Survey shows NT admins looking at Linux 155
bpdlr writes "A recent survey carried out by the Microsoft Exchange Forum in the UK shows that 20% of NT/Exchange admins in UK enterprises see Linux as a potential alternative to NT, up from 0% in six months (it's a PDF file, see page 4). Compare that with only 29% sure they will upgrade to Win2000. "
Re:NT's the best isn't it? (Score:1)
Re:Entire Company? (Score:1)
one function that will take about 1% of the
machine resources, and only runs on NT.)
We installed it, left it for a day, and tried
to come back and log in. Network layer had crashed for reasons unknown, with nothing in the event log.
The NT finger pointers usually say "hardware" at this point, in my experience, so I will mention it is a Compaq box. Then they say "you have to have the service pack", so I will mention Service pack 5.
Doesn't sound stale to me. 8-)
Re:Clearing up a few things (Score:1)
user LInux as their *desktop* system:
1. Open Source on ideol. principles -
2. price - can only afford Linux
3. console users -
4. programmers wanting to improve system
5. need only a few apps
5. dumb/stubborn
Almost all these points are what make LInux a superior
desktop system for most users in the world today. As it is,
X under LInux is not a patchwork of garbage. I think it has
a look and feel much superior to Windows and people switching
to LInux don't regard it as a downgrade. Of course the Linux
desktop can be made to look awful if one has bad taste.
The Windows desktop is nice, but I think a great many people
are simply *tired* of it and likewise the tired old argument abot
needing MS Office compatibility is a red herring, but that would
require another post. It is true that Linux lacks a really good
native Word Processor at this time, but it has everything else
and more. The lack of a really excellent Word Processor has
not stopped quite a few people from abandoning the Windows
desktop for most things and using Linux more and more as
a desktop platform.
Open source on ideological principles can be an important
point to many people when they discover that information is
secretly being sent to Redmond whenever they connect.
Price already is very important when people can barely afford
a cheap PC, much less hundreds of dollars for software and
upgrades. This forces them to make a choice between
illegal, pirated MS software and Linux or some other free system.
Most of the MS software in use today outside the US is
pirated. Most peoople in the world today who can use computers
cannot afford a new PC every 2 years and afford to keep upgrading
to run MS desktop apps. Especially because open source
software is being mandated in schools and by governments
outside the US people will use it and it will be what they are used
to (instead of Windows or Dos)..
Console users - not relevant, but you might be surprised at
the number of people who want a good console when they
are frusted by flaky guis that don't let them get from here to
there. Especially grandmothers who can read and write
(many kids today can't, but they can mash buttons)
programmers - a great many home users are teenagers who
like to cutomize look and feel. These are not programmers or
geeks. Typically, gamers. IRC, etc. Linux gives them the
ability to customize a *lot* more. This gives them a feeling of
control, not unlike programming does. Also, quite a few more
mature users might find the configurability of Linux in general
a big plus because their needs vary so much.
need only a few apps. Actually, 90% of desktop users use
only a few apps. A very few apps. These days, a web browser
and email and perhaps a word processor and a few games.
In corporate setting, the same is true. Often a desktop loads
its apps off a network and this is strictly controlled by sysadmins.
It's a lot easier to do this with LInux or Unix and to administer
remotely if the client is Linux of Unix. By the way, Netscape
under Linux is a lot smoother than Netscape under Windows
and KFM is a much better browser for most users' needs
than either Netscape or IE 5. I never use Netscape except
for a few troublesome sites with CSS or cgi that Kfm doesn't
interpret. Ever tried ftp with IE 5 - what a kludge. Kfm does
it right.
Stupid and stubborn - stupid and stubborn people people
don't need the latest gizmo when something simpler will do
the job. They would still be using C64's but can't get them
repaired so they might try LInux.
In summary, I think you are only looking at a very small portion
of the potential desktop market - American consumers and
corporate users who buy from respected American retail
chains or distributors. Consumers who might be using desktop
computers for the first time worldwide are more literate, and
better consumers, and less afluent. Others will remember
their roots (at least those of sufficient age). For example
The Amiga was much bigger in Europe than Windows for
many years - until the company went under, actually. Cost
was a factor there as well, especially in apps and games which
were much less expensive than Windows/DOS equivalents.
Linux is different, but similar in many ways. It is much more
stable and has many more apps for business and networking, but
perhaps harder to learn to use and less interesting at first
graphically and for multimedia. That is changing, though.
Actually, there is a lot of interest in Linux for the desktop in
the mainstream press and among the big companies. These
big companies want open standards for desktop apps as well
because they realize it's either that or MS. Not as much
hoopla as about LInux as a server, because Linux is already
a proven winner as a server. Look at all the commercial
sites that just a few months ago featured only Windows software
reviewing and stocking Linux software for the desktop.
The main problem is that the real numbers of users are not
known, especially outside the US.
Re:NT's the best isn't it? (Score:3)
Your point, concisely made, is that NT allows people to be more easily productive and thus the cost is justified. You define that as being able to change settings without talking to the admin or help desk (I assume that you carry this out to stuff like loading floppies without mounting and unmounting and so on). You then note the savings by comparing the licence costs to the retraining costs. This is where you lose me.
Now, I can certainly see the math; if the cost of the licences exceeds the costs of retraining, then it is not justified. If the licences are cheaper, then NT is a good idea. However, moving from this back to ease of use as a justification is not really justified. I see what you meant (I think), but let's look at the same concept
You make a few assumptions (correct me if I am off):
1. People are used to operating in a Windows 95 or NT 4.0 environment (as 3.51 and 3.11 are both a lot harder to mess around with). Fair enough -- where we use Windows, we use NT4.0, except on some laptops with 95.
2. People need in the course of normal business (and as part of a valid business reason) to make changes in their environments that would require actions too complex for normal users to accomplish without resorting to the well-known 4357 call. Windows allows them to do this without the call.
