[ale] Linux SuSe vs Windows 2000 Server

[Jeff Hubbs]

You're very welcome, Laurie; this is kind of what we do.  

Remember that with Linux, fear of the unknown is very easy to
steamroller - the barriers to entry are very low.

- Jeff

On Sat, 2003-03-08 at 12:09, Laurie Anderson wrote:
> Jeff,  thank you for replying to my query.  I am leaning toward Linux but am
> not all that savvy so hesitant.  I will have to rely on a dear friend's
> assitance.  It's the fear of the unknown that would prevent me from using
> Linux and the challenge of the unknown that draws me to Linux.  I am very
> appreciative of the time you (and others) took to answer my question.  Wow!
> I didn't expect such well thought out and time consuming responses.  I think
> the Linux community is incredibly supportive of one another.
> Again, thank you,
> 
> Laurie
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <hbbs at attbi.com>
> To: <ale at ale.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [ale] Linux SuSe vs Windows 2000 Server
> 
> 
> > To a great extent, Geoffrey's sentiments echo mine.
> >
> > Laurie, one thing about me that you should probably know about me when
> > evaluating anything I have to say about Linux-vs.-Microsoft decisions is
> that I
> > was once a *BIG* Microsoft booster.
> >
> > I started my career working with VAX/VMS systems, first as a software
> engineer
> > and then as a system administrator.  As far as home computers go, I
> started with
> > a mere Sinclair and I picked up an Amiga 1000 in late 1986.  That last
> detail is
> > important in that unlike the Apples, Ataris, and IBM PCs of the day, the
> Amiga
> > ran an honest-to-goodness multitasking OS with a surprisingly capable
> > interprocess communication capability and a windowing GUI.
> >
> > From that standpoint (i.e., VMS and Amiga), Win3.1 machines appeared a
> little
> > bit crude, but when WinNT came out, what I perceived was an OS that was
> almost a
> > spiritual combination of both VMS (this is no accident) and AmigaDOS for
> Intel
> > hardware.  I had a production NT Server system running in 1995 when I was
> > working for the US Department of Energy.  I built and bought a
> progressively
> > heftier series of NT servers and workstations and by the time I left, I
> had
> > created an NT-based infrastructure that supported an entire DOE field
> office.
> >
> > I should also add that WinNT pretty much filled the feature set of Banyan
> VINES,
> > a network server OS that I had worked with extensively in the early 1990s.
> >
> > During that time, I knew Linux existed but it wasn't until the mnnths
> before I
> > left that I really started to care.  I had become closely associated with
> WinNT
> > and had done all kinds of things with it - videoconferencing servers,
> > multimedia, RDBMS, vertical-market client-server apps - but I was starting
> to
> > get disillusioned.
> >
> > Running and working with VAXen, when you got into a jam, you called DEC
> tech
> > support and people who were sharp as a tack would be on the line iwth you
> in a
> > couple of minutes.  Get into a jam with NT, and MS would prefer to send
> you to
> > your hardware vendor (what if you built your own server?).  Hardware
> vendors
> > tended to be ineffectual and ineffective, which bugged me to no end.
> However,
> > what bugged me even more was MS' even more standoffish attitude, as though
> their
> > attitude about things like hardware drivers were "release and forget;"
> something
> > about your problem might show up in the Knowledge Base or maybe not, and
> in any
> > case, hardly anyone seemed to be able to actually help you with a problem
> and
> > you couldn't even *buy* your way out of that.
> >
> > The perception I had had of MS being a benevolent force that was going to
> lead
> > us away from six-digit mainframe support costs began to curdle.  I began
> to see
> > non-standard ways of doing what had been standard things (DNS/WINS,
> IP/NetBEUI)
> > and a seeming rejection of "fitting in" with enterprise networks (although
> > certain pieces were friendlier, like printing to LPD printers).
> >
> > Fast-forwarding to the present day, I know too much to ever recommend an
> all-MS
> > enterprise IT infrastructure with a clear conscience, and that's *without*
> > taking into consideration that MS has been twice convicted in the US
> courts of
> > running an illegal monopoly and aiming its giant cash gun wherever it
> needs to
> > even today (witness their attempts to bribe the Indian government away
> from Linux).
> >
> > I do not see Linux as being THE answer; I think that the BSDs deserve
