Linux: Look before you Leap 196
juniorboy sent us JP Mogenthal's latest piece from Internetwork, this timing cautioning people about Linux and along the way tries to get at the root of why people are switching.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Linux: Look before you Leap
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. -- Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays", 1928
Re:Sigh. (Score:1)
Linux is Unix.
Re:Flipside (Score:1)
Look at Linux before you leap into a Linux article (Score:1)
Early in the piece he talks about why you have to be wary if your company adds a feature into the kenrel and that addition isn't accepted by the kernel team. Umm, how many companies add their own features to the NT kernel? So, really, wouldn't that point be moot?
He then goes on to say that, "Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition." First off, I have to ask, Is integration of every service into the OS a better value? From my experience... NO! I now have to challenge his little ditty about the number of supporters. From my experience as an MCSE there are lots and lots of NT servers out there because some office manager deems himself an NT guru because he can use Win95. Not because NT is a better product.
He then goes on to say, "...With Linux, these services will soon be available as a multivendor product." in regard to the inclusion of internet services with Linux. What? Is the guy downloading a kernel and booting it by itself? Purchase most any distribution and you get all of those services on the single CD.
"Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems." Yes, and thank goodness that Linux is still Unix. The Unix that I learned in College applied to Linux. I was wayward for a while. Pointing and clicking but never to my heart's content. I can administrate the "It's still Unix Linux" from any workstation on the network with telnet or ssh. That work station can be a PC running Windows 3.1, 95 et. al, a Mac or a real Unix workstation. The single most important benefit of Linux's Unix roots.
"Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these systems." I can counter that, With Windows of some sort on 99% of all PC sold hasn't brought a plethora of qualified NT admins... I'm in no way degrading real NT admins. I'm talking about the office managers types that I mentioned earlier. I don't have any trouble finding work install Linux servers to replace NT boxes.
Linux has less to offer? Again, I have to ask the question, Does this guy download a kernel and boot it by itself?
Some views (Score:1)
e-mail: dnp@gtemail.net
-----------------------------------------------
I could not help expressing my views after reading the
article titled "Look Before You Leap Into Linux Adoption"
by JP MORGENTHAL in the June 14, 1999 issue of INTERNETWEEK.
So here they are
> It seems I cannot pick up a paper these days without seeing
> Linux touted as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
There are bad and good reporting in ANY field and reports on
Linux are not exceptions. It seems the author came across
some articles that portrayed Linux as the "the greatest
thing since sliced bread" but I also hope the author took the
time to read the numerous well written and technically accurate
articles about this great operating system developed by highly
talented software developers who have shown great love for
what they do and not motivated by financial gain. Linux may not
be the "greatest thing since sliced bread" but it certainly is
a great software that is revolutionizing the software world
through a paradigm shift that makes softwares open, accessible,
and open to "peer review" which is the best quality control
there can be.
>
> reading these rave reviews, I can't help but think that most
> of this admiration is emerging from a revulsion to Microsoft
> Windows, as well as the relatively low cost for the Linux
> operating system compared with other versions of Unix.
Most of the reviews that I have come across do care to describe
the technical merits of Linux and why it is impressive. It is
only natural that the comparison to Microsoft's products are
made therein because Microsoft has a dominance of the desktop
market. But Linux is not great because it is better than
Microsoft's OS but it is great because it does very well what
an OS is supposed to do. I think there are very few non-Microsoft
OS that are technically not better than Microsoft Windows. So
being better than NT or Win98 is not really a big achievement.
However, Linux has shown the user community that there are
ECONOMICALLY SENSIBLE and TECHNOLOGICALLY SUPERIOR alternatives
to paying someone to make a well designed hardware display the
blue screen of death 27 times a day.
> But I think it's critical that we, as a community, keep a
> perspective on the impact of Linux for the following reasons.
>
> Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes to the
> kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that
> controls this portion of the operating system.
No - changes to LINUX kernel are NOT subject to review by a "small team"
but the kernel is open to review by ANYONE that walks on this planet
and who cares to review it! In fact, this is the strength of
open-source software. While it is true that a Linux kernel is
eventually approved by Linus Torvalds himself as a formal release
but he does not develop all the changes himself - developers from
all corners of the globe have been continously contributing,
directly or indirectly, towards the growth of the Linux kernel
and Linux applications. The author can review the kernel too,
if he wishes - he has free access to the whole kernel in source
form. And yes, he can contribute to the kernel development effort
too if he intends to.
>
> add features they need, but that are not accepted into the
> core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and
> retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is
> released.
If a company has to add "features they need", they CAN do it with
Linux but they CANNOT with any "closed" OS including those from
Microsoft's. Yes, there is a cost involved in maintaining the
custom changes if they are not incorporated in the kernel but
if these changes are needed, they can at least be done with LINUX
and other Open Source OS instead of praying that some vendor
someday listens and implements it in their OS. And what are the
chances of any vendor incorporating a feature into their OS if
it is a very unique and uncommon feature? Highly improbable.
> Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because
> Microsoft provides a better value proposition. Windows NT
> Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of
> Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging,
> database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux,
> these services will soon be available as a multivendor
> product.
Almost all LINUX distributions these days come with full TCP/IP
support, a rich set of Internet connectivity tools, web server,
ftp server, firewall etc. I personally see the availability of
multivendor products to be actually good for the consumer because
choice and competition push technology to higher standards while
keeping the cost down.
>
> with one another and the operating system's services, users
> may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate
> these components under Linux. The most critical of these
> integrations will be security and access control.
If I had to believe that Microsoft's products are superior because
they are "designed to work with one another and the operating
system's services", then I would not see my machine crash when
running Microsoft's own office suite under NT
OS like Linux, ANYONE can design application software to take
advantage of "operating system's services". It is not entirely
possible with Microsoft's operating systems because they have
been known to not disclose many features of the OS to developers.
My own experience has been that multiparty softwares (such as
Staroffice office suite, GIMP etc.) under LINUX are INFINITELY
MORE STABLE than running Microsoft's own software under NT.
> Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric
> multiprocessing. Without robust SMP, Linux servers can
> support only small companies and single applications.
I guess the author thinks of Burlington Coat Factory and
the Canadian Railways to be small companies!
> If you're managing multiple servers for increased scalability,
> you're better off using multiple NT servers all participating
> within the same domain.
I will give just one example to show tremendous scalability already
achievable under Linux. The incredible computer generated special
effects for the movie Titanic were rendered with a cluster of
LINUX machines each acting as a graphics server! They did consider
NT for the task but Linux won.
> Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons
> for Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and
> maintaining Unix operating systems.
Most system administrators (who maintain both UNIX and NT machines)
I have talked to are of the opinion that they spend a lot less time
administering the UNIX/Linux boxes than Window's machines. And the
reason for Windows growth inspite of its substandard quality
is not because it is less complex but because of Microsoft's
unfair business practices and the fact that vendors previously
would not sell machines with anything other than Windows
preinstalled (even when OS/2 was a far better product). I have
seen people who had to reinstall Windows pull their hair in
frustration.
>
> version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically
> generate more people capable of managing and configuring these
> systems.
Most computer science students coming out of Universities are very
familiar with UNIX environment and now with LINUX becoming more
and more visible, the interest in UNIX is only going to grow. Besides,
LINUX system administration is getting easier and easier through
projects like KDE (www.kde.org) and GNOME (www.gnome.org). These are
already usable and improving fast.
> Linux is a college student's project gone astray.
Sometimes it is better to acknowledge the brilliance of a college
student instead of being jealous! Linux is not a project "gone
astray" but it is a symbol of global cooperation, democracy,
freedom, and brilliance! It is a shame that Microsoft, even
with its Billions of Dollars, can't produce an OS that is
even comparable to Linux in terms of stability and quality.
>
> that will be supported by Sun Microsystems and IBM on its
> hardware will fall far short of each of these company's own
> Unix operating systems in features and capabilities.
Some specifics would have been nice!
>
> responsible for operating system selection in your company, be
> wary of the Linux play.
The well informed does not have to be wary of Linux - they embrace
Linux with great enthusiasm and experience the gain in productivity
right away. And they don't waste their money on Windows either.
>
> Windows, just give me more than what Microsoft has to
> offer-not less.
Need more than what Microsoft has to offer? How about rock solid
stability that puts NT to shame; a 64 bit OS now (not in year 3000);
a far better technical support from global Linux community online;
access to full source code without any hidden special features;
cheaper than ANY of Microsoft's operating systems; built-in firewall
software; runs on more hardware than NT ever will; use significantly
less hardware resources; supports more file systems than NT can
dream of; and so on
> JP Morgenthal is president of NC.Focus, which provides
> strategic planning, analysis and consulting of application
> integration technologies. He can be reached at
> jp@ncfocus.com.
------------
Pranab Banerjee is a software consultant at Pasadena, California.
He can be reached at dnp@gtemail.net.
Here's why YOU should care about this FUD (Score:2)
At first I dismissed this as
the FUD you expect from the entrenched mass media who fear that Open Source will jeopordize their advertising revenue (how much as RH spent on marketing vs. MS?).
However, I checked out JP's company and YIKES!
The purpose of JP's company, NC Focus, is:
"Assisting companies to build systems faster, cheaper, & better!"
To do this JP's company provides the following service:
"We offer the best of the analyst and implementation consulting worlds. NC.Focus provides subscription-based research to keep companies updated on emerging tools and technologies. This research is written from the perspective of the customer implementing solutions today."