3. By allowing the changes to be made quicker, more work can be done, making the company more money.
And then the math, which seems right (your math is not in dispute).
I have to argue that you are making some wrong connections and that some of ypur assumptions are not correct. Here is why I think this:
1. Assumption 1 (familiarity with 95-type desktop) is seen to be causative in increasing the speed with which users are able to solve "mission critical" problems (perhaps not to the enterprise, but to the users themselves). This is not correct for several reasons:
a) unless the user is a hardware tech or doing odd graphics things, changing settings is not something that needs to be done by the user. Pick a corporate standard and stick with it. If the user objects to things like the fonts, let them change it via a menu (I am not a perl hacker, but even I could make a menu-based system to allow this in one afternoon, as I have done so before). If the user wants backgrounds with psychedelic flying lizards and feels strongly enough to hold up work until he or she gets said lizards, then the user a) has too little work or b)needs to find another job.
b)And if you are talking about settings in Word and Excel (I have found that many NT people lump applications in with the OS), the same applies. Is the person doing word processing or are they making art? If they are making art here, they will get Frame and 512MB of RAM and so on and so forth. Art is their job and we want to give them the right tools. If they want sixteen different fonts in five colors with Outlook and Word, well, there is that entire concept of a value-added vs. a non-value-added activity. This sort of thing is non-critical and is almost always a problem that the user has produced themselves. They should be punished, not given tech support (no, not with a beating -- we get the departments to pay per call and their managers are now paying attention).
2. Assumption 2 (that users need to make changes) is simply wrong, as I have touched on above. Where is user error and user eccentricity and users avoiding work something that we want to go out of our way to encourage by "helping them" do more of the same? I would argue that if the users are screwing with their settings, they need to stop. That is a management problem, not something that inevitably happens -- it happens if you let it happen. If people are messing around with their system, they are not working. The entire point that you are making (that elimination of problems speeds users to a point where they can work) suggests not that we solve avoidable errors faster but that we avoid the damned errors in the first place. Like by telling people that blowing up their machines will become a discipliary issue. Like by using NT instead of 95 and shutting down as much of it as possible (or CDE). The way that you deal with hitting yourself in the head with a hammer is not by taking some asprin so that it won't hurt as much; it is by stopping hitting yourself in the head with the hammer! Why is this so hard to understand.
3. Finally, Assumption 3 (that the avoidance of time loss pays for the licences) only works if you assume that the other two points are correct, which they are not. If you eliminate the obvious solutions to the problems, the tortured logic makes sense, but that is a little like buying a tank so that you can get to work safely because you insist on driving to work every morning on the wrong side of the road. There are easier solutions.
From my experience, which goes back a long ways (pushing 30 years at this point), user support is something that has become a huge issue only with Microsoft OSes and applications because they are a) so buggy and b) impossible to administrate centrally.
a) You cannot fix NT or Win3.x/9x because it is unfixable. It is so buggy and so badly developed that there is almost no way to permanently fix problems. That is why the industry average number for help desk staff:user on Microsoft OSes is 1:15. I am not a huge fan of either Macs or OS/2, but the normal number there have been 1:100 for years now. Our admins are normally in change of 400+ workstations and still find time to play Doom (or Quake). he help desk costs are horrible and they are unique to Microsoft operating systems. NT is only a little less problematic. And this is without going into the multiple revisions of Office that we have to support, many of which do not work well or similarly in very major ways. Even if everyone is familiar with the environment and the apps, it doesn't always help. Contrast this with vi and ISPF, with shell scripts and COBOL, with WordPerfect (for want of a better cross-platform exaple outside of Notes). You will get the calls anyway.
b) I'm not arguing for terminals -- look at what you have to do with 300 PCs -- you have to do either the same thing 300 times or do it from a distance. I didn't dislike UNIX because the admins could do most of the work without leaving the room and I didn't have to worry about getting the place depopulated because they were off site in case we had a disaster. Of course, the IBM folks never left the machine room at all. With the PCs, we had to send people to every damned machine. This was hugely expensive and continues to be a problem. One reason why Linux looks attractive to us is the remote administration tools from UNIX (and Tivoli, when they get their act together; we do not do CA, period). You cannot do this with NT. I know. I was hopeful when SMS came out. Nothing has or will happen. Microsoft products will always cost more.
So, basically, I would rather save money by avoiding NT. As I have stated before, it costs too damned much in licences and support. We have users on NCD Xterms that have been happily using SOlaris or AIX for years, some are using Linux now, and the only hurdle was moving to CDE. Some of these people have called us two or three times in 10 years. The mainframe people never call (that is a little misleading -- we have people here who have hacked MVS source code, so they aren't too likely to need any kind of help and occasionally get calls from friends at compeditors and help them with their MVS issues) and they seem to be reasonably receptive to those IBM NCs, so we will get them on a Xterm yet (only twenty years)(those plasma screens last a long damned time). The OS/2 and Mac people almost never call (some of the OS/2 people have never called, even once). The people on Microsoft OSes call all the time. The lesson is top stick with something that works, not to live with the creeping horrors that ooze out of Redmond on a regular basis. I realize that I sound like a LISP programmer saying bad things about UNIX and how Apollo did (whatever) many years before, but I am not that young! I can do the math, though, and mine has a lot more variables in it than your does, apparently. I didlike the expression "thinking outside the box" (when I was in business school, we had to think, we didn't have all of these buzz-words to save us time), but perhaps you should.
Stupid and stubborn? (Score:1)
I fail to see the logic of this statement. Failure to upgrade to every latest, greatest technology makes one stupid and stubborn? I would actually classify these users as 'intelligent and practical'. Somebody who writes their thesis in edlin is stupid and stubborn, but what about somebody who writes their thesis (or a business plan, or SOPs.... etc) with TeX or troff is not neccesserily stupid nor stubborn, even though they're certainly not using the latest gizmo.
