Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
Serious question for WIN advocates
voidmain:
Oh, so you are telling me that M$ still supports Windows NT? It wasn't that long ago that we got our entire corporation migrated entirely to NT and NT domain structure, then they dropped support for NT4 and now they tell us we should switch to AD which causes an "upgrade" to Windows 2000, that we didn't "need". How long will that support last?
Now they come out with Licensing 6.0, oh I get to pay M$ every year for stuff that I don't need. Why do I have to upgrade Office every year? Why do I need to upgrade to Office 95 when Office 6.0 did everything I needed. Why do I now have to upgrade to Office 97 when Office 95 was working so well for me? Why do I need to upgrade to Office 2000 when Office 97 did everything I needed. Why do I need to upgrade to Office XP when Office 2000 was working so well for me. Why Because M$ is a corporate money sucking machine and they intentionally produce software that is intended to make it nearly impossible to stick with previous versions, then increase the price exponentially.
Do you realize how much this costs us to upgrade every time M$ farts out a new product on a 6,000 node network? If their products are so good, then why do I need to "upgrade" so often? Sounds like there must be major room for improvement. Do you think XP is where it all ends? Now they have the "perfect" OS? Heh heh, it'll be obsolote in a year or two. .NET? No thanks. From day one M$ has built their money train on being incompatible not only with other operating systems, but with their own. Not by accident, and not for technical reasons. The reasons are pure greed.
Why is it that I have to purchase virus software for all machines on my corporate network and virus software for all of my Exchange servers, which only stops the "known" viruses by the way? Why is it that Microsoft after how many years of pumping out operating systems still hasn't been able to lick that "little" problem of being massively susceptible to viruses, not only in their operating systems but within their applications? I frankly have better things to do with my time than constantly wiping out viruses and recovering from a Melissa or I-LOVE-YOU variant.
Now, I want to write an application in VB or C++. Hmmm, I don't find a compiler included with my operating system. What? I have to pay for development tools which are going to create applications that will help further the spread of Windows? Nah, I'll pick an OS that comes with all the development tools imaginable.
Now I want to build a database driven web server. Hmm, I have to buy a copy of Win2K and SQL Server and what is this going to set me back for licensing to have an Internet connected SQL Server that anybody on earth can connect to? Nah, I think I'll pick an OS where all of this stuff is included, and at no charge.
Hmmm, I don't like the way this application works because of this simple little item. Hmmm, if only I had the source code I could change it. What? No source code? Nah, I'll stick with an Open system.
It seems you have an extremely small taste of UNIX by using DNS. Now why don't you take a few more steps and try some other things. Maybe get a copy of RedHat 7.3 and buy a book or two (not that they are necessary with all of the information on-line).
[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
www.unixsucks.com:
Well again I'm not analyzing TCO of owning Windows and *NIX. I was talking purely from technical aspects.
.NET Framework comes with compilers for c# and VB.NET, you can have Perl.NET as well. And it's free. Of course you can buy VS.NET but it's optional.
Can you explain me why would I want to explore more of *NIX?
So say I have business out there which wants simplicity and power at the same time. I would install Win2000, and use it for all their needs. it would serve well and it would take me 1 day at most to install it. Do I think I sound unreasonable?
Why would I want to spend 3 weeks on learning *NIX and then would achieve exactly the same result? What would be the advantage for me or for that business? Even if I would learn how to do the same stuff on *NIX in 3 weeks, how much time would it take me to teach some semi-educated admin at that business to learn *NIX, another half a year?
voidmain:
Believe me, it will take you longer than 3 weeks to become proficient, just as it took you longer than 3 weeks to become proficient with M$ products. In fact 99% of all MCSEs I have ever met I wouldn't consider proficient with M$ operating systems. TCO is a *major* factor in selecting a product, you can't ignore it. And I could put forth the same questions to you about Windows that you put to me about *NIX or more specifically Linux. Why should I put forth the effort when Linux does everything I need? And then on top of it, have to pay for it, not only once, but for every machine I want to install Windows on, and then have to pay for upgrades once a year?
I have a side business where I do exactly what you are with Windows. I install Linux servers for companies. Most of my business comes from replacing Microsoft NT/2K/IIS servers with Linux/Apache. I also install Linux servers as a front-end to Microsoft exchange servers to do things like block viral attachments and spam. I also install Linux based network monitoring/paging servers that report the health of networks and servers (including M$ servers, UNIX servers, mainframes, etc), Linux based IDS (intrusion detection systems), install/configure/support firewalls and Cisco routers.
Now you may find this hard to believe but we also provide trouble-shooting support for NT, 2K, Metaframe, and Citrix servers/networks. I am finding that when there is an equal or better Linux solution people are turning to it. Not only is the TCO lower, but it is easier on both them and me. More customizable, no licensing hassles, no visits from the Microsoft auditors, lower TCO, life is good. And every day Microsoft becomes less and less relevent. Maybe you should start learning so you still have a job in a few years (unless you prefer to flip burgers, but the world needs burger flippers).
[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
www.unixsucks.com:
I have not said that it would take me 3 weeks to become proficient (read postings properly), I said that it would take me 3 weeks to install all *NIX workshop as opposed to Windows.
I don't see any data supporting that Windows loosing ground so I'm not sure why would you think that I would be unemployed. You have exactly the same chances as me.
So do we agree that from tecnnical standpoint of view there is no advantage of using *NIX, if not then please gimme examples.
And to that dumbass which posted article before here who told that his c++ program runs 3x faster on Linux then on Windows. Please give me some credit about my IQ. Even without being even close technical I would make assumption that all programs written for Linux are 3x faster then the same one for Windows since c++ performs 3x better there. Do you have any prove for ANY commercial product? I have - www.tpc.org, go and find you *NIXes there.
voidmain:
I have not said that it would take me 3 weeks to become proficient (read postings properly), I said that it would take me 3 weeks to install all *NIX workshop as opposed to Windows.
Now you are just being silly. I can do from scratch Linux installs 10 times faster than you can install a Windows shop. And for say 2 servers, and 50 clients from scratch it would take less than a day.
I don't see any data supporting that Windows loosing ground so I'm not sure why would you think that I would be unemployed.
Then you are blind and haven't been keeping up with the news....
You have exactly the same chances as me.
Not quite, you are only proficient in Windows (even that is up in the air). I am equally proficient in both Windows and *NIX (Linux, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, BSD). So I say that gives me an advantage.
So do we agree that from tecnnical standpoint of view there is no advantage of using *NIX, if not then please gimme examples.
Now why would I agree to something so outrageous as that? Windows has never come even close to being as robust as UNIX. Well, it get's a little closer every time they steal more BSD code for their operating system, but the gap is still bigger than the Grand Canyon. Read back through some of the old posts on this forum. I hate to repeat myself.
And to that dumbass which posted article before here who told that his c++ program runs 3x faster on Linux then on Windows. Please give me some credit about my IQ. Even without being even close technical I would make assumption that all programs written for Linux are 3x faster then the same one for Windows since c++ performs 3x better there.
Now I would agree with you there (no offence X11). Using equal hardware, equal compilers, equal optimizations they should be roughly the same speed, depending on the nature of the task, of course I could always write a program that was intentionally biased:
--- Code: ---
--- End code ---
[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version