The company's web pages are almost free of references to Bill gates many products, instead extolling the virtues of Java, XML, COBRA, etc.
Almost sounds like the perfect home for Unix, Linux or FreeBSD, eh?
Given JP's internetweek column, I wonder what NC.Focus is it advising it's customers regarding Linux?
Executive Profile
JP Morgenthal,CEO & Director, Research
JP Morgenthal has been involved with the computer industry since 1986. He successfully ran his own software consulting practice from 1994 through 1996 when he transitioned to become one of the leading analysts covering the middleware and distributed computing market.
Morgenthal is a recognized leader in the industry. Over his career, he has acted in the roles of developer, educator, author, analyst, columnist and conference chairperson. Most recently Morgenthal was named the Vice-Chairperson of the Enterprise Integration Council, a new collaborative effort developed to assist companies navigate the onrush of new technologies in the Enterprise Application Integration space. He has also been named chair of the XML Working Group for ACORD-a group delivering standards for the insurances industry.
In addition to being Director of Research, Morgenthal provides high-level strategic consulting on corporate IT directions regarding E-Commerce, ERP, supply-chain integration, and data architecture.
Morgenthal has a very strong technical background. He has over a decade of experience designing and implementing distributed applications for the banking & finance, brokerage, computer software, and manufacturing industries. Throughout his years of experience, Mr. Morgenthal has implemented and researched most of the major distributed computing technologies including: TCP/IP, DCE, CORBA, COM/DCOM, XML, Java & Web/Internet. He is considered an authority on enterprise application integration technologies, such as directory services, security, distributed file systems, asynchronous messaging, and database middleware.
Publishing this is illegal in America (Score:4)
-- not anonymous, my company's firewall is just really annoying. nosilA (alison@andrew.cmu.edu)
LOL! (Score:1)
Re:Monday (Score:1)
Re:Publishing this is illegal in America (Score:1)
Re:Publishing this is illegal in America (Score:1)
He may have started it as an undergraduate - I'm not sure of the exact details.
Re:Publishing this is illegal in America (Score:1)
Yet in the past six months or so, I keep reading more and more articles claiming he was a grad student, Linux was a student project, Linux was a PhD thesis, and so on.
What are the facts?
audience and context (Score:1)
Without getting into whether JPM is an idiot etc. (which has already been well covered in other posts)...it's worth considering where, for whom and in what context this article was posted. InternetWeek is primarily written for corporate IT generalists and non-IT business managers. The article was posted in the "Grey Matter" section (advice and editorials, not "objective" news).
For this audience, these issues in the article are appropriate (regardless of whether they are accurate in this instance!): linux is a different animal from the usual corp/capitalist model. So there's a need for ongoing debate and education about it.
Remember the tech adopter curve from Crossing the Chasm: mainstream corporate adopters do NOT pick up new/leading edge tech, they wait until it has become (is perceived to be) industry standard. Corp IT types do this not because they're stupid, but because they know that you don't last long in the corp world if you're perceived as being too "out there" (ie putting the business at risk).
FYI there was a much more positive article on linux a month or so back in Internetworld ("Open Source: What's Next for Linux"), so having an opposing view may also be perceived as good journalism. Again, I'm NOT endorsing this article, just commenting on bigger picture issues.
Re:Linux users query (Score:1)
I'm a writer in Washington, D.C., working on a piece about Linux. Are there any network administrators/IT/MIS types who might be able to answer a few questions? I want to know what you use Linux for, what effect recent support of Linux by folks at IBM and HP, etc will have, what kind of businesses will benefit from widespread Linux use, etc.
WHat are the strengths of Linux (Score:1)
versus UNIX or NT? How about weaknesses?
tx diana
Re:Look Before You Leap (Score:1)
Haha, we should create a parody page for people to post replies like this
Agreed. (Score:1)
A long time ago, some author wrote, "You can't throw an apple out of a window without hitting a college student that has Linux experience." They're right. There's a crop of budding sysadmins out there. While most of us are still stuck in college, just watch out in 2-3 years. I have a feeling a lot of us could blow away any MSCE. (Or at least I hope I have that ability, and I've only finished my freshman year.)
He Must not keep up with Unix... (Score:1)
This story is pretty typical of a window users point of view. Shouldn't these people be worried that they spent too much of their life learning one Operating system.
10 minutes to set up ppp ?????? (Score:1)
Regain conciousness
stuff
What to do
point#pppsetup
Fill in boxes
point#pppgo
A surfin' we will go.
Thats a Slakware ppp setup, the evil user hating
distribution.
How long does Red Hat take anyone. Hell I'm old
I could hurt myself doin' all that pointin' and
clicken' trying to get NT to connect
CC
Re:The wrongest thing (OS Comfort Level) (Score:1)
Exactly. This is the fear that's driving the anti-Unix/Linux camp. When people learn the basics of Linux,they are also pretty much learning the basics of Unix and saying to themselves,"Hey you know something? Unix isn't as hard or as bad as lot of people has made it out to be".
Linux has revived interest in Unix again and this can be nothing but a good thing for the future of us all.
Not based on Minix at all was Re:Sigh. (Score:2)
I love the FUD about source forking. (Score:2)
Lovely argument there, eh? It's not enough to have free OS code that you can customize, the hackers who wrote it must also step aside and stop working on it so that they don't break customized, unreleased versions of the software maintained by your shop!
Nobody forces you to use the latest kernel. Moreover, if you obey the major interfaces within the kernel, your code will remain compatible. If you upgrade to a new kernel, you have to re-test and possibly change your code. This is no different than if you were doing application level coding in any operating system. If you develop, say, a middleware service application for NT, you have to re-test everything if you decide to support the lastest service pack.
I recently upgraded the Mobitex radio modem driver from supporting only the 2.0.x kernels to 2.2.x. It was pretty easy despite the quantum leap in kernel revisions. Some of the network driver interfaces had changed---for the better, I might add. Adapting the code made some of it it simpler and cleaner. The only real sneaky thing was that the tty line discipline receive callback can now be run in a true interrupt context right from the underlying serial driver, rather than as a mere bottom half callback! So the reentrancy assumptions in the driver had to be re-evaluated, and stricter locking had to be put in (at which point I went straight to using the new SMP friendly spin locks). So most of the porting issues were caught at compile time, and the rest by prudent code re-reading and re-evaluating of old assumptions.
But we are talking about a serious jump between major release series, not from one version to the next within a series. Incrementally supporting successive kernel releases tends to be trivial. Being a responsible developer means that of course you redo all of your usual test cases before approving the software as working with a given kernel, and you document which kernels it was tested with with.
In the case of unreleased in-house changes, it's even easier because you don't owe it to any outside users to support a variety of kernels. You can simply pick a kernel and stick with that for a while as a matter of internal policy.
If you are working on modifying some area of the kernel that is also being ``churned'' by the main developers, and you want them do to certain things your way, then you have to communicate and resolve the issues. Chances are that they won't listen to you if the issues are related to proprietary modifications that aren't being released back into the community. Well doh!
How anyone can twist availabily of source code into a FUD argument against Linux is beyond me. If you don't like the churning, don't stop for drinks at the Kernel of the Week club on the way home every Friday night. Have a prudent roadmap for upgrades.
This fruitcake disgusts me. I have no respect for people who parrot other people's FUD without understanding what they are talking about.
I see no evidence that this dude knows anything about operatng systems internals, and I doubt that he has ever written a line of kernel code. I also don't believe that he has any experience maintaining custom patches against a code base whose mainstream releases are controlled by someone else.
So when he writes that rapid kernel development is a problem for people who maintain modifications, it must be taken with a sizeable crystal of salt. Ditto when he says this or that about Linux SMP; he just heard it from someone, who in turn heard it from someone else, and so on
Re:This guy is a fruitcake (Score:1)
There are LDAP PAM modules so that you can use LDAP for authentication, as well as NISLDAP gateways.
I'm not at home, so I don't have any URLs, but I plan on trying to set up an integrated authentication/security system this fall at school.
Speaking of NIS+, I think that glibc2.1 has support for it, making it easier to configure. There is a server for Linux, but I'm not sure how stable it is (still beta, AFAIK).
Look Before You Leap (Score:5)
Into Linux Adoption
JP MORGEN-THRALL
June 14, 1999
It seems I cannot read these days. I'm often seeing Linux touted as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Upon reading these rave reviews, I can't think. Most of this admiration is lost on me because I only know Microsoft Windows, as well as the relatively low IQ I have.
But I think it's critical that we, as a community, keep a perspective on the impact of Linux for the following reasons.
Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes are subject to review and approval by people. Companies that add features to the kernel, and then change to a different version will have to change the version, in much the same way as if you do something, you may actually do it.
Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because I love pointy-clicky things. Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition has many fun things that I think come as standard because I never pay for them myself. I haven't a clue what comes with Linux, and I'm too lazy to find out, so I'll just make something up. Whereas Microsoft's products are buggy and barely usable, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux, most of which I spent working out how to get the | symbol on this keyboard. The most critical of these integrations will be security and access control. I have no idea what this means, but it sounds impressive, yeah?
Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing. Huh huh-huh...I said retrofitted! Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies and run a single application (honest!). If you're running NT you'll be required to manage multiple servers for increased downtime, and you're better off using an abacus.
Also, remember that Linux is still not Windows. One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of obtaining a computer without it. Simply because a low-cost alternative is now available, it does not automatically generate more revenue for Microsoft.
Linux is a college student's project gone astray. There are pornographic pictures embedded in the kernel, and it drinks all your beer before throwing up on your brand new carpet. The version that will be supported by Sun Microsystems and IBM on its hardware will fall far short of each of these company's own Unix operating systems in marketing and hype. If you're responsible for operating system selection in your company, be wary of the Linux play. Hey, I'm all for a competitor to Windows, just make sure it's not a serious one.
JP Morgen-Thrall is president of NC.Focus, which provides strategic planning, analysis and psychic predictions of application integration technologies. He can be reached at jp@ncfocus.com.
dylan_-
--
Re:He's right, you know (Score:2)
You may be talking about desktop issues, which is perfectly valid. But remember that Linux is just now starting to provide comprehensive "idiot desktop" software. We do have a bit of catching up to do in this area - something we're rapidly doing. But if you look at the tried-and-true server issues - Web serving, dialup serving, file/print, DHCP/DNS, mail - you find that they have quite satisfactory stability.
The same with your criticism of the PPP setup. Again, *easy* PPP setup is still a bit new. Before, we all were good enough hackers to not mind the extra setup.
Now, most of the technical criticism directed at NT from the Linux crowd centers on several issues where Linux does have the advantage:
- Speed.
- Stability.
- Flexibility.
As it just so happens, these tend to be server issues more than workstation issues. I personally think it's a pain when my Windows workstation at work crashes, and I long for my Linux desktop at home; however, when my NT Server crashes, I'd consider that more than just a "pain".
I think most of us will admit that Windows has us beat on usability - today. Considering the rapid rate of advancement we've been seeing, combined with Windows' inertia, I'm sure we'll be caught up soon.
Meanwhile, there are still many things we can beat up on Windows for.
ObRelevance: Besides, most of this Morgenthal's criticisms are still off base. Some of them are demonstably wrong - the integrated list of bundled services in NT EE comes to mind, along with the assertion that none of that comes with Linux - and others are criticisms of strengths, such as the slam on its development model.
He's right, you know (Score:2)
Everyone talks about open-source and stability as if it's the end-all be-all of the OS market. Guess what, Linux the operating system may be stable, but even with good administration, most of the apps aren't. What good is an operating system to a company if its programs have to be continually restarted? WinNT's instability can be overcome with even moderately good system administration; it's all a matter of how the system is run. I chatted with a customer of ours the other day who runs WinNT exclusively because its cheaper. Why is it cheaper? Because its easier to use, maintain, and runs on almost anything their Intel-based systems can offer. Linux, on the other hand, he said, costs them more to maintain because they have to pay for compilations, extensive management, and the repeated solving of problems given by the apps. And, he says, they get much better support from Microsoft.
Part of Slashdot's (and the Linux community's in general) problem with articles like these is that they conflict with the ego created by Linus' "world domination" speeches. We tend to get so full of ourselves because we feel we're using an inherently better operating system than our competitor and when someone attacks that notion (and this article did it rather succinctly and not maliciously) we ignore what they're actually saying and start attacking the attacker.
Get off your high horse! I've been off mine for a while. When it takes me an hour to setup a reasonably hassle-free way to form a PPP connection on my Linux box and it takes me roughly 10 minutes to do the same on my Windows box, I can literally see the problem areas of Linux and why using it could be more expensive than using a Windows alternatives. Learning curves cost money, too. It's not all about free software and it's not all about open-source in the corporate world. To think thus is to put the same blinders that prevent looking at alternatives in the first place.
Re:He's right, you know-->No, he's not (Score:2)
And regarding programs, yes, some programs stay up for six months or longer on Linux. Big deal, some Windows stations stay up for that long as well. My point is that a lot of programs that Linux is counting on to provide the same services as Windows aren't up to speed yet, but advocates are pointing to them saying, "See, we have this and we have this." GNOME is the perfect example. I stopped running GNOME, not because I didn't like it (I really did), but it simply crashed too much, even after version 1.0.6. I don't want my GUI crashing on my when I use it. KDE didn't fair much better. If I had been in a mission-critical situation, I'd have been pissed. Not only that, my support options would've been limited. I would've had to pay someone to figure out the problem. Corporate produced software at least provides support and they have the incentive to make sure their product works properly, because people will buy it and they don't want to lose customers (or time to technical support).
People dismiss this as FUD. No, it's not FUD. It's FUD to you because it doesn't happen to you, but it's very real for a company evaluating Linux vs. NT. Their users are not going to be like you. They're going to be more like me, someone who taxes their system by screwing around with it, except that they're a) not going to know their doing it and b) not going to know how to fix it. Say what you will about NT, but it's stupid easy. Windows sells because it's stupid easy to use. You have no reason to go mess with permissions. You have no reason to go fscking with the internals. It works, and when it doesn't work, it tells you it doesn't work and gives you an easy out. When my GNOME panel crashes because it didn't like what I dropped on it or my kppp crashes because it didn't like failing with three different devices, it just disappears. That's not FUD. That's life.
I know how well Linux runs some apps and I know how poorly Linux runs some apps. The majority of stuff that I download is pretty poor code. Linux itself is rather nicely refined, but I would hate to rely on the programs that are available out there.
The author of the article, again, hit on some very good points. I've seen two people address them directly. Everyone else just cried, groaned, or tried to piss on him. I like Linux, too, but unlike some people, I'm not trying to build it up as something it's not.
Can you say FUD? (Score:1)
I wonder which community he could be referring to?
"Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that controls this portion of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released."
Belittle Linux by calling it a "project".
Has he ever heard of backward compatibility?
"Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition. Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be available as a multivendor product. Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux. The most critical of these integrations will be security and access control."
Stating the obvious with the "outnumber" thing.
"...better value proposition."?!? How does he arrive at that? Look at a copy of SuSE 6.1. What company offers more software with their product for the low price of $29.99 at Best Buy and FREE if you download it?
He makes it sound as though it's the Linux communities fault that MS apps won't integrate with Linux. Who says a "user" would want to integrate them anyway? Besides, who would want to rely on NT's security? (or lack thereof)
"Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing. Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies and single applications. If you're managing multiple servers for increased scalability, you're better off using multiple NT servers all participating within the same domain."
"...retrofitted..."? I suppose NT was "born" with it? Again with the belittlement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but NT is now more scalable than Linux right now. It doesn't even offer clustering right now (it's in "development").
"Also, remember that Linux is still Unix."
NOT!! Just because it has a command line interface and most of the commands are the same doesn't make it UNIX.
"Linux is a college student's project gone astray."
More belittlement. Astray is such a negative word.
"If you're responsible for operating system selection in your company, be wary of the Linux play."
"...be wary of Linux play."?!?
Need I say more. "play"?!? Come on. Give me a break guy! Just what we need, more FUD from the so-called mainstream press.
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Monoculture (Score:1)
I cannot think of any other Industry where this occurs (apart, perhaps, from the Kansas wheat fields). To take his argument to its conclusion, uou should only buy your computer hardware from Intel, and ensure that all your car parts are produced by Ford.
What he doesn't seem to realise is that open standards and open source mean that you can download or buy software that suits your requirements, not those of the company that supplies the software.
Speaking from Manchester. Where Whitworth's screw making machine meant that you could get nuts from one supplier and bolts from another and guarantee they would work together.
Schooled as a theif... (Score:1)
Re:This guy is a fruitcake (Score:1)
Sure, you can use NIS and NFS to have the same account on each of those 8 boxes with setting it up only once, but NIS is a security breach par excellence (speaking of passwords going round the Network uncrypted, every one can read the password map etc.)
You may try NIS+, which is far worse to install and maintain, but it is somewhat more secure - and there is no NIS+-Server for Linux.
But yes, you might check out OpenLDAP and Coda as a Filesystem, but I don't see any Coda servers for Linux either.
So: If you only have trusted users in your network environment - go for NIS (and be sure, that noone from outside your network is allowed to NIS).
Ralph
E-Mail to JP. (Score:1)
I am a bit disappointed that your recent article contained several inaccuracies with respect to Linux. I'm sure other people will point them out too, so I will just pick out one that I have had personal experience with.
You wrote:
Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing. Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies and single applications.
Where I work, we have been using Linux multi-processors in a production environment for over two and a half years. Unless you are a geologist, this doesn't count as 'just beginning'. In fact, Linux is just FINISHING a re-working of the SMP system so it works better with higher numbers of processors.
Re:Morgenthal's Site Runs on Unix (Score:1)
www.internetwk.com is running Apache/1.3.4 (Unix) mod_perl/1.16 on Solaris specifically.
See for yourself [netcraft.com] or visit netcraft [netcraft.com] to check out other sites' identities.
replying to the author (Score:2)
Sir,
Your article posted on InternetWeek was poorly researched, and quite
inaccurate in most respects. Allow me to point out the deficiencies of
your half-hearted attempt at objective criticism.
"Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft
provides a better value proposition."
This, sir, is a most disingenuous statement. Windows supporters (by which
I presume you mean users) outnumber Linux supporters because Windows has
been the only OS in town for many years. Linux is younger than Windows,
and is fighting a legacy marketshare, not a quality-based one.
Microsoft's business tactics (as shown in the DOJ trial) do little else
but maintain this artificial market dominance which grew out of IBM's
initial market dominance of the PC market in the early eighties. It is
hardly because of proven product quality that Microsoft currently enjoys
the market share that it does.
"Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of
Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database,
transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be
available as a multivendor product."
In fact sir most, if not all, of these features are already available in
Linux and other free UNIXes, including the BSDs (I personally favor
FreeBSD). For Web services, Apache is readily available and comprises
over half of the webservers in existance(1). Further, proxy and firewall
services are already implemented in Linux and other *nixes, I myself have
set up a FreeBSD firewall on a network I manage. The capability is built
into the OS, it only requires a competent sysadmin. Messaging can be
taken care of in the form of Sendmail(2). For databases, Oracle has
release Oracle8 for Linux(3) and IBM has released DB2 v6.1 for Linux(4).
Surely these databases are strong enough for whatever a company needs.
"Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies and
single applications. If you're managing multiple servers for increased
scalability, you're better off using multiple NT servers all participating
within the same domain."
SMP support currently exists, as explained on the LinuxSMP site. "The
current ix86 kernel supports Intel MP v1.1 and Intel MP v1.4 compliant
motherboards with between 1 and 16 486/Pentium/Pentium Pro processors."(5)
Clustering can also take care of scaling issues, as the Beowulf project
website can tell you(6). While neither of these technologies are perhaps
completely mature yet, it is reasonable to consider that, given the growth
of Linux in the past four years of its eight year history alone, maturity
will be achieved in short order, perhaps a year or less.
As for your statement of Linux being worthy of only small-scale
operations, perhaps you would be wise to investigate the Linux in Business
website.(9)
"Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for Windows'
growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix
operating systems. Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now
available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of
managing and configuring these systems."
Actually, availabilty of low-cost versions of UNIX (again, the BSDs are
available as is Linux) *does* in fact guarantee that more UNIX capable
people will be generated. It is a matter of availabilty that has kept the
number of UNIXphiles low. Previously, UNIX had been available only for
companies needing the robust and flexible nature of UNIX, and at Academia
in the computer departments and natural science departements. An entire
generation of nerds, technophiles, and engineers is now being exposed to
UNIX. This exposure will absolutely generate more capable people.
Teenagers are learning the joys of the UNIX world, people in college are
getting a chance to experience alternatives to Windows drudegery, and IT
people who would never have thought of using UNIX are trying it, and
liking it. Within a few years, the number of skilled UNIX workers will
have increased dramatically.
Furthermore, as I stated before, the reason for Window's "growth" has
simply been because of historical opportunity. Microsoft was at the right
place at the right time, and had an inside track. Namely Gates' mother
was on a charity board with one of IBM's top executive(7). DOS was the
defacto OS on IBM PCs, and then the clones. Windows was built on the DOS
empire, and NT was built upon that. Linux is inherently more stable, with
less downtime than NT, as exemplified by the following story from
Replacing WindowsNT with Linux(8).
"Life after moving Cats to NT was a nightmare. The system was crashing two
to three times a day with no reason that I could find. I was on the phone
with Microsoft and Cats constantly, but nobody could figure it out.
Microsoft had me apply Service Packs one through three and a few HotFixes,
which helped, but it still was crashing at least twice a week with the
infamous "Blue Screen of Death". After many weeks and about $1500.00 in
phone support from Microsoft, the technical support rep told me that I
should find a better software package than The Cat's Pajamas.
The only option left was to replace the server now and the only thing I
had was the Linux server, so I restored Cats off our Windows NT tape
backup machine to the Linux server and changed the login scripts to
connect the users to this server for the Cats drives. Within one hour, we
,were back in operation.
"After completing the morning duties, we normally run a complete Cats
backup before we continue with closing which usually would take two hours
to complete on the Netware server. The Linux machine was able to do the
entire backup in 45 minutes, cutting a little over an hour off our closing
time. This increase in speed came from a decrease in hardware because the
Linux server was running only 32 MB in RAM and IDE hard drives where the
Netware server had 64 MB in RAM and SCSI drives. The speed increase has
been noticed in daily work also. I get almost daily remarks that the
system seems to be running faster and more reliable."(8)
You may find further such case studies at the Linux in Business
website(9).
In conclusion, sir, I can only strongly suggest that you do more thorough
research before posting a comments such as you made as fact. To do
otherwise is irresponsible at best, and brazenly pernicious at worst. I
am sorely disappointed in the quality of your work, and the bias of your
opinion which I presume to be based on your "facts". I strongly recommend
that you post a correction to your story and perhaps even a retraction.
Certainly you owe it as a point of honor and integrity to correct your
errors.
1.)http://www.networkcomputing.com/1011/1011f13
2.)http://www.networkcomputing.com/1011/1011f12
3.)http://technet.oracle.com/tech/linux/index.h
4.)http://www.software.ibm.com/data/db2/linux/
5.)http://www.uk.linux.org/SMP/title.html
6.)http://www.beowulf.org/
7.)A&E's Biography series
8.)http://citv.unl.edu/linux/LinuxPresentation.
9.)http://www.bynari.com/collateral/case_studie
Re:He's right, you know-->No, he's not (Score:1)
What good is an operating system to a company if its programs have to be continually restarted?
Which programs have to be restarted? I know personally of a couple of situations with Linux file/print/samba/email servers that have been running for 6 months without anything being restarted. If you're going to make an inflammatory claim like this, please give specific examples. Otherwise, it sounds like you're flinging FUD.
When it takes me an hour to setup a reasonably hassle-free way to form a PPP connection on my Linux box...
Which distribution are you using? I can set up a ppp connection with Debian, with a clickable icon on the desktop in either KDE or Gnome in about 3 minutes, no kidding! Granted, I know how to do it, and a newbie would have some trouble here (this is an area that really should have improved by now, I admit) but saying that it takes an hour is really just ridiculous and, again, smells badly of FUD.
I thought I would present a well-reasoned reply as to the problems with your argument before all the childish flames start. And don't say, "Oh, I was critical of Linux and you automatically claim FUD", because I have given specific examples and reasons why I feel it's FUD. You failed to do so in your arguments.
I don't think you'll be able to justify your one hour ppp setup claim, but I think we'd all appreciate a response as to which programs you claim need to be restarted regularly? And don't say Netscape, either. That has to be restarted under any OS, and has nothing to do with server operations.
Looking forward to your reply,
Matt
Re:He's right, you know-->No, he's not (Score:1)
My point is that a lot of programs that Linux is counting on to provide the same services as Windows aren't up to speed yet. GNOME is the perfect example.
The article, and my comment towards you, was about servers , not about the desktop. I'll grant you, for the majority of people, based on the thousands of end-user apps available, Windows is still a better desktop solution. NONE of the important server applications that are available for Linux are anything but rock-stable. GNOME is there so you can have a nice graphical environment to view pictures, browse the web, etc. Most people (myself included) who run Linux as a server don't even install the graphics libraries and programs. This saves a great deal of all system resources.
KDE didn't fair much better.
Umm, excuse me? I recently starting using the latest GNOME/E
Most of your remaining arguments are about Linux as a desktop OS, and I've pointed out that that's not the discussion here (though it is a very valid discussion to have). There is one final comment that really irks me, though:
The majority of stuff that I download is pretty poor code.
Again, a very general statement. You've got to provide examples!! If you don't, it's nothing more than FUD! What programs had bad code? Where was the code bad and how could it have been improved? I'm not a programmer, so I wouldn't understand what you meant, but there are (obviously) many programmers who read Slashdot, and maybe they'd appreciate your input. But just to say "Most of the code I've seen for Linux is bad" with no specific information, no particular apps, no mention of the kinds of programming errors you've seen, well sir, that's just a lot of hooey we here like to refer to as FUD.
Cheers..................
The danger I see here... (Score:1)
Some points he is missing (Score:1)
About 5 years ago I was whining to a friend that I really wanted to learn Unix, but it was too damned expensive to obtain for a single user at home. Shortly thereafter I heard about Linux and began playing with it. I'm certainly not an expert, but I am comfortable with my level of understanding. I am comfortable enough to manage and configure Linux systems.
>> Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux.
Yeah, Microsoft's integration of products has sure been beneficial to everyone. Like the integration of the browser into the OS (security issues), and the inclusion of a programming language into the office suite (Melissa). And let's not forget about the active components included in the forthcoming Outlook 2000, which will let a program be executed just by opening the message. Gee, with such wonderful integration why would anyone NOT choose Microsoft?
Maybe, just maybe, tying all of these things tightly together is a BAD THING? Who on earth would want to spend that much effort to tie them together under Linux? I think the idea is to maintain control, not to surrender it.
>> Linux is a college student's project gone astray. The version that will be supported by Sun Microsystems and IBM on its hardware will fall far short of each of these company's own Unix operating systems in features and capabilities.
Hmmm. So Linux won't replace Solaris or AIX? Is the implication that NT will? If the job is too big for Linux, then it is probably better-suited to Unix.
If Linux is "a college student's project gone astray," then NT is a corporate dinosaur's project gone astray. At least Linux allows us to manage the technology. NT allows the technology to manage us.
who to sue? (Score:1)
If IIS goes belly up and you lose 10,000 pieces of e-mail because of it, or if NT causes your battleship to be dead in the water for 3 hours, there's still no one to sue. Your EULA, the one you implicitly accepted by opening the package and installing the software, disclaims Microsoft, Inc. from any and all damages caused by the use of their software.
And anyone who has had the delusion of sueing Microsoft need only look as far as the EULA to see just how impractical it is.
Re:who to sue? (Score:1)
MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS HEREBY DISCLAIM WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE AND SUPPORT SERVICES ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY (IF ANY) WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF OR RELATED TO: TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, LACK OF VIRUSES, ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF RESPONSES, RESULTS, LACK OF NEGLIGENCE OR LACK OF WORKMANLIKE EFFORT, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, AND CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION. THE ENTIRE RISK ARISING OUT OF USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE AND ANY SUPPORT SERVICES REMAINS WITH YOU. ...IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR: LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, PERSONAL INJURY, LOSS OF PRIVACY, FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY (INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE), NEGLIGENCE, AND ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER)....
blah blah blah. Blood from a turnip.
Re:who to sue? (Score:1)
Since the EULA is a contract, you have no recourse against false advertising; you as the user have accepted that whatever happens to be inside is what you've paid for.
And sometimes, I get quiet enjoyment out of sitting back and laughing at the plight the software industry is suffering because the product doesn't necessarily do what the packaging says it will.
Rebuttal I emailed to author.. (Score:1)
OTOH, you really did not give justice to Linux, but perhaps that is in backlash of all the good press Linux is recieving? Here's what I noticed:
>Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into
the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released.
Are you serious? People are still using 2.0.36, and even 1.x, and support for them will far outlast Microsoft support of Windows 3.11, but I don't see how this fits into your comparison, since you can't modify the Windows at ALL. You can "modify Windows" by writing a driver and you can also modify Linux with a kernel module. It's very unlikely the kernel team would reject something that belongs in the kernel especially if it's an conditional compile and not harmful to the mainstream users. You state this as if it has happened but do not provide an example, and this reduces your credibility. As a counter example, they've allowed kernel support for offbeat projects like Amiga/Atari/Mac68k, MIPS, etc. even though Linus said on day one it would never be portable to other platforms. Implying people have to reengineer their software for the "latest" kernel is pure FUD.
>Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services
True, and they also force a web browser into the NT kernel - security, stability and user's wishes be damned. Transaction processing is not supposed to be in the kernel anyhow, and for the price of the NT EES you describe you could well buy one for Linux and plow the rest into additional system RAM. IMHO, BSD UNIX like Yahoo uses makes for a much better free unix if you want a server platform.
>Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux.
Linux CAN be time-consuming to configure, but so can NT. You do need to look before you leap with NT.. know what you want before you commit and don't jump on one or the other without research. Your point about integration however is laughable - Linux prides itself on adherence to established standards, and since the source code is open it's a heck of a lot easier to integrate custom apps on Linux. Microsoft products only work well together if you commit to an ENDLESS cycle of pay-upgrades, as BackOffice and Exchange users have found.
>Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies
You neglect to mention that Linux requires significantly less horsepower than NT, which means it runs faster on the same hardware. Exotic configurations like Mindcraft's studies are good for focusing on problems like this. You did not mention it only took a few days to fix some of the SMP bugs that hampered Linux SMP.
>Linux is a college student's project gone astray.
Nice FUDDY sound bite, but if you did your research you'd know Linux wasn't a school project.
>The version that will be supported by Sun Microsystems and IBM on its hardware will fall far short of each of these company's own Unix operating systems in features and capabilities.
On what evidence do you base these charges? If you can't think beyond the cynical world of closed software, sure, maybe they would hope for this. There's no way for Sun/IBM to hold back Linux however, and the reality is Linux is improving much faster than NT, by Microsoft's OWN admission. This isn't "Java" or browser standards... Microsoft can't kill Linux.
Sun and IBM might be just hedging their bets, but the OS will "get there" on their hardware, or no one will buy those systems. It's harder and harder to justify thousands for a UNIX system upgrade - they know this - and they also know their real business in the future will be hardware and consulting. IBM stands to make a killing at this and doesn't consider Linux eating their lunch. SGI also understands this. The OS has gotten this far without ANY help from Intel.
Scott Prive
Re:"... a college student's project gone astray" (Score:1)
Uh, I bought a computer, not a welding kit.
Re:He's right, you know - bullshit (Score:1)
No, the problem is that the article was worthless. Yes, zero value. Nothing to say. NEXT!
Oh great, now we have Micros~1 hunter seeker drones and troll bots on slashdot. You are an absolute nitwit.
Open letter (Score:1)
From: jr@scms.rgu.ac.uk
To: jp@ncfocus.com
Subject: Re: Look before you leap into Linux adoption
Well, I've just read your article, and would like to raise a few points:
First of all:
Huh? This makes little sense. Under linux, it is actually _possible_ to modify almost anything in the OS without paying extortionate licencing fees and signing NDA's. The fact that anyone can modify the kernel source code this easily is to seen as a strength, not a weakness. That not all modifications make it to the 'standard' distribution is also good, for without quality control, the kernel will rapidly become more bloated and less stable. Rather like NT, in fact.Next:
Almost none of the products come with a standard NT server or workstation licence package. If you pay in the region of $10,000 you might have a server licence for each + 5 client licences. Let's check linux:- Web: apache web server. Unlimited client accesses. Admittedly, this is also available for win32, but is not yet as stable or efficient as the NT version. Cost: free.
- proxy: Squid or apache. Again, cost is free.
- index: Not sure what you mean here; LDAP is certainly available for free under linux.
- messaging: Email? Linux is well served by sendmail, qmail and several other MTA's, all of which are free.
- database: Postgres and MySQL are both free for 99% of uses, and Oracle is also now available.
- Transaction: Again, I don't know what you mean here.
- Firewall: built in to the kernel, so it comes with all releases. There are also distributions of linux which are designed to be used as routers/firewalls.
In short, linux has all of those things you mentioned. For free.Re: integration of these packages:
I've never had any problems with access controls being specified for multiple packages under linux/unix (both use the same security model). NT has several stupid access requirements for several packages, although this can in general be attributed to idiotic programmers (one package actually stores temporary data in win.ini!).SMP:
Excuse me? Linux has had SMP support for several years. Admittedly, the support under the 2.0.x kernels was not one of the best, but this has improved dramatically with the recent 2.2.x kernels. I'm not sure of the extent of the MP capabilities, but certainly 4-way is possible on intel, and further capabilities may be possible with alpha/sparc architectures. Since NT is only up to 8-way on proprietary HAL's on Alpha's, it's not that far behind. No it isn't. Linux is a unix-like OS (pedantic, I know..). In any case, I don't view this is a penalty as I find unix a far better OS for my needs. I have to struggle with NT whenever it is inflicted on me, but unix/linux is far more easily configured and tweaked.Skills:
It is far easier for a cash-strapped student to get linux and install it than to get Windows NT and install it with a range of add-ons (email, usenet, www etc). This will result in more students having linux/unix skills on leaving university than there will be with NT server skills simply due to opportunity. Give it 3 years, and see which skills are most common.--
Re:Open letter - A reply from JP Morgenthal (Score:1)
--
Re:FUD but in a way he has a point (Score:1)
----------------------------------
(-->slashing wrists)
DC
Drivel... (Score:1)
- Microsoft is a beter "value proposition"
- Microsoft is more integrated
- People only like Linux because they hate Microsoft
- You can't configure anything without your GUI admin interface (implied from, "This is Unix, remember...")
- "Student Project Gone Astray"
- No SMP support
- No vendor support
- Splintering development paths (i.e., if you change the kernel itself)
- blah, blah, blah...
True, I agree with his basic premise - that you shouldn't dive into Linux as the foundation of your enterprise servers without doing some thinking first - but he hasn't added any new to the discussion. He doesn't mention anything about the strengths of Linux, other than the fact that it's cheap and it's not Microsoft.Sounds like someone who simply swallows the propoganda coming out of MS, without attempting to do any real research of his own.
Sheesh...
Cancel your company subscription to these mags! (Score:1)
Most of these articles are allowed
- to be 1 page of material with 2 scrolls.
- they can't be novels since you would lose most readers
- they can't be too short because the banner adverts have to show up more than once on the page
Basically you have around 400-500 words to make your point, get the sponsors seen, and get the hell out and hope to generate some "fervor". Bonus points if you have a banner ridden feedback loop area on the web site.If this was a high school essay and you were to grade it he would get a B or a C. There are no references. It is mostly an opinion article that is given street cred because the author is a company president. The company might just be one that summarizes major publications in the IT forum in a readily digested manner to aid those IT professionals too busy to read since they are kicking/integrating/troubleshooting their NT servers. I am just guessing ;)
One thing did ring true. His photo. I looked at it and said to myself... whoa... nice whiteboard... did you learn to draw from the back of a TV Guide? CAN YOU DRAW CAPPY? IF SO YOU CAN BE AN ANIMATOR OR ARTIST.
Anyway... I just read through some of his other stuff. To be honest it appears that he sticks to subject matter that is closely parallel to his own company. BIG SHOCKER THERE. Also, if you are a MS person you have enough to keep up with regarding this being killed, extended etc... but look at this article:
http://www.internetwk.com/columns/logic051099.htm
or this one: http://www.internetwk.com/columns/pers0309.htm
This is quoting him... so in a year... you go from the quoted to the writer of a column... its called promotion. And if you are a fan of Jesse Berst just remember that an audience that gives feedback is an audience that generates revenues for the ads these places sell. Just keep that in mind when you click on the response boards.... you are just paying them with each click.
Synopsis: The best way to get around this is to recommend that your workplace cancel all subscriptions to these types of mags with a note referencing the desire for more factual articles than "Look Before You Leap".
Latra,
Jay
"You cannot uncook Mushoo pork once is has been cooked" -- wiseman
Open letter to the author (Score:1)
I read your last column about Linux with interest. I noted, however, that there were several errors of fact
that I felt I should draw your attention to.
You said:
Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, including Web,
proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be
available as a multivendor product.