NT tidbits (Score:4)
Customer A:
Has approximately 100 workstations (Windows 95/98) that will be accessing a central mail server for interoffice and internet email. Despite FreeBSD recommendation, client decides on two NT servers, one for web traffic, one for Microsoft Exchange. Reason for NT choice: "I want everything, from top to bottom, to be Microsoft. It's Microsoft. It's an integrated solution." Aftermath: Client's NT servers are rarely stable, as exchange buckles under heavy email load. Client spends astronomical fees on "NT Experts" to come in and "tune" IIS server to get the easiest of features working correctly. Conclusion: Client has overshot their budget. WAY overshot. Windows 95 workstations seem to destroy themselves left and right. And things still aren't working up to spec.
Customer B:
Similar to the above customer, but in a more email-intensive setting. Client has approximately 100 or so computers running Windows NT Workstation that will be accessing a central mail server for interoffice and internet email. Client accepts FreeBSD recommendation. Aftermath: Client's FreeBSD server is exceptional for mail, file, and print services. Sidenote: Windows NT Workstation is an ideal operating system in their type of environment, and is a strong performer on the desktop. Client may be accepting FreeBSD recommendation for HTTP services in the near future. Conclusion: Client is in WAY under budget, and a few months early to boot.
Based on my experiences, I can say that an ideal company setting would include a BSD Unix (or Linux if you prefer) on the server-side. I prefer BSD Unix because of its excellent networking code. Additionally, FreeBSD in particular is a breeze to install. That's why I carry my FreeBSD CD set with me wherever I go. On the client-side, I prefer Windows NT Workstation for the masses, and Linux or BSD for the techies, at their option. Windows NT Server may be good for nominal load, but I (personally) wouldn't trust it in a mission critical environment.
Re:NT's the best isn't it? (Score:1)
If everybody in the company spent ONLY an extra hour learning Linux stuff (if only we could be that lucky), and the average rate is $50/hour/person, that's $175,000 right there. $175,000 is more than $100,000, theremore, the company saved money installing NT. Did this go over your head?
And how much time did they spend learning NT? End-user training is remarkably easy in all systems in all areas except troubleshooting, and I don't have to point fingers, where end-user has a lot of chances to get his troubleshooting skills applied.
Interesting points... (Score:1)
You also have about 75% of the respondants saying they use less than 20 exchange servers. How many users are served by these 20 servers? If I worked for IBM, I'd say that we have more than 100,000 employees, but I'd have no idea how many exchange servers are in operation, so I'd have to answer that question based on the number of servers in my group/department.
There are a couple promising questions in there (especailly about Linux) but I'd wait to see the next survey before trumpeting this to the PHBs.
I agree mostly... (Score:1)
That said, I also want to remind everyone that Windows9x is in an area (desktop) that Linux aspires to expand into (and doing quite well I might add); conversely, Linux excells where Microsoft wants to expand - the serverspace. Linux rests squarely in Microsoft's upgrade path for Win2000 and is eating into current NT and Windows installations.
Linux must be easier to install, configure and use than Win9x. Essentially, a nobrainer.
Briefly, much will be decided this year.
Re:I agree mostly... (Score:1)
We must not only make Linux easier to install but it should configure itself (at least for desktop distros). Furthermore, Linux should endear perception of near-sentience to the new user in configuring itself and presenting user interface to services.
Then, Linux will be ready enough for the OEM's to drop Windows completely without even a moment's hesitation.
Slice 'n' Dice (Score:1)
I'd like to see some figures on:
How many all-NT departments with 50 servers are considering Linux?
(Companies with a lot of servers are more likely to have competent sys admins. This question will tell us if we are finally getting through to the morons.)
How many of those with "Unix" listed (especially those with
("Unix" is a rather generic name. And the OS breakdown didn't list Linux as an option, even at 0%.)
What is the difference between the number of each OS that the IT Manager/Director/Whatever says they have and the number they REALLY have?
(The contention all along is that Linux has been sneaking in through the backdoor. The CTO, by definition, probably wouldn't know about this.)
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
True, but reverse it: (Score:1)
24% are planning not to move to W2k (but have presumably considered). These are people who have actively rejected W2k.
Furthermore, 28% are "uncertain" on "considering" Linux. That doesn't even make logical sense--they aren't sure if they are considering? That means they ARE considering. I find it more likely that 28% read the question as "planning". That brings the number of "considerings" up to 48%.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
All server side? (Score:1)
"...virtually ALL of the commercial players getting involved with Linux...are focusing on the server side?"
Virtual: seeming to be, but not actually being. See Virtual Reality.
It's true that Linux functions well as a server. And it's true that Linux may well more power than the average user needs on his desktop. But it is NOT true that the commercial players are forgetting the client side.
IBM: Linux on Thinkpads.
NVidia: Linux drivers for high-end video cards (only useful on the desktop)
Loki: Civ:CTP and many more desktop games to come
Oracle, Informix, etc: Server side stuff first, client tools on the way
The only reason it seems like commercial entities are focusing on the server aspects is that the server software companies are bigger. An announcment from Oracle can overshadow announcments from "client-side companies".
That said, I don't think the company secretary will be using Linux on the desktop anytime soon--but:
1) Why take the short term view?
2) If Linux wins in the backroom, we make the rules. Win95 would start having to advertise (and support) its "Linux-compatible protocols", etc. In this scenario, while MS might still hold the desktop market, we would have achieved a major goal in squashing many proprietary formats and protocols.
BTW, why exclude Linux-only companies from your client/server dichotomy? If we include them (since there doesn't appear to be any reason to bar them), we can find a LOT more examples of client-side Linux.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
W2k the new MacOS? (Score:1)
So you are saying W2k is OK for single-user, single-process, simple work?
Sounds like Micros~1 stole more than a GUI from Apple.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
offtopic: fish carrying guns (Score:1)
I just read "Good News from Outer Space". Did you get that phrase from there or is it from somewhere else previously?
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Numbers from asses (Score:1)
1) A new PC suitable for installing NT + Exchange and serving 600 people can cost $20k. Let's be more reasonable and discard things like RAID and 1GB of RAM and say $5k.