> notice and
> > consideration as well.  But, more to the point, I have come to see the
> value of
> > the whole Open Source Software concept, regardless of exactly which OSses
> are in
> > play.
> >
> > Let me give you a real-world example (albeit one that never actually came
> to
> > fruition although the point is every bit as valid) that shows how this
> affects
> > me as an IT manager.  I was researching the design of a document image
> > management system that would have utilized very serious scanning
> hardware -
> > think high-end Fujitsu units.  And there would have had to have been a lot
> of
> > them, because the number of documents being scanned in one engagement
> would have
> > been on the order of 10^6.  Naturally, if you go buy one of those
> scanners,
> > you're going to get Windows drivers and some operating software on CD.
> >
> > Now, because I need these scanners and the computers that run them to be
> part of
> > a larger business operation, I might need to have some say-so over just
> what
> > it's like to run those scanners on a real job.  My scanner operators are
> likely
> > to be only "lightly skilled;" I need a lot of them and I don't want to
> have to
> > pay them a fortune or have to spend days training them.  Also, I want them
> to be
> > able to scan docs very quickly because I'd be paying them by the hour;
> having
> > them futz about with a mouse and a keyboard doesn't help my cause.
> >
> > At this point in my story, just look up the two roads that fork ahead, one
> Win
> > and one Lin, and think of what my life will be like on each.  For purpose
> of
> > argument, suppose that the scanner-model-specific driver in both cases
> (under
> > TWAIN for Win and under SANE for Lin) doesn't quite work right for what I
> need
> > (either buggy or doesn't behave like I need it to).
> >
> > The software that comes with the scanner with invariably be Windows-only
> and it
> > will make assumptions about the operator and his/her knowledge and
> capability
> > that may be at odds with my purposes.  Likewise, Linux' xsane app will do
> the
> > same thing.  BUT, what are my problem-solving paths foward?
> >
> >   Win:  Buy Win app devel tools/compiler; write new TWAIN front end
> >   Lin:  Use app devel tools/compiler already on hand; modify
> >         existing xsane
> >
> > Either way, I need good programmers.  However, the barriers to actually
> getting
> > work done the Lin way are far lower.  Suppose I don't even want to manage
> a
> > programmer (they consume all the Dew in the office anyway :) ); what do I
> do?
> >
> >   Win:  Call Japan to find out who you have to pay to get a modified
> >         TWAIN front end; you'll likely never speak with the programmers
> >         (not that they'd necessarily speak English); you'll have to pay
> >         whatever they quote you
> >   Lin:  Untar the xsane source code, get the programmer's name, call him
> >         up or e-mail him (could be a her, sue me), offer him $2500 to code
> >         up a list of changes
> >
> > Now, you tell me how you would rather conduct your working life!  In the
> Win
> > way, everything about the external relationships you have to transact
> within is
> > on the other party's terms (who you don't know and probably can't speak
> to) and
> > you have to pay them an awful lot to get them to raise their amount of
> caring
> > off of the zero peg.  In the Lin way, terms are arrived at mutually and to
> > *some* extent, the programmer is incentivized to do your bidding *just
> because
> > you are interested in his abilities and gave him a challenge*!  Add real
> money
> > to the equation and you're very likely to get what you need done!
> Personally,
> > I'd rather not go around, hat in hand, ready to be shaken down at every
> street
> > corner.
> >
> > Laurie, I can just about flat-out guarantee you that if you go the Linux
> route
> > instead of the Win2K route, even if you wind up in the same place
> functionally
> > speaking, you will know more, understand more, and be able to accomplish
> more at
> > the end of the day.  I also contend that your overall mental bandwidth
> will be
> > less directed at the OS and more directed at the apps you run on it and
> how you
> > can actually improve things at your place of work.
> >
> > I have a Linux/Samba file server at home that Just Works, much like others
> have
> > said.  Its uptime appears to be limited by its hardware (specifically,
> fans),
> > its electricity supply (it's on a UPS), and the need to move it between
> houses.
> >    It blows even large files (>500MB) around itself and other machines on
