[ale] Linux SuSe vs Windows 2000 Server

[Laurie Anderson]

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
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