2) You neglected to factor in the cost of NT and Exchange, including 600 licenses. That's at least $1129 more, plus $40/user if they don't already have the licenses = $24,000.
3) It doesn't cost $200k/yr to run a mail server. Our network admin (admittedly incompetent) only gets about $50k. Factoring electricity, etc brings that up to $60k.
So let's re-add this. ~$30,000 for a new NT/Exchange or $0 for Linux. That sounds like a substantial savings to me.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Re:NT tidbits: Again, time to get flamed... (Score:2)
I so agree with you, from my personal experience. I personally downgraded to Windows NT Server 4.0 from Windows 95, under the idea that I had better get used to it to improve my employment prospects. Say what you will about Win95, I never had a day of trouble with it. This all changed when I moved to the 'more stable' NT, which had to be reinstalled three times in the first week. God help me, I then decided to try a home network. I'll leave describing this fiasco to those with more technical knowledge and better command of the language.
Now, I'm running a dual boot of Windows NT (for games) and Red Hat Linux (for everything else). I'm still having trouble because I don't know what I'm doing, but at least that's self-correcting.
Then my work went to Windows NT
OKay, back to lurking, I obviously still have more to learn.
Re:hmm... (Score:1)
They make a statement at the beginning of their survey that this will almost surely skew the results.
That quote you gave about "as one would expect" - I think they're basically saying that such results can be expected from a survey of NT admins. If anything else shows, it means NT is losing their current admins.
Re:Not just "Looking" (Score:1)
This was a trend 5 years ago too (if MS-Press was/is to be believed),
Linux isn't going to magically stop all NT houses to up and switch to Linux.
It takes time....and this is merely more evidance that Linux is here to stay.
Example: for every one of you who says "I just switched from UNIX to NT" there's one of me, who has seen companies port NT web-servers to Linux for stability.
It's harder to remember (Score:2)
These guys shouldn't be permitted shields, let alone phasers & torpedoes
Methinks... (Score:1)
Personally, I think by the time Windows 2000 -is- released, at least some of those NT admins would have switched over.
TARGET: 40,000,000 Linux Users by 2,000.
Re:Methinks... (Score:1)
Cue Linux! Get a distro certified, and those admins & execs will find it a much tougher case to hold onto NT.
Next, userbase. There were an estimated 6-10 million users two years ago, double that this year (12-20 million). If the trend holds true for this year, there will be between 24-40 million users by the end of 1999, and 48-80 million users by the end of 2000. After that, the rate can't possibly be sustained. So, 40 million -is- an achievable goal, for this year, and a realistic one for next.
Actually, I expect the Linux installed base to exceed that of Windows first in Mexico. (I -think- that's where all the schools use it, now.) Because it's widely used in schools, and would therefore be a viable OS of choice for school children where there is a computer at home, it almost has to replace Windows there as the dominant OS.
Re:True, but reverse it: (Score:1)
Re:Mail/DNS/RA server. (Score:1)
And saying that the hardware cost savings weren't significant is also a bit of a red herring. It would take quite a bit of hardware (probably at least $30K) to serve up that much email using Microsoft Exchange. Contrast that with a 486/33, which is basically free, and you have a nearly infinite cost savings.
Re:NT's the best isn't it? (Score:1)
Re:You're missing a small point (Score:1)
Re:When you really see the difference (Score:1)
The real difference, however, is shown when something goes wrong. If there is no NT button to click on and fix the problem you're stuck. With Unix, you can be "artistic" in the config files, you can see what's happening, you can fix things. At the very least, if you can't fix it you'll find a way to go around it instead
In a larger company you'll see Unix boxes working with NT boxes. Whenever something new is implemented it's the Unix admins that get things to work because they can change stuff whereas the NT guys can't.
Regards
Re:Cost of migration seems to be less of an issue (Score:1)
A solaris shop i know of employs 4 admins for 250+ sun workstations and ~10 servers. The admins are also the user support.
How many admins and, more significantly, how many tech support helpdesk workers would you need for a similar size NT network?
Re:hmm... (Score:1)
What's probably of more interest... (Score:1)
Also of interest is the fact that a majority (52%) are not considering LINUX as a possible OS alternative. It would be of interest to see how many of them are hard-core "I won't switch 'till someone puts a gun to my head" types.
The pot calling the kettle black... (Score:1)
And Micros~1 isn't? You can't exactly call them an enterprise solutions vendor!!!
Today's English Lesson: Oxymorons
Re:Slice 'n' Dice (Score:1)
with 5 machines running Unix. So they
replaced HOW MANY NT machines with machines
Fight MS with their own weapons (Score:1)
We have to start talking about providing what suits call an "upgrade path" to get people out of NT4.
Re:Entire Company? (Score:1)
One of the benefits of headless Linux boxes is the prevention of accidental Ctrl-Alt-Delete login attempts. The longest downtime I ever had on Linux was the result of troubleshooting a bad IP Address/Netmask given to me by a clueless NT admin. There are entirely too many of these folks with certificates calling themselves admins.
Re:actually... (Score:1)
Us giving mis-information about what windows can and can't do makes us look as bad as Microsoft. If we must always put down Windows to promote Linux (which I do not believe is a good idea, we should promote Linux on its merits by itself, not just on how much better than windows it is) we at least should get our information right.
Interesting poll amomg sql server mags readers (Score:1)
Re:Client-side Linux (Score:1)
Try "man login.access"
Windows VS Linux (Score:1)
*unix has got to be the most god awful thing to install. Thank goodness I have someone who is willing to help me with my installs *if your reading thanks*
Windows on the other hand is easy to install to a certain extent, however it lacks the reliability of *unix.
I had a *unix machine running 67 days until I tried to add 3 options to the kernel. After that only god could've got it up and running. Well I'm sure someone could've but the every day user couldn't have...and I consider myself a notch or two above the every day user.