> the
> > network flawlessly, even though it's running ReiserFS from back when it
> was
> > considered a bit dodgy.  It's even using a crappy Gateway-2000-OEM Slot A
> > motherboard.  I've worked in business that didn't have an IT resource like
> this
> > available to it, and the box probably doesn't have quite $500 in parts in
> it.
> >
> > I can take other people's castoff here-just-take-it JUNK and create real
> working
> > business IT infrastructure out of it for no money.  I can make a print
> server
> > out of a 486 that isn't any worse in the job than a P4.  There are LOTS of
> > businesses that are just dumping server hardware with nice hot-swap disk
> bays
> > that can be refitted very easily.  If you work in a place that utilizes
> some
> > kind of sequential repetitive processing due to the nature of the
> business,
> > imagine being able to make a Mosix cluster out of JUNKERS that you can
> build and
> > expand for nearly no hardware cost.
> >
> > I could go on and on about aspects of the difference between working in
> WinWorld
> > and LinWorld but I hope you get my point.  It's not JUST the money and
> it's not
> > JUST the ethics - it's the ability to make choices and create what you
> need.
> > It's about not having the software being developed, released, and limited
> in
> > such a way to continually vacuum money out of your company (to the point
> where
> > that seems to be as much its purpose as anything else it's actually
> designed to
> > do).
> >
> > It's about having apps that seem to be a bit twittery on purpose.  Lots of
> > businesses create Access databases and inevitably seem to hit that wall
> where,
> > either due to its inherent limitations (usually having to do with locking)
> or
> > from being just plain buggy, a whole marketing machine awaits to take you
> to MS
> > SQL Server Win2K Server, and a suite of MS-only app design and deployment
> tools.
> >  It *serves MS' purposes* for Access to be limited and buggy; their
> customers
> > have to buy it ALL to move forward (Access included, which almost always
> would
> > have been bought and/or licensed PER SEAT as part of the $$$ MS Office
> suite).
> > Who wins?  Who loses?
> >
> > - Jeff
> > > Greg,
> > >
> > > I find your whole post quite appropriate and I thank you for providing,
> > > probably the most balanced input available on this list.  But.... :)
> > >
> > > I would suggest that one must consider the future and try and make a
> > > difference.  By continuing to invest in the Microsoft monopoly machine,
> > > we continue to reduce our own options.  We all must make the difficult
> > > choice to change the future.  To make it better.  To that end, I'd
> > > suggest that Linux is not only the best solution, but the only solution
> > > when the options are Linux or a Microsoft solution.  Grant it, if you
> > > have some hardware that is not supported by Linux, then you're pretty
> > > well stuck.  But, we should all build on the future.  Until we create a
> > > competitive environment in the world of computers, it won't happen.
> > > Microsoft certainly isn't going to do it, and they are in control.
> > >
> > > I never purchase any hardware anymore until I've done my research and
> > > verified that it will work with Linux.  That's not possible if you've
> > > already got the hardware in place as Laurie has indicated.  Still, I'd
> > > suggest that the last resort is a Microsoft solution.  And only then, if
> > > proper plans are made to migrate to a more open solution in the future.
> > >   Your systems environment is only going to get better and your options
> > > grow.  Something we don't have a lot of these days in a world with
> > > Microsoft....
> > >
> > >
> > > Laurie, take a long hard look at your decision.  Going with a Linux
> > > solution may well be more difficult to start with, but in the long run,
> > > you're going to be better off.  Going with a Microsoft solution is only
> > > going to continue to restrict your options and future.  Move in the
> > > direction of growth, not the restricted, costly solutions that are all
> > > Microsoft.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Until later: Geoffrey esoteric at 3times25.net
> > >
> > > The latest, most widespread virus?  Microsoft end user agreement.
> > > Think about it...
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ale mailing list
> > > Ale at ale.org
> > > http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ale mailing list
> > Ale at ale.org
> > http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale


_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale