Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

The Practical Manager's Guide to Linux 51

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-read dept.
An anonymous reader wrote in to send us The Practical Manager's Guide to Linux. With a title like that, how much explanation do you need? It refutes all the usual FUD- hopefully it does what it says.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Practical Manager's Guide to Linux More

The Practical Manager's Guide to Linux

Comments Filter:

  • i think the LDP is dieing... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    the frequency with which new HOWTOs are added and with which old ones get updated is becoming further apart all the time. it seems that all the new linux users of the past 2 years or so dont have the patients to actaully read their documentation and would rather ask questions on irc. this is a very bad thing in the long run because it means that the collective linux knowledge base is not being "put on to paper" and so when somebody who knows alot is no longer available to consult then everybody looses.

    i think as a community that we really need to start pushing the LDP more. every one of these new linux help sites and linux performance sites that has poped up over the past month or 2 should each be maintaining atleast 1 official HOWTO and maybe more if they can. there is plenty out there that needs to be written of even just updated. slashdot could also help here by hyping the ldp and listing when new HOWTOs come out and when old ones are updated.

  • Thanks from the author (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    (Sorry I'm writing as AC. I haven't received my Slashdot password yet)

    Thanks for the comments, guys. I'm collecting them and will release a new version of the article making all the corrections and modifications suggested by perceptive readers.

    May I say I enjoy working in this new Internet-based medium? Certainly beats working alone...

  • Not a *single* manager replied (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Did you notice that? All the responses were from linux users thoughtfully commenting on possible improvements, but none from a manager.

    There's enormous irony in this - the OS is continually improved by concerned users, yet faces difficulty in acceptance from managers not taking it seriously. An article tries to explain why they should, but the only people responding are its readers trying to improve it (much like the OS it writes about) while it faces difficulty in acceptance from managers.

    I would really like to see at least one manager (yes, some do read /.) giving their opinion. It would help if they are representative of the majority, but gosh, why would they be reading this? ;)

    There, I've thrown in a compliment and a recursive reference. I hope someone bites.



  • Some corrections (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    1. Linus DID NOT name Linux
    2. The problem of moving applications from 32 to 64 bits is NOT the instruction set, but the high-level language used. Many nontrivial C and C++ programs cannot be just compiled in 64 bits w/o some modifications (and they are not so dirty).
    3. Does not address the issue of packaging incompatibility among distributions, and lack of means of verifying that an installation has not been modified from an approved setup (otherwise, it can become a tech support nightmare).

  • One thing I noticed. (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 07, 1999 @01:14PM (#1900945)
    Quite glaringly. It mentioned lack of plug n play support. Where'd this come from?

    I'm running 2 PNP cards in PNP mode in one machine at home, a sound card and a lan card. In another box I have a pnp sound card. (All are ISA PNP cards). They work fine with an out of the box RedHat 5.2 install.
  • i know the internet worm wasnt a real virus, but it had the same kind of effect. That's ages old.
  • It was calm, rational, and in general was pro-Linux without sounding rabidly fanatical. There were a few minor inaccuracies, but nothing serious... and most of those few were true statements that had inaccurate implications.

    My main complaint is that they used the "word" "educative". But, then, it's oriented towards managers...
  • Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:

    I checked out this website. Pretty lame. Very, very slow and non-informative. In fact, it was so non-interesting that, while I read the "What is it" page, my brain no longers retains any data from it--i.e., I've already forgotten what it does.
  • Me again.. I've just been emailed by someone who has already made a PDF version of the document. I will post the URL once I get his permission (I don't want to slashdot his server :^)). It shouldn't take too long to get permission.
  • I'm currently working on converting this to PDF format, so that it can be printed and bound. If you would like to know when I finish and where to find it, send me an email [mailto].

    If any of you want something changed in the PDF version of it, let me know.
  • A good executive summary would be great...but also, some admission that in some certain cases NT might be an "ok" choice seems to go a long way when trying to woo managers into setting up Linux.

    If you say "Linux is best for all things all the time" (as this article seems to say) you'll be labeled as a zealot, no matter how nicely you say it.

    We need some documents that are written in plain english, are concise, and depict Linux vs. NT for a SINGLE TASK. That way, when I go to my boss and say "our new webserver should run LInux." I can show him why for WEB SERVING Linux is better. Conversely, when you go to your boss (if you have one) and say "our office fileserver shoudl run LInux" you have a document that shows why linux is better for Fileserving in non-homogenous network environment.

    Is there a website out there right now that contains documents like these, in one centralized location? (or at least links to them with summaries?) I didn't think there was, so I threw something together that will hopefully evolve into what I've just described. You can upload documents (or link to them) HERE [sapien.net].

    Eventually my goal is to have an online resource of Linux Advocacy/Information documents about WHY people should choose Linux. This resource will be searchable so that you can find the best paper to suit your needs.

    If I'm wasting my time and this already exists, please let me know in a non-flame sort of way, I don't want to step on anyone's toes or anything like that.

    Thanks.

  • I'm trying to get my managers to read this...

    It's a very well written article, with few deficiencies. It is a bit over the top in it's glowing recommendation of Linux - i.e. it's biased. What more should we expect. However I was supposed to be writing something like this myself this week in an ongoing persuasion process. Looks like I can have an easy week for once... Nah - they'll find something else for me to do ;-)

    Matt.


    perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-: ,hacker Perl another Just)'
  • While I think that the inherent security of UNIX-style systems is a factor,

    * virus writers (like most developers) will write for the platform they know most about,
    * Microsoft is a large corporation (and assumedly more fun to victimize),
    * the commonness of Windows machines (or even specific configurations of Windows machines, like that used by Melissa) accelerate the propagation of Windows viruses, and
    * most Windows users wouldn't know enough to secure their systems (even if they could).
  • 1. Linus DID NOT name Linux

    He didn't invent the name, but it was surely his choice whether to use it or not. The details aren't important.

    2. The problem of moving applications from 32 to 64 bits is NOT the instruction set, but the high-level language used. Many nontrivial C and C++ programs cannot be just compiled in 64 bits w/o some modifications (and they are not so dirty).

    It is the instruction set, indirectly. The "long long" type is a GNU extension to Standard C (though I think it is in the C9X draft standard), so time_t must be defined as just plain long, which is 32-bit.

    3. Does not address the issue of packaging incompatibility among distributions,

    Not specifically. It covers the differences between distributions very briefly.

    and lack of means of verifying that an installation has not been modified from an approved setup (otherwise, it can become a tech support nightmare).

    Are rpm --verify and dpkg --audit not good enough for you?

    There are a lot of errors in this, and I think the tone is quite wrong for giving to a manager. However, I think that constructive criticism to the author and some help with editing could result in a much better document in a few weeks.

  • In a summary you can state your conclusions as assertions, without the explanation and justification you include later on. I would have thought that writing some bold statements in the "executive summary" would help to capture the reader's attention and interest and so increase the chances of his/her reading the whole document.

  • On the same tune... (Score:3)

    by edgy ( 5399 ) on Friday May 07, 1999 @09:13AM (#1900957)
    Very good read. :-) I like the language it was written in. It doesn't look like some zealot wrote it, and that's an important thing to remember when trying to counter FUD by Microsoft.

    On a slightly related note, I ran into an article on LinuxToday, in case some others haven't seen it yet, that show that NT on a Quad Pentium Xeon is a "Weak Value Proposition" as compaired to Linux/FreeBSD. Now, where have we heard the phrase, "Weak Value Proposition" before? :-)

    This might be useful to those of you trying to fight those that blindly trumpet the Mindcraft results:

    http://linuxtoday.com/stories/5688.html [linuxtoday.com]

  • Only one problem:
    Has anyone ever actually worked for a "practical manager?"
  • I've met some practical managers, you can tell who they are because they are the ones who work for other companies ;-)

  • Certainly not FUD... (Score:4)

    by reaper ( 10065 ) on Friday May 07, 1999 @10:27AM (#1900960) Homepage Journal

    ...but certainly not completely accurate. If this article was any cheerier, I'd have to puke.