*unix is nice for those of us who like to program, get around quicker and cheaper I might add, but people also like to add a program with a click here and a click there and your running. Not some 10 step process that may take a day or two, and recompiling the kernel.
these of course are my honest opinions.
*not yet decided which is better*
Re:Client-side Linux (Score:1)
However, to answer your question,
firstly, the best way to do remote access is through ssh , and turn of telnet services. Check your
If you run sshd , you can edit the sshd config file to deny ssh logins for certain users.
If you run ftpd, you need to add the people who aren't permitted remote logins to the ftpusers file.
You can also restrict access via
Re:NT's the best isn't it? (Score:1)
Now, my NT4/SP3 servers are basically pretty stable (you must have PERFECT hw) but a VP just asked about having to hit 'reload' to update pages - I explained it was WinGate page cacheing, but offered to switch it off. Unchecked the 'cache' box and saved changes, about 20 minutes later nobody could work thru the proxy and we got a house call from Dr. Watson, the service had stopped. They asked "what happened" I said "I Dunno", restarted the service and it's A-ok now. Embarassments like that happen all the time here. The only time I get 'strange weird glitches' in Linux is when I don't know what I'm doing, but 'oddities' pop up all the time in M$ stuff - I just say, "Hey, I don't write the crap, we just buy permission and install it." Rebooting clears up most of it.
Incident earlier today was a Win95 box hosting a printer stopped; event viewer revealed it couldn't renew it's DHCP IP lease for some reason. Back to manual control! In other incidents, I've had two other networks complete stop because the DHCP server got corrupted jet databases. I know it is recommended to manually make backups of the DHCP lease databases, but Why, unless M$ just wants to create extra 'make work' for admins to be kept busy continuously mopping up after this slop.
Chuck
Office 2000 on Monday, wooho. Now we can create documents the could have been created on a 1985 edition of "WordStar" and sent it to people in Office2Grand format and make them feel obsolete and behind the times.
Re:NT's the best isn't it? (Score:1)
Umm, economics? Did you really pay over $100,000 for 3500 client access licenses or should we report you to the SPA [spa.org]?
Chuck
Re:NT's the best isn't it? (Score:1)
Essentially, I grew tired of being an unpaid/unwitting crash test dummy for M$ stuff; If I pay for a license and it doesn't work out of the box I'm not going to waste my time mucking around with something that's going to obsolesce in 3 years - I'd rather muck around with an old standard that at least acts sane.
Chuck
Re:NT's the best isn't it? (Score:2)
Well, first thing, I'm 40
Next, the potential savings I refered to was just client access licenses, not Linux on the end user desktop. The average IT customer can still use whatever they're comfortable with to freely access many Linux servers, w/o any extra training overhead.
Just a quick quote from the 5/31 "Network Computing" mag: "Unlike the controversial Microsoft-funded studies released by Mindcraft, we discovered only negligible performance differences between the two for average workloads. Our tests showed that, depending on the degree of tuning performed on each installation, either system could be made to surpass the other slightly in terms of file-sharing performance. But examining the cost difference between the two licenses brings this testing into an entirely new light.
Anyway, different strokes. DOS prompt, ugh.
Chuck
Re:Entire Company? (Score:1)
Re:Fight MS with their own weapons (Score:2)
I've been doing that already. You might also refer to this as Linux's road map! Another term that the suits are fond of lately.
Also, don't forget to use the phrase "Proprietary Microsoft Windows". The Micros~1 PR and trade press drones elevated the use of the ``P'' word to an art forms years ago when describing any non-MS software. You could barely open up a computer magazine without seeing something along the lines of
Remember: Bill Gates idea of a portable operating system is that you can run Win95 on an Intel-based PC bought from any consumer electronics outlet.
Re:Clients? (Score:1)
'Cept Civ: Call to Power, but the jury is out on how modern that graphical update of CivII really is. :-) Also, Myth II and Quake III are on the way, and other game companies are looking at the platform, since it's actually used by their target group.
But with xpilot available, what do you want with other games anyway?
actually... (Score:1)
Re:actually... (Score:1)
hmm... (Score:2)
It just seems like 3% isn't realistic as far as percentage of businesses using Unix, but that'd make sense if it were an NT only survey. I know Unix isn't nearly that scarce in the US business community.
If it were an NT only survey, though, why do they brag about NT Server's prevalence? They say that it "remains the dominent departmental OS server as one would expect." This is a strange survey.
Re:True, but reverse it: (Score:2)
Note that there's a big difference between having "actively rejected" Win2K and knowing that you are nowhere near ready for it.
Essentially doing a NT4->Win2K upgrade is going to require that your existing WINS, Network Browsing, and MS DNS systems are all working properly *at all of your sites*. I'm willing to guess that this is not the case for > 50% of NT4 shops.
Win2K is also going require a big Exchange (and other Back Office server) upgrade.
The sharper NT admins at these shops probably realize this and are willing to admit that Win2K is not a possiblity until they get the time, money, brainpower, and manpower to do it right. (And wait until MS gets to Service Pack 3 or whateever).
Note that an NT to Linux migration is not exactly a no brainer either, so while you might see a Linux box here and there in an NT enviornment, a knowledgable admin is going to realize that migration is just not in the cards for a while.
My prediction is that NT4 is going to be the new NetWare 3 - it'll be around for a loong time.
--
Re:NT's the best isn't it? (Score:1)
Re:hmm... (Score:2)
I think that Unix is an enterprise OS Server. That's where Bill wants to go next. I consider a departmental OS Server's to be doing things like file servers and groupware stuff. Ie, competing against Netware and Linux. In this market MS does remain the dominant departmental OS.
Yet notice the intro of the report where it has a disclaimer that this group represents largely Microsoft customers and the results are likely to reflect a skewed response in that direction. All the results should be interpreted with this in mind. For instance, Exchange was given a figure of 65% as the principal corporate messaging software. If this were a survey of Lotus customers in the same demographics, probably Notes/Domino would have had a larger figure.
