I see it, the same thing is happening in operating systems as happened in hardware a decade ago, when the world decided not to go with the S-100 bus, but instead to choose the ( much inferior in fact :) IBM PC. This transfer WILL take place, but not by yelling how bad Microsoft must be or by pointing left and right at faults in their software. The transfer will take place by writing good software, and by making that good software available and VISIBLE to the world.
Remember - every harsh work ABOUT Microsoft is another advertisment FOR their existance, and thus in their favour.
All in all, this anti-microsoft pro-anythingelse fight has led to what may seem to become a large-scale war between Microsoft on one side, and unhappy windows users on the other. Probably not wat was intended, as the "normal" user ends up being the casualty....
In what way has fighting against the Microsoft monopoly led to normal users being casualties?
It leads to uncertainty, confusion, and frustration. I have seen many examples of this, and the storm usually doesn't clear until the user has become advanced enough to make a sound choice based on his/hers own knowledge of the choices available.
-tosi
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Tor has a point about the users. If I threw Linux at my mom I'd end up creating a die hard windows advocate. However, in my case I was trained in the sciences and therefore I was taught to be extremely analytical and how to find my own sources of info. I have to admit that I debated trying Linux for about a year because I was intimidated. Now that I have had some experience with the OS I have become pretty comfortable with it. Also, I have learned so much more about computing using Linux when compared to what I've learned using M$ products. The bottom line for the users is to use what is productive and gets you to accomplish what you need. If your just checking email and a little word processing then either systems will do. But if your a novice and want to install a lot of 3rd party software without having to know about "/configure, make, make-install then Linux is not for you. I do believe that giving the rate of development that LInux will become a viable desktop system. But for the present I think that the focus the Linux community is putting on high-end servers and commerce developments is the right route to go. On a more genuflex side of things I am extremely happy with the SuSE because A) from my limited experience it has been both stable and usable, and B) the Linux mailing list is the most useful resource I have found to date. Even the MadLUG (Madison users grp) that's run by the IT/Comp sci department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison hasn't been as helpful as this mailing list. Just a thought or two. Curtis :) On Friday 25 May 2001 05:46 pm, matthew johnson wrote:
Another thing I hate hearing (this line is especially aimed at SuSE by those annoying "I know it all" trolls that appear from time to time) is the line,"All these gui tools take away the task of the real admin and stop the newbie from learning". These is the other extreme. Gui's if they work make sys admin work a lot faster...And newbies can learn the general idea of what is needed/going on by the questions that it asks....
Matt
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Tor Sigurdsson wrote:
�ann f�studagur 25 ma� 2001 22:02 skrifa�ir ��:
From Tor Sigurdsson to Curtis Rey and suse-linux-e@suse.com about Re:
[SLE]...:
All in all, despite all horror stories, a truly competent NT system administrator can with a minimum amount of headache set up a NT server in such a way that the BSOD and frantic reboots are virtually unknown.
In the same way can an incompetent linux/bsd administrator set up a server that requires total attention all of the time.
The most important factors that should be looked at when putting together a mision critical system should always be the availability of competence and TCO, and as any other thing in this world, this coin has two sides as well.
If competence is scarce on one platform, but in-house for the other, it will most likely be cheaper for the corporation to install the platform they know, despite high starting cost, in contrary to perhaps recruiting and training new staff.
That's all very possible but if there's a bug in linux/BSD-software at least you know it will be fixed and it will be fixed soon. With Microsoft software you never know if they're gonna say ``That's a known bug, we'll fix it in a future release.'' A future release you'll have to pay for, again. Or install some servicepack and reboot once more.
Very true, but patching *NIX on a mission-critical server is not the task you'd throw at a typical windows point-and-click administrator more than maybe twice, so there we are back at the TCO again...
As much as I hate to give in on the anti-microsoft front, there simply are certain circumstances where linux is not a rational choice, be it deployment-wise or company-wise.
As I see it, the same thing is happening in operating systems as happened in hardware a decade ago, when the world decided not to go with the S-100 bus, but instead to choose the ( much inferior in fact :) IBM PC. This transfer WILL take place, but not by yelling how bad Microsoft must be or by pointing left and right at faults in their software. The transfer will take place by writing good software, and by making that good software available and VISIBLE to the world.
Remember - every harsh work ABOUT Microsoft is another advertisment FOR their existance, and thus in their favour.
All in all, this anti-microsoft pro-anythingelse fight has led to what may seem to become a large-scale war between Microsoft on one side, and unhappy windows users on the other. Probably not wat was intended, as the "normal" user ends up being the casualty....
In what way has fighting against the Microsoft monopoly led to normal users being casualties?
It leads to uncertainty, confusion, and frustration. I have seen many examples of this, and the storm usually doesn't clear until the user has become advanced enough to make a sound choice based on his/hers own knowledge of the choices available.
-tosi
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com
From Tor Sigurdsson to dieter and suse-linux-e@suse.com about Re: [SLE]...:
Very true, but patching *NIX on a mission-critical server is not the task you'd throw at a typical windows point-and-click administrator more than maybe twice, so there we are back at the TCO again... I'm not so sure about that, is it far more difficult to let's say install a fixed rpm with SuSE than to point and click on the right image in windows?