Not quite. Yes, the top-of-the-line NT package does ship with those services. Moreover, there are
probably more shrink-wrapped applications of this type for NT. You forget, however, that Unix (and Linux
especially) were born on the network, instead of later integrated into it. Every Linux distribution of which I
am aware ships with these services for free. Linux's handling of network streams is superior to almost
every other operating system out there, with the possible exception of FreeBSD.
You said:
Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services,
users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux. The most
critical of these integrations will be security and access control.
Once again, almost but not quite. It is true that integration of various services is higher in Microsoft
systems. I am convinced, however, that this is a flaw, not a benefit. Bugs in one part of the system can --
and frequently do -- lead to bugs and security holes elsewhere in the system. A more modular arrangement
allows for easier isolation of possible problems. Moreover, this modular design allows the operating system
to be administered several different ways -- from a console, over a telnet or ssh session, or from another
Unix box. NT's design makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to admin remotely.
Specifically with regard to security, Linux inherited the time-tested Unix security model, a model that is
implemented throughout the system. It is not by chance that the most secure operationg systems in the
world are Unix-based. NT 3.51, on the other hand was only able to get a C2 rating in a locked case with
no peripherals, no external drives, and no network connection -- not a very likely configuration for a domain
controller. All subsequent versions of NT have not even garnered this minimum rating.
You said:
Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing. Without robust SMP, Linux servers
can support only small companies and single applications. If you're managing multiple servers for increased
scalability, you're better off using multiple NT servers all participating within the same domain.
You bring up two different issues here, so I will deal with them separately. First, you note that Linux's
support for SMP is still immature. This is true, especially considering the incredible SMP capabilities of
Solaris, Irix, or some of the other Unices. When compared against NT, however, the picture is changed.
For dual-processor systems, Linux beats NT in speed and stability. For quad processor systems, it's the
other way around: NT beats Linux. From four to sixteen processors, they essentially tie. I personally would
have to give the nod to NT on this issue, as strong quad-processor capability is considerably more complex
than strong dual-processor capability. But the issue is close.
Where I disagree with you is on your second point, scalability and clustering. If scalability is your need,
my experience would suggest that Linux is far more scalable than NT. In my experience, NT is simply
unable to respond gracefully to high loads, whereas Linux can. Linux is also far more scalable the other
way, too; a 486 with 16 MB RAM can be productive under Linux. Not so with NT. While NT would
probably boot under such a configuration, it would be so slow as to be useless.
On the other hand, if clustering/high availability is your need, I would not go with NT or Linux. Many
other Unices would be far better suited to this task. Linux clustering is, like SMP, still immature, and NT's
clustering ability is limited to failover. If NT or Linux were your only two choices, though, I would go with
Linux. The stability of Linux and the instability of NT would make that an easy choice. Moreover, even at
this early state, Linux provides more clustering capability than NT.
You said:
Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of
configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems. Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now
available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these
systems.
This is your strongest point. It is much easier to administer an NT box than a Linux box. This, in my
opinion, is the main stumbling block against more widespread adoption of Linux in the enterprise. I don't
agree with your second point, however. Having versions of Unix available for low cost makes it much more
likely that college students, hobbyists, and even IT professionals will install and play with Linux, thus
improving their Unix skills. It is much easier to develop a cadre of capable Unix admins when simply trying
out the operating system doesn't cost a thousand dollars.
Finally, you said:
Linux is a college student's project gone astray. The version that will be supported by Sun Microsystems
and IBM on its hardware will fall far short of each of these company's own Unix operating systems in
features and capabilities. If you're responsible for operating system selection in your company, be wary of
the Linux play. Hey, I'm all for a competitor to Windows, just give me more than what Microsoft has to
offer-not less.
This is a low argument. It is true that Linux started out as a college student's project. But to say that it
has "gone astray" is a form of the ad hominem argument, arguing against something because of its nature,
rather than its merits. With regard to Linux vis a vis the other Unices, only time will tell. SGI's recent moves
to bolster Linux, though, at least present a counterargument that Linux could possibly end up the best of all
the Unices, cherry-picking the best features and incorporating them into one.
I am a systems adminstrator. I administer Macintosh, Win95, Win98, WinNT, Linux, HP-UX, and
NetWare systems routinely. Of all the systems I deal with, Windows NT is among my least favorite. It
frequently gives me the most problems and the lowest returns.
In short, I'm all for a competitor for Windows, too. I am not necessarily a Linux partisan, but knowing both sides of the
equation, I had to set the record straight. If Linux replaces windows, you won't hear me crying.
'Customers' (Score:1)
Not a PhD (Score:1)
The gospel of Linus as I understand it
Hayden
Unix98 (Score:1)
Did anything ever happen with that?
Re:Uh-Oh - Call Col. Klink (Score:1)
NT vs. Linux on server features (Score:1)
Errr... soon to be? Every distribution I can think of ships with most, if not all of these components.
He's being deservedly flamed (Score:1)
D
----
Re:"Linux" qualified Admins? (Score:1)
LPI's Mission Statement:
The Linux Professional Institute believes in the need for a standardized, multi-national, and respected program to certify levels of individual expertise in Linux. This program must be able to satisfy the requirements of Linux professionals, as well as organizations which would employ or contract them.
Our goal is to design and deliver such a program from within the Linux community, using both volunteer and hired resources as necessary. We resolve to undertake a well-considered, open, disciplined development process, leading directly to the establishment of a recognized and widely-endorsed Linux certification body.
Re:Sigh. (Score:2)
All dark, caffeinated, sweet carbonated drinks aren't Coca-Cola either.
The wrongest thing of all the wrong things (Score:3)
Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems. Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these systems.
I got my Linux for free (from lsl) two weeks ago. (at price=$0.00 the decision was easy to make:) I'm now capable of managing and configuring a linux system. In short, low-cost Unix made me, and I'll wager, 10,000's of others like me.
By default, I earned the title of resident Linux guru at my company and my boss has already asked me to set up his laptop next week.
Re:"... a college student's project gone astray" (Score:1)
I couldn't believe my eyes reading such bullshit as 'Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing.'
As someone mentioned earlier in this posts
Grumble grumble rant rant
NT ate his brain (Score:1)
There's been many scathing observations already made by the ever-alert Linux community, so I'll only add mine:
Automobiles are a wagon-maker's project gone astray.
Re:This guy is a fruitcake (Score:1)
The author of this article neglected to reason that this is also one of Linux's strengths OVER WinNT. If MS releases something that sucks (like that would never happen), NT's "integration" prevents the user from using an alternative. In other words, they're stuck. With Linux, on the other hand, you can pick and choose components based on specific needs. Further, if a specific component isn't up to snuff, you can either find a better one, or write your own. Despite its high cost, this is NOT an option with NT.
While I personally don't think the free software model will work over the long term (which doesn't preclude the success of Linux), THIS guy is after one thing and one thing only: JOB SECURITY.
Re:Permutations and Thoughts... (Score:1)
Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that controls this portion of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released.
So, if I make a few changes to the above, how is this any different?
Windows is a closed-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a corporation that controls all of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Windows is released.
It's funny, isn't it? Usually when critiquing to products, when you want to promote one you usually focus on it's strong points, and where the product you are comparing doesn't measure up. Yet he seemed to be content to point out why the "strong" points of Linux weren't really that strong, without realizing what he was really saying.
Huh? If it's bad that you can't get your changes into the "official" source tree, doesn't that imply that it's much worse not being able to modify the kernel at all? Because unless I missed the announcement, JP will not have very much success getting his changes incorporated into the Windows kernel, and probably have a lot less success modifying the kernel at all.
Now we find that companies that add features that aren't accepted into the core distribution will need to redevelop and retest every time a new version of Linux is released. A new distribution? I am afraid that he doesn't know what he's talking about here. Does he mean a distribution as in Debian? Nay, he appears to mean a distribution as in 2.2.9 -> 2.2.10. At any rate, I guess one of the benefits is that once you've developed for Windows, no further development or testing needs to be done. Your code will run on all further releases and updates to Windows as is. Huh? I suppose this is why everytime Microsoft releases a Service Pack, software needs to be tested against it to see what it breaks.
I shouldn't even need to waste my time on this one. Whereas Microsoft's products are integrated so tightly with one another that you can't replace any part with any other, Linux is built on an open-API, POSIX compliant subsystem, allowing modularized applications with the ability to have a flexible solutions that allows you to meet your needs in every situation. Sounds like Linux's "weak" point is stronger the Windows there too.
Well, I'm not going to write a whole essay on his article, other people have said enough. However, his last comment needs a reply. He's shown what Linux can do that Windows can't, if he's serious he should show what Windows can do that Linux can't.
-BrentIs there *anything* right in this article? (Score:1)
Re:Tightly vs Loosely Coupled Systems (Score:1)
The other issue is that, yes, a single authentication model has this issue... With NT you do not have a choice in the matter (in this case we were using Exchange) with Linux you do.
Tightly vs Loosely Coupled Systems (Score:3)
Microsoft has so tightly intertwined the BackOffice applications that corruption / issues with one can adversely effect the other.
For example: At a recent (NT only) account, the netlogon service on the PDC had a memory leak. It accepted logon requests but did not properly respond. For this reason all domain logons (and services dependent upon logons (read - everyting)) came to a halt. One service, on one box, stopped the show.
When you create such tightly-coupled relationships with such buggy software you are always in for a ride.
I still do NT, but almost always I throw a Linux box into the mix typically as an Exchange replacement that provides core network services as well (DHCP, DNS, etc...)... And I am looking to do more.