    First off, the 2038 problem is glazed over rather quickly, and then passed off as easily fixable. While it is true that fixing the problem with OpenSource software is rather simple, there are still binary-only programs out there that require fixing.

    The size of the date field is defined in only one place in any Unix system. This is a variable called time_t. Moving from a 32-bit chip to a 64-bit chip involves, among other unrelated things, merely changing the definition of time_t in this one place from 32 bits to 64 bits. When the operating system is then recompiled, it will use the new definition and store all dates in 64 bits from then on.

    The author neglects to mention that you will then need to recompile anything that ever used that constant for that architechture. This is fine for new architechtures, but has the distinct possibility of killing off any 32-bit hardware. Anyone can change the definition of time_t to 'long long time_t', recompile the kernel, and then watch as your programs seg fault.

    In the 'Virus-Proof' discussion the author does make a good point that viruses are significantly more difficult to write for UNIX than they are for DOS/Windows. They are not impossible to write though. The Macro Virus argument is not even an OS issue; it is an issue of poor software implementation. You can bet if MS ported Word to Linux, that the macro viruses would come with it.

    In dismissing the Mindcraft study (the first one), the author overlooks a good point that came out of that experiance. Linux is not a magic bullet for instant performance, and stability. Like other OSes it will require careful set-up, and tuning. It is important not to over look that fact when explaining why it typically takes about 2 days to get a Linux box working well at high server loads.

    In the server discussion the author neglects (quite glaringly) to mention that Linux cannot handle large files. If your corporation will require files over 2GB in size, you can forget about it. Instantly remove Linux from the list of acceptable OSes.

    The was only a quick mention of FreeBSD in the article saying how Linux is almost as fast now. I thought this was an interesting oversight. FreeBSD is more stable than Linux, and more refined. It is also faster on some operations. It is a viable OS for organizations that need a fast, dedicated server, and have no intention on using Gee-Whizz-Bang New Peripheral of the Minute type hardware. Ignoring it makes it look like a completely biased report.

    All in all it is a good summary fo Linux's features, but I think the style is a little too glowing for some people to swallow the article as a whole.

  • I've read only the first page so far, and I'd be annoyed if an employee gave me this and expected me to read this. This guy needs to have someone go over it to rewrite it for regular humans -- it's clear that it was written by a geek. Examples from the first page:

    • The whole GNU/GPL thing. Other than the fact that this is one of the last things on managers' minds, the author subjects us to things like:
      • "Free software programmers often display a wacky sense of humour." Wheeee.
      • "[Stallman] uses the word "hacker" in the positive sense of master programmer, reserving the word "cracker" for people who break into systems.
    • The disagreement that Stallman has with Linus about the name. Come on, please remember the audience.
    • The link to the audio file of Linus's pronunciation of Linux. *cringe* Again, while geeks eat this stuff up, it elicits "And I'm spending my time reading this why?" reactions from most others.

    When writing for humans, a good test is to run it past your girlfriend or mother (provided that they're non-geeks) and see if it can hold their interest.

    I'll leave some of the sillier pro-Linux claims that I noticed in this article for later discussion when I have a little free time. ;-)

    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

  • Don't keep us in toooo much suspense.
  • Several people have pointed out errors
    or made suggestions on how this could be
    written better.

    It is released under an "Open Source Media Copy Policy" which would seem to allow anyone
    to rewrite it.

    Keith
  • Quite glaringly. It mentioned lack of plug n play support. Where'd this come from?