In conclusion I would have to say that the survey should be interpreted in this manner: In a survey of Microsoft customers you would expect Microsoft's OS to be used as the principal server OS. NT is used on 71% of the departmental servers making it the most dominant server OS. Bill Gates should be pleased and mighty relieved that his Server OS is still used by his customers. Whew!
Tools (Score:1)
download streaming media I will use NT. Or if I have some..well cant think of much else to do on NT..Linux is wonderful for programming and as a server. I have a 486/50 server webpages at home (cable modem) that would be dead if NT were installed. I can access it from work and do external security audits on the firewall. Use minicom to dialup our RAS servers and check for security issues too.
Clearing up a few things (Score:1)
- almost entirely : NEARLY
- for all practical purposes (virtually unknown)
Whether it has any more power or not is irrelevant. The problem is that, for the most part, Linux lacks the apps that most people want to use, the substitutes for those missing apps lack sufficient quality for most people, and at the current time, its "desktop experience" is, to put it bluntly, a patchwork of garbage. When most people can already do everything that they want, and already know how to do it on Windows or a Mac, Linux for them is a severe downgrade. Why would a desktop user switch? The joys of Netscape on Linux?Basically, when I see someone choosing to use X under Linux as their desktop OS (i.e., not people who have only one computer and the desktop computer == the server) at this point in time, I can't help but think:
- They use only Open Source software on ideological principle, or
- The pricier alternatives are out of their range, or
- They're console guys just using X to keep a bunch of *terms on their screen at once, or
- They're programmers, actively working to improve the Linux desktop experience, or
- Have very limited desktop needs, e.g., need only a few programs, or
- They're dumb and/or stubborn, usually both.
Nothing wrong at all with those first five groups. The last group probably deserves their fate. This is absolutely, positively, unmistakably, without-a-doubt WRONG. If any company ever owns the entire client and server computing enchilada, it's going to come from first owning the desktop. That's why Microsoft could jump down into the brand new (for them) PDA market with CE and grab over 30% of it within a couple of years. And it's why Microsoft having 30% is still seen as a disappointment by some people -- because they know how powerful owning the desktop is. It's why Microsoft could jump up into the server market and put such a hurting on most Unix vendors. The desktop will always be the key to whoever aspires to world domination.Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Feminine equivalent of brethren (Score:1)
But brethren is nowadays generally excepted to be gender-neutral, now that it has lost it's literal usage as the ordinary plural of "brother".
NT's the best isn't it? (Score:1)
I understand your love, but lying about NT won't make Linux go away. Just ask Bill.
Boy, this guy has absolutely no clue does he... (Score:1)
The intel platform doesn't hold a candle to Enterprise servers.
He also knows nothing about Linux. Seeing Linux focused on the server market seems to be quite striking news to this guy.
Since when is posting useful information 'Spamming'? Now if he was posting this info on a Bingo hall's bulletin board perhaps, but posting computer related information in an IS shop really doesn't constitute spamming.
Personally, I don't really care what OS I see used at my customer's sites. I do, however, like to see working computers. Linux does the job.
Re:hmm... (Score:1)
"Readers are reminded that this group represents largely Microsoft customers and the results are likely to reflect a skewed response in this direction"
Another thing worth noting about the 20% that are considering Linux, BTW, is that 29% are undecided. That makes nearl half that are at least open to the prospect.
going home (Score:1)
Re:Fight MS with their own weapons (Score:1)
Not to be picky, but the 1701D's sister ship is the Yamato. It's named after a certain Japanese person. In addition, there is the USS Galaxy, for which the class is named. They left the other 3 ships in this class unnamed for future writers.
And for reference, the episode title is Contagion.
Mike
--
Re:Fight MS with their own weapons (Score:1)
How many of you remember the episode of ST:TNG in which the Enterprise contracted a virus from a probe and nearly blew apart? The name of the Enterprise's sister ship, which they revealed in that episode, was the Umoto. Remember what happened to the Umoto?
Yeah, the analogy isn't perfect but remember that contracting a virus from an alien probe isn't perfect storytelling either.
Of course you have to remember that Commander Data also contracted the virus. He dealt with it better than the other computers--although it spread much faster and nearly killed him, his internal workings solved the problem for him. What operating system would he represent? Hmmm...
Re:Client-side Linux (Score:1)
As some have pointed out, turning off password protection is generally not considered the best way to handle security. However, 1) it is not my computer and 2) physical access to the machine should be considered adequate authentication. After all, we aren't going to store anything sensitive and if a cat burglar comes in and wants our files, nothing short of encrypting everything on the drive is going to get in the way. The root password is irrelevant.
Perhaps this is one reason Linux is having difficulty penetrating the home users: they think of the computer more like an appliance rather than a connection to a vast network. ("onramp to the information superhighway"... thank you al gore...) Without a nice Internet connection or LAN, though, a home computer really is just an appliance. Hackers and experienced professionals don't think that way, so the software they write often doesn't quite fit home users.
That's an analysis of the present state of Linux. Given the current momentum, the gaps will close and we will be able to write off Windows as a "decade-long fad of the 90's"!
Re:Fight MS with their own weapons [offtopic] (Score:1)
Re:Microsoft Admits Windows 95 Sucks? (Score:1)
The funny part was, the URL of the survey report included the string "FullReliability". 15% or your customers suffering outages more than once a month = FullReliability.
Yeah, right. And a Web browser is part of an operating system.
Re:NT's the best isn't it? (Score:1)
You could start by listing all the companies that are migrating from Linux to NT due to stability issues.
Re:Entire Company? (Score:1)
Clearly, we're dealing with two versions of NT.
One, which they will license to anyone, is overpriced, bloated, and crash prone.
The other, which they will only license to a MSCDotF (Microsoft Certified Defender of the Faith), is the very apotheosis of operating systems: cost effective, lean, and so reliable that it never crashes at all unless you let a non-MSCDotF look at it.