The funny thing is: Microsoft states that they are responding to the customer's will with the new features. Everyone I know is about exhausted with new features - we want stability in the product. Yet all we get is more bug-ridden features. More bug ridden code to cover what was poor system design in the first place.
Frustrating article (Score:1)
If this fellow is a serious consultant, I would hope any client of his would ask a whole lot of follow-up questions... as nothing he says has anything resembling reason or proof.
Linux, NT, MacOS... whatever you want a client to use, I would hope you'd have the courtesy of explaining why.
-- Chris
Linux, masochism, ease of use, and counterpoints (Score:1)
Don't get me wrong, slack is a neat distribution. It's not as nazi-ish as redhat nor as huge as debian... but let's face it. It is NOT the easiest distribution to configure in the world.
If you can't set it up because you were machocistic and said, "I'm a good computer user, I bet I can handle slack." It's not linux's fault, or slack's fault. It's your fault for taking on too much.
Oh, and in case you didn't notice GNOME is not supposed to be really all that stable. It's only version 1.0.6. If you really need that tightly structured a desktop environment, KDE is the way to go 100%
Only two people addressed that article? Let me add to the total:
P1) When companies add to the operating system, the may need to revise when new versions of that operating system come out.
CP1) Duh! THis is true for ANY OS! Of course, it's interesting that a company can add a kernel module or even extend the kernel in any way, without even asking. Can you do this with windows????? Can you?
P2) Windows comes with a suite of network apps preconfigured and easy to use.
CP2) No, it dosen't. Sorry. It just dosen't. Does it come with an SQL server? A high power web-server? Proxy 2.0 was EXPENSIVE last time I checked. All these critical tools! They come with many linux distros!
P3) The author of this post says linux software is buggy.
CP4) Uhh, not really. Have you had ipchains crash? Apache crash? MySQL crash? I haven't. I've done some downright stupid things to them and they still don't crash. Meanwhile, back on the windows box, I still can't run NT for more than a few days straight. You may say it's a matter of management, but when I have an easier time managing linux than NT, thats scary.
CP5) The quote "more than windows - not less" is absurd. For the money you spend, you get a ridiculous amount more with linux. It's almost scary. Anyone who says windows comes with more is either misinformed or lying.
Just my take on this absurd and poorly thought out article, and the stupidity that tries to give it merit.
- Paradox
Re:back to school (Score:2)
Errata (Score:1)
Even if your changes are accepted into the kernel, you still would have to do redevelopment and retesting every time a new version of Linux is released, same as you would have to do with any in-house code when you upgrade operating system versions.
Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be available as a multivendor product.
Web-apache. Proxy-squid. messaging-sendmail. database-sybase/informix. firewall-services built into the kernel. there are probably tools to
take advantage of these controls, even if only for testing purposes. I could probably think of some more if I considered it for a while, which I don't currently have time to do.
More importantly, however, the whole proprietary-single-vendor-works-better thing wasn't true for IBM, or DEC, or anybody else, as far as I know, and I don't see why it should be any different for Microsoft. Communism looks good on paper, but, pragmatically speaking, it has some serious weak points (at least, in the way it's been done so far, but that's a different discussion) that become apparent when you try to run a largish country.
Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux. The most critical of these integrations will be security and access control.
How are Microsoft's products integrated with NT when it comes to security and access control? Answer: they're not. S&AC belongs to the operating system, not apps.
NT needs to not throw any stones when it comes to security. As for access control? Sort-of. Better than Linux on the FS side.
Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing. Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies and single applications. If you're managing multiple servers for increased scalability, you're better off using multiple NT servers all participating
within the same domain.
So....You can use multiple Linux servers, or multiple NT servers, huh? How is one an advantage and the other not? NT might be more scalable than Linux on the low end, but from a scalability point of view, they're both disasters at this point.
One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems. Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these systems.
No, training generates more people with those capabilities. Or did you think that that whole MSCE thing was just for dumbasses?
Also, there was no sufficiently powerful Unix that ran practically on PCs when Windows grew. I was around when Windows got big, and nobody was saying, "well, we could use Unix, but Windows is so much *easier*," simply because Unix wasn't even an option. Where were you? And if that's the reason for Windows' growth today, then why are you writing a column about Linux?
Linux is a college student's project gone astray. The version that will be supported by Sun Microsystems and IBM on its hardware will fall far short of each of these company's own Unix operating systems in features and capabilities. If you're responsible for operating system selection in your company, be wary of the Linux play.
Hmmm....This is half opinion, half true, half unsubstantiated. Yeah, Linux isn't Solaris. It isn't AIX. But for a lot of stuff, you don't need Solaris or AIX. The vast majority of servers out there have one processor, and don't need a journaling FS (which linux should have in less than six months anyway). *That* is Linux's current market. Server-wise, I'm not sure what NT's market is, really, despite the fact that we have a lot of NT servers around here.
Now, I'm not the type to call everything critical of Linux FUD. I've got a few gripes with Linux myself (and yes, I use it quite a bit. I've got gripes about every operating system I've ever used). However, this guy sounds like Bernama discussing opposition politicians. He's either paid or just ignorant.
Re:This guy is a fruitcake (Score:1)
Cert not needed.... (Score:1)
I'm not even sure what the guy's point was (Score:5)
What?!?
For US$3500 you can get ten users using web, index and transaction services. Firewall? Perhaps he means the limited packet filtering that comes standard on WinNT. Database? I don't remember them throwing in SQL Server. Proxy 2.0 is anonther US$2000. Basically, Enterprise edition with all the stuff he mentioned runs:
$13,000 for an "integrated" WinNT Enterprise solution for 10 users...
Mayhaps he meant Windows Small Business Server. Still, I think the guy needs to see his dealer about the quality of his rock. It's giving him delusions...
Actually no.... (Score:1)
Have you ever heard of Paragraphs? (Score:1)
Ummm.. (Score:1)
I think a number of us managed it in school / University
Re:audience and context (Score:1)
I hate Windows and I could formulate a better opposing view to Linux; but then so could most Linux users - we know Linux. Good Journalism would be finding a spokesman for Windows who can at least throw somewhat less clumsy punches
a letter to morgenthal et al (Score:2)
Re:He's right, you know (Score:1)
Most of the apps aren't stable? Just what are you running that's taking down your system? I've been using an alpha copy of an X-Server for my video card, and I constantly burn CD's while playing MP3's, surfing the web and running a server. And if any app actually does crash (the only one that ever really crashes is Netscape), it's a simple kill -s 9 to blow that app out of the system, and then I restart.
As for PPP connections and Windows 95/98, remember a little, struggling company named Trumpet? In the day of Windows 3.1, almost everybody relied on the Trumpet Winsock TCP/IP stack to connect to the Internet. Sure Microsoft created a real user-friendly PPP interface, but they stomped all over Trumpet. Most people don't even think about something like that, they just say "Look how easy it is to connect now! Screw that registration screen that always popped up!" Christ. That's all :-)
Permutations and Thoughts... (Score:2)
So, if I make a few changes to the above, how is this any different?
Windows is a closed-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a corporation that controls all of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Windows is released.
I was under the impression this was one of the primary reasons behind the Micro$oft vs. Everyone trials.?.
[deletia]
Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these systems.
Of course not! I can't think of anything that automatically generates more people for any task; can you? However, I owe most of what I know about computer systems (configuration, hardware, etc), networks, and programming ( GNU [gnu.org]!) to my play-time on Linux. Last time I had reason to buy coding tools was back in '92; one of my first-year Uni' courses required Borland's TurboPascal, running on Win3.1.
I couldn't have afforded it otherwise.
Re:Monoculture (Score:1)
There's an old quote from the early days of Ford, when they were the only car manufacturer: "You can have any color car you want, as long as it's black."
In a lot of ways, that quote aptly describes the information monoculture that Microsoft is trying to be. You can have any browser you want, as long as it's IE. You can have any operating system you want, as long as it's Windows.
Scary stuff. Makes me glad I use an alternative operating system. They can install Windows back on my machine when they can pry the keyboard from my dead hands.
Re:He's right, you know-->No, he's not (Score:2)
Well, not to add fuel to his arguments, but when I tried Slackware I had a very rough time with PPP. (I know another distribution - such as Debian - would most likely be vastly easier, but I'm _supposed_ to be learning how to use Linux, right?)
The first time I installed it, everything went hunky-dory. Almost. I couldn't get the connection set up unless I ran the 'ppp-go' script and manually invoked the PPP daemon. Then it would return my IP addresses and away we went. However, my disk had some problems and I had to do some repair work, and so decided to start over fresh with Slack.
After the reinstall, I couldn't quite get Slack PPP working again. It seems to connect, and when I poke around in
I've spent quite a few hours beating on this, so his claim in this area isn't totally inaccurate. On the other hand, I'm a certifiable Linux moron; in my four years of using Digital UNIX (I guess now it's Tru64) at college, I never did much mucking around with it beyond that of Joe Average user.
On the other hand, I'm using what is perhaps the most manual of distributions. I can't imagine that with a distribution like Red Hat it would take even a fraction of that hour to get PPP working.
Re:This guy is a fruitcake (Score:2)
If you use NFS with it to share the
Also check out Coda and OpenLDAP
JP at JavaOne (Score:1)
The coverage of XML was so superficial and pathetic that I left after lunch and requested a refund.
This is the first time I have ever requested a refund at a tutorial.
If his knowledge of Linux is anywhere like his knowledge of XML, his opinion isn't worth too much.