    I'm running 2 PNP cards in PNP mode in one machine at home, a sound card and a lan card. In another box I have a pnp sound card. (All are ISA PNP cards). They work fine with an out of the box RedHat 5.2 install.

    That's not all there is to PnP. There is no PnP support for monitors as far as I know. If you stick a new card in your machine, does Linux detect it and automatically install the correct driver? That's the kind of thing people coming from Win32 will expect when you say "PnP."
  • On a sort-of related note regarding arguing for Linux on a single task by single task basis...

    One thing I've found about many people is that the most effective way to persuade them to do something is to convince them that it was *their* idea. This technique can be used on managers, customers, whoever you want to
    persuade toward a particular conclusion. Present them with facts and figures without any emotion or interjecting of ones own opinions whatsoever and let them reach the desired conclusion on their own.

    This is a VERY subtle skill. One that I am not that good at. I've seen a rare few individuals who are masters at it.

    This sort of persuasion is beginning to be seen from the Linux community.

    How?

    By the fact that "mainstream" press is starting to publish numerous pro-linux articles. Publications considered credible by non-technical management types (who nevertheless make technical decisions in all too many companies) are painting Linux in a positive light.

    While this article is still too geeky (Linux vs. GNU/Linux flamewar reference), too long winded and rambly, and too laden with errors ("Linux does not support Plug and Play", puhLEEEZE!) to show to the non-technical pointy haired management type yet, it has a lot of the right stuff that they need to know buried in it.

    An executive summary that condensed it into a more concise form, and stripped out the geekiness and the errors would be an excellent article for a manager's summary.

    Now, to get one written and published in a publication with credibility in management...
  • The article isn't bad, and is a goog beginning for summing up the history of Linux and presenting it's case for business use, but as I was reading it I had the impression it was talking down to the poor, stupid manager.

    As we know, a majority of those put in the suit positions tend to be ignorant of all things technical and highly illogical in their decision making, but they aren't necessarily stupid. (There's a difference, you know.)

    The facts are there, but now let's get the diplomacy down. There's no reason we can't use the smooth talk that our "friends" at MS are famous for, especially since we know we have the technical upper hand.

    Remember, this aspect of Linux evangelism competes not against another operating system, but with the MS schmoozers who are convincing management that their product is the best thing since canned beer. (Yes, I know bottled is better, and the tap even better than that, but I like the phrase.)

    That's my $0.02.


    By the way, if anyone in or near Minneapolis is crazy enough to relocate and employ a Linux novice who learns quickly for 50K/yr. or better, I'm your guy 8-).

  • The author should remove the claim that NT is not multiuser, now that Windows Terminal Server is available; the MS doc he cited even mentioned TS precursor Citrix Winframe. Easily refuted claims do not strengthen his point.
  • For another summery on the Linux-MS results Salon [salon1999.com] has a small article [salon1999.com] describing Linun's feelings towards the test performes, and the next set of tests with linux community input. It also has a few harsh words from RedHat's Ceo (Bob Young I Think).

    And I Did enjoy this report very much, it is definately a good tool for persuading management to use Linux (not much new for the linux believers though). I will have to print this out and save it for refrence.
  • please excuse the spelling mistakes (its still reallly early here) ;-)

  • Article needs improvement (Score:3)

    by maw ( 25860 ) on Friday May 07, 1999 @11:07AM (#1900970) Journal
    I love Linux as much or more than the next guy, and positive press about it is great, but this article was, at best, mediocre. The writing was poor, there were plenty of dubious facts and assertions, and didn't seem to have any single clear message.

    It's difficult to describe the writing's weaknesses (that is, the deficiencies in the writing and presentation per se) without quoting at length; in a nutshell, though, the piece seems to follow this (unfortunate) pattern throughout: "Linux has this, that, and the other thing. It also has foo. (Bar, baz, and bozo.)" It makes for very disjointed, stilted reading. It doesn't flow.