Re:NT's the best isn't it? (Score:1)
In my school (as tradition there is) the computer students run their own server, it's basically a small p200/48/7GB thing. I installed it, did the configuerations needed, recompiled the kernel and Apache (for proper perl/php3) and rebooted for the 2nd time. It's only about a 100+ users, but it has run without downtime now for nearly a year. I never rebooted it once since the installation.
Now, please show me the "out of the box" NT station doing this.... (Especially for over a 100 curious CS students).
Also this thing about commandline/textfiles are just stupid. I think Linux is very structured and easy to maintain/configure _just_ because of this. There aren't a million subsubsub-menues and shit to "point and click" your way through like NT. GUI is, as far as I go, a hopless situation for maintaining a server. And if you feel like mass-operations in text mode is difficult, I have one word for you "Perl".. write once, reuse after that.
If you are dependant on point and click, and unable to do a simple script to assist you, maybe that should tell you something before one goes out and complains loudly about text-mode interfaces and config files....
'Bout doggone time (Score:2)
Re:Feminine equivalent of brethren (Score:1)
Re:NT Monkeyboys learn Linux? Don't make me laugh. (Score:1)
Maybe I'm more mindless than I thought
Nick.
Re:I agree mostly... (Score:1)
Hmmm
Comparing Apples and Oranges... (Score:4)
20% are considering Linux as a possible OS alternative in the future.
Sounds to me like the questions are not equal (I don't think they were meant to be). Comparing these statistics is erroneous, as planning is alot different than considering. And future is alot longer than 12 months, they could mean 5 years. Puffing out your chests by spouting figures like this just makes the whole community look worse. Take the following statement, which is close to the survey's: I am planning on wearing clothes tomorrow, but I have considered streaking in the future...
Not just "Looking" (Score:1)
Man, I see the change happening as we speak. A couple of months ago, I installed the first Linux box in the shop. My, this would have been nothing short of heretic last year.
Now I'm actually working in porting one of our (most important) systems from NT to Unix. They want to have it on Linux and Solaris, because people have started to ask.
And I'm starting to believe that this is the beggining of the end for Micros~1... Oh, the joy.
Re:NT's the best isn't it? (Score:1)
So, you're telling us that they have 3,500 people using NT, and they didn't give them any kind of training whatsoever. Cool. I wish everybody in my company were so smart, as to find out by themselves, in zero time, what does "sharing" a resource means, how to use the "Task Manager" to kill an application that's "not responding", and how to get rid of those freaking Happy99s and Word macro viruses.
Anyway, if your point is that Linux is harder to learn and use, I somewhat agree. A completely clueless user cannot run Linux yet, because our clueless-user-support systems are either incomplete or buggy.
So yes, that seems to be the current situation. But with a little vision of "the road ahead", you could see that this is changing fast. Real fast. And by the time this changes, we won't have to pay for an "upgrade" in software and hardware, to take advantage of it.
My boss seems to understand this, at least.
Regards.
Re:Mail/DNS/RA server. (Score:1)
Go look up the cost of a 600 user Microsoft Exchange license and the NT cluster needed to run it... then redo the above calculation.
Thad
Don't knock Win2K quite yet... (Score:1)
Of course, I still run Linux most of the time...why? Because I need my computer to do things in the background, and I need it to do them efficently. NT isn't able to do that (imho). But you need/want a stable enviornment to code, do word processing, etc. (i.e. not be serving anything on a large scale), then NT definately rivals Linux.
Re:W2k the new MacOS? (Score:1)
MacOS, from my most recent expierences, still had significant problems multitasking. (Try doing something intensive in PhotoShop and then trying to switch to the Finder. GFL.)
Re:Methinks... (Score:1)
This community seems to have a knee-jerk reaction against successful business. I look at the calls for boycott against Redhat and SuSE as being bad precedents of our community fighting those that are putting their money where our mouths are. If some distribution was validated for that kind of role I could see the masses coming out against it as the next great evil.
I hope it's the vocal zealot minority.
I just wish they weren't so vocal
Cost of migration seems to be less of an issue (Score:1)
It would be interesting to see statistics for new IT systems - does anybody have numbers?
Seems that the message is, that SysAdmins are fed up with NT, and that they hope to be more efficient with Linux in the long run! This is a strong statement, considering that Linux SysAdmins are more expensive than NT SysAdmins, and considering that personell costs are usually a big chunk of any IT department!
Re:Comparing Apples and Oranges... (Score:2)
w2000 "no longer a foregone conclusion" (Score:1)
From the Report's "Conclusion":
When I prepared the survey at the beginning of the year, Linux
had only just started making its presence felt. And yet, when
I asked this audience of IT Managers whether they were
considering it as a potential alternative to Windows NT, 20%
said "Yes", with another 27% unsure of what they might be
using as an Enterprise OS beyond the millennium.
Is the writing on the wall and if so, what's changed? Well for
a start, just over a year ago, I would have said that 80% of
Microsoft Windows NT Forum members would jump to Windows 2000
within twelve months of its release. Today, given a number of
factors, including delays, certitude, among the group that
were questioned, has slipped to 30%. I'm not sure that very
many IT Managers really believe that Linux will really take
the place of Windows NT. However, the evidence from this
relatively small but influential group of customers, is that
Windows 2000 is no longer a foregone conclusion and that
options are being kept very much open.
Re:Feminine equivalent of brethren (Score:1)
Um, according to Websters, there's no such word.
There is 'cistern', but I don't think that's what you were looking for
Re:Entire Company? (Score:1)
This is a stale issue, try to find something else to whinge about.
Re:Tools (Score:1)
Uh, don't know what cave you've been in recently but I can play quake2 or quake3 on my Linux box. Also recently Real released the G2 player as an alpha for Linux, and as far as I've used it (listening to music) it works pretty well. So with those two problems solved, what do you use NT for again?