Nitin Borwankar
When u play it backwards... (Score:1)
hate it when they do this... (Score:1)
media using the same stupid argument. They
think they're making a logical conclusion
by saying "Windoze is better than Linux because
Windoze is Windoze".
They point out that Windoze NT integrated
Windoze products better, and that's a reason
why NT is better. Umm... let's just think
about this. Okay, Linux runs "GNOME" better
than Windoze, so therefore it's better than
NT! It's just a STUPID argument, but a lot
of the media like to use it. They can't
come up with anything real, so they just
sound like the recent M$ marketing campaigns:
It's better because it's the biggest and
has the largest marketshare. Yeah, that's
the reason why it's "better". Sure.
I just hate that groundless logic. But it's
in print, so it must be true, eh? Stupid
media...
"Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides
a better value proposition." Huh? Try because
they force PC makers to ship Windoze with
every computer. THAT's why they outnumber
Linux supporters. A lot of your joe home
computer user *thinks* he prefers Windoze just
because that's the way his computer came.
Basically doesn't know any options, so therefore
he supports his one easy solution.
If people *actually* had a choice (like in
the ideal capatlistic world which will never
happen), then we'd have a lot more Linux
supporters on our side...
-Mike
Flamebait posing as an "unbiased" assesment... (Score:2)
Remember what FUD stands for: Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
It's making a bunch of observations about things that have just a grain of truth to them (but ignore the positive flip side) so as to scare people away from a product or idea.
Let's examine one of the worst ones in the article, shall we:
Linux is a college student's project gone astray.
PURE flaimbait! Pure and simple! "Astray"?? Gimme a break!
Let's try, "Linux is a college students project starting to become mature." Like a college student when he/she graduates, moving out into the world, making a few mistakes along the way but also starting to make his/her mark in the world.
Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that controls this portion of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released.
And just what the heck is this?
Here he takes two of the most attractive things about open source software (the ability to customize it for one's own needs and the existence of thousands of code testers/debuggers around the globe) and tries to spin this as some sort of negative thing. Get me a shovel!
Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be available as a multivendor product. Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux. The most critical of these integrations will be security and access control.
Again, misinformation and FUD.
A typical Linux distribution ships with all of these things. And since the web was originally designed around UNIX, fitting web and internet functionality into NT is much more of a force fit then running them on Linux IMHO.
Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition.
In all cases for all purposes?
A blanket statement like this, is by very definition FUD. He is basically saying "Linux is not the right choice over NT for ANYTHING."
I'm totally willing to admit that Linux is a young and still maturing OS. It is not the panacea for everything.
But for small to medium sized web based services (html services, mail routing, firewall, etc.) I find it to be THE best "value proposition" available by far.
Far from being an unbiased article, this one was 110% negative against Linux, and therefore, by definition, just a FUD piece.
Re:Monoculture (Score:1)
The implication of the argument is that only if you buy all your software from the same source can you guarantee that the applications will work together.
Friends, that assumes you have it all working under M$. And those of us that do NT for a living (luckily, we also do Linux. . . ) know that those all-so-compatible MS Server apps aren't always as compatible as they claim. For instance, try to run a current BackOffice Server, v 4.5, and then back out SQL 7.0 and replace it with 6.0, 6.5. or 4.21. Brings out an entirely new definition of "compatibility". As in "non". . .
Flipside (Score:2)
The "available experts" is a good point, though... do we have any numbers indicating the number of Linux-capable admins on the market?
Instead of flaming this guy (Score:2)
WTF is he talking about w/ the company adding code that's not accepted. BIG DEAL!! Just pick a kernel version and stick with it. Only switch when necessary for security reasons.
-- Stuart Bain
Re:Instead of flaming this guy (Score:2)
I choose Linux because Linux knows how to stay out of my way.
This guy is a fruitcake (Score:2)
Yeah right. Sure, Microsoft products do integrate themselves into the OS. And the result are user applications crashing the OS kernel. Great idea, guys!
I can't figure out what this guy is saying about security and access control. I hope he isn't suggesting that Windows NT offers more security over Linux!
Microsoft provides a better value proposition... (Score:2)
Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition.
I suppose if you value re-booting all of the time to keep your Micros~1 product upgraded and working.
Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be available as a multivendor product.
Ah. So, my copy of linux came with all of those services for free but they don't count because they weren't created by a corporation?
Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux.
Micros~1 products are designed to work only with other Micros~1 products. What if another company offers a product with more value/ability on the same platform, can you just dump a MS product and insert the competitors? Not without incredible pain. I can replace any product on linux with another and only have to modify a few lines in a script to do it.
The most critical of these integrations will be security and access control.
You must have wrote this article on the back of a napkin in a bar and call asking your pals their liquor-addled thoughts 'research'. Were you actually paid to write this? =P
Re:"Linux" qualified Admins? (Score:2)
A visit to his company's web site [ncfocus.com] (NC.focus) doesn't reveal a whole lot of NT integration slant, but the site map [ncfocus.com] mentions XML quite a bit.
If he's just an NT whore, its not very obvious from his web pages.
Re:deadlines must have been looming... (Score:2)
Um, he's not a journalist, not that it excuses the crap he wrote but:
"JP Morgenthal is president of NC.Focus, which provides strategic planning, analysis and consulting of application integration technologies. He can be reached at jp@ncfocus.com."
I think the point of linking to stuff like this is so we're all aware of the voices out there that discredit linux. If they have bad/wrong info, we can at leat discredit it. If they make some valid points, it is something for us to think about then use to improve linux.
Mogenthal's been brainwashed !! (Score:2)
At first reading, I wasn't even going to dignify this article with a response; but then I "noticed" that Mogenthal is merely suckered into Microsoft's way of thinking about business:
"I can't help but think that most of this admiration is emerging from a revulsion to Microsoft Windows..." ... or perhaps we all just want to use a more stable product ...
---
"... all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that controls this portion of the operating system ..."
--- The difference is, if I PERSONALLY know something about that piece of the kernel, I can also submit my opinion and knowledge of that piece.
The very next sentence:
"Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may ... A far more superior method of developing and customizing than using, say, Visual C++.
find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released... "
----
"Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition..." ... oh yeah, and also because Bill Gates can afford to market his product with a Rolling Stones song, like "Start Me Up." Say what yopu will about Microsoft, but they CERTAINLY understand the magic of marketing themselves....
----
"Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, ...
including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be available..."
--- I'm not saying a friggin' word about this one
"If you're managing multiple servers for increased scalability, you're better off using
multiple NT servers all participating within the same domain."
---- I don't believe this is true. Give us another 8-9 months, and it WON'T be true at all by then.
"Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems." ...
---- True, but let's not confuse desktops with mainframes
"Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate ....
more people capable of managing and configuring these systems."
---- No argument here. Same goes for qualified Oracle DBA's, A+ candidates, MCSE's
"Linux is a college student's project gone astray."
---- Worse case scenario, Linux will become a staple in undergraduate courses on OS theory (similiar to how QBasic has become rather common as a "first" programming language). The Linux kernrl of today will suffice for my future children to learn about what an OS should be. By the time my children are born, OS will be as free yet crucial as BIOS.
Re:This guy is a fruitcake (Score:2)
But security in Linux is a one-box-show. If you admin 8 boxes you need to configure your accounts separatly on the 8 boxes (!as far as I know! : I asked about this a couple times and no-one has been able to tell me how to centralize this Novell-NDS style)
back to school (Score:3)
So what exactly does that make Microsoft?
Morgenthal's Site Runs on Unix (Score:3)
Really? Well it's no wonder that you're using NT for your own company's web site... oh wait, you're not, are you? Your company's site ( http://www.ncfocus.com/ [ncfocus.com] is hosted by i-2000.com, which uses "Unix Ultra Sparc Servers" (doesn't say if it's Linux or Solaris).
Hmmmmm, it seems NT isn't even good enough for Mr. Morgenthal when it comes to performance and reliability.
Analysis or FUD? (Score:4)
At the risk of reiterating what most Slashdotters already know, I'd like to comment on this. BTW, none of the below is meant as a slight against FreeBSD or any other open source OS. Linux is the open source environment with which I'm most familiar - and of course, the focus of Morgenthal's article.
On the other hand, with Linux,
On the other hand, once this integration is achieved, it will not be dependent on proprietary protocols (such as Exchange), will be upgradeable at the component level, will not be as susceptible to email attacks, will be more secure and more stable. Etcetera. In a lot of integrations, these would be seen as advantages.
Also, of course, the level of interoperability and integration is increasing exponentially, particularly with Gnome, KDE2, CORBA-compliant applications - and this integration is happening with multiple vendor support.
At the same time, of course, NT scales beautifully -- to a bigger, faster, Intel processor, while Linux scales to faster machines and upcoming processors. SMP addresses performance, not integration, and in this area, Pentium-specific NT isn't likely to maintain a lead.
Going beyond basic configuration becomes very hard very quickly with NT, as the menu/dialog-driven utilities allow limited selections, and have limited debugging options. In fact, one of the most useful tools for administering an NT network is a Linux box with Samba and tcpdump.
A medium sized company's networking needs may be able to be met by NT, but configuration management requires every bit as much of a networking guru as the equivalent *n*x network, and troubleshooting can be far harder.
I'm puzzled by the comments of Linux's inferiority to the Big Boys' Unixes - Linux ease of configuration and use seems to compare very favorably to AIX, HP-UX, etc.
Re:Actually (Score:2)
And IIS, MTS(transaction server), MSMQ(message que) are free to download for all Win9x/NT systems.