As I see it, the same thing is happening in operating systems as happened in hardware a decade ago, when the world decided not to go with the S-100 bus, but instead to choose the ( much inferior in fact :) IBM PC. This transfer WILL take place, but not by yelling how bad Microsoft must be or by pointing left and right at faults in their software. The transfer will take place by writing good software, and by making that good software available and VISIBLE to the world. That's why I never yell how bad microsoft is and instead make comparisons between their systems and others. And to be honest, I don't even do that anymore. I just listen to people complaining how irrational their winpc is and then I smile and say "What can I say" and then they already know what I think.
Remember - every harsh work ABOUT Microsoft is another advertisment FOR their existance, and thus in their favour. But I guess that it isn't very harmful on this list. :)
It leads to uncertainty, confusion, and frustration. I have seen many examples of this, and the storm usually doesn't clear until the user has become advanced enough to make a sound choice based on his/hers own knowledge of the choices available.
On one hand you're very right and many people aren't indeed ready for using linux or something else than windows. But I think that's the way linux grows. I am using linux since a year and a half and then I also didn't find it very user friendly. (Although I liked it from the beginning) But I think a lot has changed and anybody could work with linux. And I don't think that typing ./configure, make and make install will stop anybody from finding linux a user friendly operating system. That is, if they're not already used to windows and maybe spent a great deal of time learning it. I'm, together with some other students, admin of 4 computerrooms. We powered 2 of them with linux about a year ago. In the beginning people (even informatics students !) came complaining that they had to work with 'exotic' OS'es. But this year I have seen more and more people switch from the windows rooms to the linux rooms, and not only informatics students. There's also some project to let foreigners study at the university and a lot of them never used a computer before. I can assure you that most of them prefer linux to work with. We don't have to throw windows at Curtis' mother :) but I don't care confusing people if that is what choice does to them. -- dieter
On Saturday 26 May 2001 03:14 am, dieter wrote:
From Tor Sigurdsson to dieter and suse-linux-e@suse.com about Re: [SLE]...:
Very true, but patching *NIX on a mission-critical server is not the task you'd throw at a typical windows point-and-click administrator more than maybe twice, so there we are back at the TCO again...
I'm not so sure about that, is it far more difficult to let's say install a fixed rpm with SuSE than to point and click on the right image in windows?
As I see it, the same thing is happening in operating systems as happened in hardware a decade ago, when the world decided not to go with the S-100 bus, but instead to choose the ( much inferior in fact :) IBM PC. This transfer WILL take place, but not by yelling how bad Microsoft must be or by pointing left and right at faults in their software. The transfer will take place by writing good software, and by making that good software available and VISIBLE to the world.
That's why I never yell how bad microsoft is and instead make comparisons between their systems and others. And to be honest, I don't even do that anymore. I just listen to people complaining how irrational their winpc is and then I smile and say "What can I say" and then they already know what I think.
Remember - every harsh work ABOUT Microsoft is another advertisment FOR their existance, and thus in their favour.
But I guess that it isn't very harmful on this list. :)
It leads to uncertainty, confusion, and frustration. I have seen many examples of this, and the storm usually doesn't clear until the user has become advanced enough to make a sound choice based on his/hers own knowledge of the choices available.
On one hand you're very right and many people aren't indeed ready for using linux or something else than windows. But I think that's the way linux grows. I am using linux since a year and a half and then I also didn't find it very user friendly. (Although I liked it from the beginning) But I think a lot has changed and anybody could work with linux. And I don't think that typing ./configure, make and make install will stop anybody from finding linux a user friendly operating system. That is, if they're not already used to windows and maybe spent a great deal of time learning it. I'm, together with some other students, admin of 4 computerrooms. We powered 2 of them with linux about a year ago. In the beginning people (even informatics students !) came complaining that they had to work with 'exotic' OS'es. But this year I have seen more and more people switch from the windows rooms to the linux rooms, and not only informatics students. There's also some project to let foreigners study at the university and a lot of them never used a computer before. I can assure you that most of them prefer linux to work with. We don't have to throw windows at Curtis' mother :) but I don't care confusing people if that is what choice does to them.
You have an excellent point relating to the "students" becoming comfortable with Linux. I just wrote a short letter to Dell in regards to their statement that Linux is too technical. The jist of the letter basically points out what you are saying. That many new computer users and those of a younger generation will find it no more difficult to learn on Linux than on an MS OS. I also pointed out the OSX for Macs is a Unix based system and that, being a cousin of the Linux OS, is evidence that A) a user friendly form of Linux is very doable, and B) that anyone that becomes used to using OSX would find it fairly easy to switch to LInux, especially when referring to Carbonized programs and the command line in Mac.
participants (6)
-
Curtis Rey -
dieter -
Fred A. Miller -
Jeffrey Taylor -
matthew johnson -
Tor Sigurdsson