FUD or not FUD?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| techiem2 May 27, 2007 3:00 PM EDT |
Kinda hard to tell.
He kinda says "linux is good, but it's not windows" I did find this paragraph interesting: Quoting: Of course, for large organisations, the success of Windows isn’t just about how easy it is to install and use – but how manageable it is. How easy it is to support. This is truly Microsoft’s ace card. Microsoft offers the widest and best infrastructure and infrastructure management available, period. There’s no getting away from it – Active Desktop, Group Policies, remote administration... all of these make Windows controllable, regardless of geography and size of network. Well, many Linux distributions simply can’t compete on those terms. Easy to support? Best infrastructure management? Remote Administration? And did he mean Active Directory, not Active Desktop? I dunno, I find admining linux boxes easier than windows anyday... |
| tuxchick May 27, 2007 3:19 PM EDT |
Crud, not FUD :) Honest to goodness, anyone who is experienced on both platforms will tell you that running Windows servers requires more babysitting than a high-rise orphanage. Better remote administration? Easy to support? etc.....this person speaketh out his or her behinder parts. |
| moopst May 27, 2007 7:49 PM EDT |
I work at a really huge defense and aerospace company and they try to manage Windows XP desktops through some home built system called pcvm (for pc version manager). It's kind of like the dog in National Lampoon's Vacation, it's better to just let him finish what he's doing when he gets a hold of your leg. At random the focus will change to a different window and at times it will just shut down Outlook which is nice when you have 6 or 8 emails opened that you have to answer before lunch. It does tell you when a reboot will be required so that you can be appropriately more unproductive while it goes to town on your leg - I mean system. I just wish the Windows people knew how unnecessary it is to take control of someones one and only display, let alone bring down the whole machine. With Linux it would be a piece of cake to update machines in the background without touching the :0 display and only bounce a daemon if needed. |
| tracyanne May 27, 2007 7:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:With Linux it would be a piece of cake to update machines in the background without touching the :0 display and only bounce a daemon if needed. Indeed it IS. |
| kozmcrae May 27, 2007 9:10 PM EDT |
I try to avoid articles where the title ends with a question mark. I usually means the author is trying to rope you into reading something you'll regret wasting your time on. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!