Re:Feminine equivalent of brethren (Score:1)
Um, according to Websters [m-w.com], there's no such word.
sure, compared to Windows 3.1 (Score:1)
I fully agree that NT boxes are nearly impossible to administrate remotely (a big issue for a college student/sysadmin for multiple labs). With the help of third-party utilities (read: more money), _some_ of those stupid features get ironed out.
I installed Beta 3 of Windows 2000 on my newly-built personal machine. It appears to fix a lot of those problems. Integrated CPU, memory, and disk space quotas (FINALLY! What took them so long?!), practically requires use of NTFS (the ONLY decent filesystem they've ever produced), (X-)terminal services, and a decent networking scheme. And my complete installation took two reboots, and required very little input.
As for the admin that started this thread, something is seriously wrong if you made a 95 box the print server. Where were you hosting DHCP? My DHCP server is up nine months at a time, and then is taken down for applying patches. It's a P90 from IBM. My file and print servers (one Alpha/4-166, a dual PII-300, and a P200MMX) have uptimes of about six months.
I also have an NT Workstation box that has all sorts of beta programs, shareware, and freeware installed. It's a P200 with uptimes of three months. Oh, and it's also file and ghost image server.
The price issue is moot - except for migrations, which should only be done because of SERIOUS problems with the current platform. Migrations are naturally expensive. Licensing is definitely an issue. Microsoft licenses ARE extremely expensive, especially when compared to, oh, I don't know, almost every Linux and BSD variant.
2000 also demands hardware - and quality at that. Like NT, it is not tolerant of minor hardware glitches like 9x, or some Unix flavors are. On my K62-333, it took two hours to install itself on 900MB (Server, all options). Once installed, it used 128MB RAM. Most *nixes are much happier on much less hardware. Less Hardware = Cheaper.
All reports are true for NT and 9x. They are dead. The NT kernel did many things right, but it was bulky and unmanagable. 9x finally developed a reasonable interface, but the kernel was major suckage and the networking atrocious. 2000 became managable. Win2K actually is decent. But it's expensive and requires powerful hardware for reasonable performance.
Unfortunately, *nix had all of these features nearly a decade ago, which means that M$ is finally catching up with reality.
*nix has the kernel, the administration-capabilities. It just needs a very-compatable-with-all-sorts-of-hardware-and-in
Re:Fight MS with their own weapons-Offtopic (Score:1)
An alien probe was even responsible for making the captain think he was living out the rest of his life on an dying planet.
-NG
+--
Given infinite time, 100 monkeys could type out the complete works of Shakespeare.
Screwdriver Mechanic (Score:1)
Okay NT is not as good as it should be. LInux is not God either. It has its fault too. On the desktop it is not very good. And X sucks. It is a different matter that is sucks independant of the OS.
What people will have to look at is both NT and linux will coexist. I want an alternative to NT not another NT in disguise who claims that he can do anything and is the be all and end all. I need an operating system that will augument and give me choice. We are using linux on our network to get somethings done. But I would still rate Win as a better desktop OS. HOpefully Linux will become better in the coming years. And so will NT. Then all of us will be winners becos there will be competition and also better features. Linux should thank NT for the competition and respond to issues raised by NT admins instead of ridiculing them. FOr example, there are no apps to match Notes or MSX. There is no Directory Services and so on. Concentrate on having better features. Not on NT.
Understand that the success of Linux so far has been becos it quietly concentrated on providing a better OS and not on hype. Dont worry about the hype. Do a good job and it will pay off.
Re:I dunno... (Score:1)
Tell a man that there are 400 Billion stars and he'll believe you
Re:NT Monkeyboys learn Linux? Don't make me laugh. (Score:1)
A) RUDE
B) WRONG
I've used linux since 1995, at home, along with Windows, Mac and Amiga. I've found linux a joy.
At work, I program for the win family of fecal matter... i mean products.
To claim people who use windows are stupid is just fucking ignorant.
well im trying to move the company where i work... (Score:1)
here are some statements that you can use to persuade your fellow nt admins:
"you'll never have to reapply a service pack again!"
"you wont have to reboot your webserver 600 times!"
"your silly mail server wont get bogged down if the employees decide to send a nude santa claus to everyone on christmas!"
these statements have successfully worked in convincing the admins of another solution---LINUX
so by years end we'll be able to chalk up another company that is switching from nt to linux.
now i gotta get good with linux
Sensei
Get over it! (Score:1)
However, I consider myself able to move around within linux and am fast becoming Linux literate.
I do believe that your statment is as IGNORANT as non-linux users saying that linux is junk...
Watch what you say bud.. Keep you monkey out of your mouth...
D/
Re:NT's the best isn't it? (Score:1)
vncviewer (X server) and to develop in Java. The corporations mail system and the use of non standard files (microft word etc) make using linux on the desktop a bit of a problem, though I am tempted to dual boot (yep I am a bit of a coward) and occasionally use another pc remotely for accessing micrsoft stuff.
Groupware to go first? (Score:1)
'Inaugural survey of the Microsoft Exchange forum'
then:
principal corporate messaging solution: Exchange with 65%
and lastly:
'If anything has to go in favor of the y2k project, what will it be?'
The Groupware system.
Link the three together and you'll have difficulty to stop laughing
Re:Slice 'n' Dice (Score:1)
I run Linux at home for EVERYTHING. I have my boss installing Linux at home now that I have DNS running here at work and it actually works unlike microsquish. We are going to be putting together a big 75 agency ISP type service. Was set to be 9 NT servers. I have it down to 1 NT server, 1 HP-UX server, and 3 Linux servers. So I can say that I am tryin my a$$ off to get it in here, and my boss is listening. We don't like NT all that much, but we have TONS of db's, and no other alternative. But with Oracle, we do now.
Re:NT Monkeyboys learn Linux? Don't make me laugh. (Score:1)
didn't think so. you better check yourself before you wreck yourself......
Re:Entire Company? (Score:1)
Re:NT's the best isn't it? (Score:1)