    The inaccessability could be overcome by some solid evidence, but even when there is solid evidence, the author blows it. An example: "There are many stories of security fixes for Linux being made available within hours of an attack being known (the FTP bounce attack, the teardrop or IP fragmentation attack, and the 'ping of death')." Those are only several examples, not many as he stated. There are many other instances similar to this. While they would stand up in their own right (if they were properly explained: teardrop exploited a Linux bug; an FTP related exploit would not, on the other hand, be Linux-specific. This needs to be more clear.), the poor treatment they were given detracts from the paper and its credibility.

    Because of already explained weaknesses, this article boils down to something along the lines of "Linux is good, and you should use it, or something." That's not a message I'd want PHBs to be seeing.

    It's really too bad, because there were lots of good pieces of information there, and the author obviously did a lot of research. I would *love* to see the information in the article (there was a lot of it!) distilled and re-presented by a better writer, because as it is now, I was saying to myself "yeah, so what, this sounds like crap" -- and I'm not a hostile audience. There's no way I would show this to a manager (or anyone else, except perhaps a good writer who I'd be trying to convince to rewrite the thing) in its present form.

  • Deja Vu (Score:1)

    by Wah ( 30840 )
    I've read this article (most of it, seems like an updated version) before. Anyone else get this feeling, certain phrases just seemed very familar, as well as major points/arguments you've head before?
  • it's not a website, it's an executable.

    point your mp3 player to
    209.76.160.94:8030
    or
    160.94.54.48:8000

    One is a sweet ambient mix, the other, live shows from my top band(Phish). Both run 24 hours a day, neither EVER have commercials, I found both with two clicks and MP3Spy.
    read the sig.

  • the above is offtopic/defense
  • I've been wanting to write a "where Linux makes sense" article. I'm glad these people went ahead and did it. There are some minor technical errors. I'm sure slashdot posters will point all of these out.

    I'm not sure how "unbiased" I would consider the article. It does do a good job of FUD-correction, though, and that is laudable by itself.

    OTOH, does the simple act of pointing out the usefulness of Linux make you unbiased? Is it possible to come to the unbiased conclusion that Linux makes real good sense sometimes?
  • Yes I have. Admittedly they are not common. But then I have been in this field for over 25 years and have seen most everything, even excellent, practical managers.
  • It is a good, long read. Only good managers are going to take the time to read it. It is not all glowing, gushing cheerleading, but then I'm an engineer, not a PR person, so I value truth, facts and informed opinions. I took the time to read it all the way through on a slow link. If I was writing a review of it, I'd give it 3 1/2 stars out of four.
  • They are not impossible to write though. The Macro Virus argument is not even an OS issue; it is an issue of poor software implementation. You can bet if MS ported Word to Linux, that the macro viruses would come with it.

    A macro virus has a limited blast radius in a Unix or Linux environment. If I let one go in my account, the virus runs with my permissions and can hose all of my files. It won't be able to do much more than trash my account; the programs, and everybody else's data (assuming good umasks) are safe. Those who run office software as root, of course, get what they deserve.

  • A good document but a little long for many managers. I would preface it with an executive summary. Nevertheless, I plan to snarf this for my arsenal of FUD busting docs. :-)

    Thad

  • ...that they are practical etc.

    this is similar to how most domesticated primates think. that is they are "good" and anyone who opposes them is "bad", "evil", or just a "no good shit". such is life on the planet of the apes...

    nmarshall
    #include "standard_disclaimer.h"
    R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
  • Fortunately there are 39 years to 2038 so there should be enough time to fix it.

    BWAHAHAHA! How do you think we got into this Y2K mess in the first place? ;)

    "Oh, gee, it's ok to use 2 bytes for this, nobody'll still be using this in 20 years..." - infamous last words, anonymous software engineer, 1980

    Cheers
    Alastair

Slashdot Top Deals

I program, therefore I am.

Close