- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Micrososft: Linux Keeps Losing - NOT!
|
|
|
Comments (26)
6 earlier comments in the full thread.
Some anecdotal evidence as to support staff costs: I have seen plentu of shops that average about 1 full time administrator per 15-20 Windows servers. In the Linux camp there are usually 40-50 or more servers per administrator. I even know a certain FreeBSD admin that does 200+ servers all by his lonesome self (and he doesn't work insane overtime :-) But in all fairness, those 200+ servers aren't that different from eachother.
Sander -
Windows is a much bigger headache to keep running than Linux, but those comparisons aren't always apples to apples. In a shop with both Windows and Linux servers, for example, it's likely -- not just possible -- that the Windows and Linux servers are doing different things.
However, you're right, once things are up and running, Linux servers tend to need much less attention than Windows servers. In more dynamic environments, however, I'm not sure that's true. Not that the software isn't better, but that the admins need to look around a little more for answers. That, BTW, is a positive. I remember an article about the Christian Science Monitor's change over to Linux. One thing they noticed is that IT people went from operating passively -- calling support and taking what they were given -- to operating actively -- seeking out answers and digging up information. That, in the end, is much better for the business.
Windows is a much bigger headache to keep running than Linux, but those comparisons aren't always apples to apples. In a shop with both Windows and Linux servers, for example, it's likely -- not just possible -- that the Windows and Linux servers are doing different things.
However, you're right, once things are up and running, Linux servers tend to need much less attention than Windows servers. In more dynamic environments, however, I'm not sure that's true. Not that the software isn't better, but that the admins need to look around a little more for answers. That, BTW, is a positive. I remember an article about the Christian Science Monitor's change over to Linux. One thing they noticed is that IT people went from operating passively -- calling support and taking what they were given -- to operating actively -- seeking out answers and digging up information. That, in the end, is much better for the business.
> However, you're right, once things are up and running, Linux servers tend to need much less attention than Windows servers. In more dynamic environments, however, I'm not sure that's true.
It certainly seems that the linux servers here handle changes much more gracefully than windows. Software updates are all done without rebooting or taking the box out of service (except of course if it's a kernel update, which would require booting into the new kernel).
For instance, the recent time zone updates - for linux, it was a simple update of the timezone package, something that took a few seconds on each server, and no interruption in service. For windows, it was a major outage, the typical mcse dance, i.e. hotfixes, reboots etc. (For that matter it was a big deal for the sun and hpux servers too, but that's a different story)
I certainly can't think of any situation where it would be more difficult to change something in a linux server environment than in a windows environment. Can you provide an example?
It certainly seems that the linux servers here handle changes much more gracefully than windows. Software updates are all done without rebooting or taking the box out of service (except of course if it's a kernel update, which would require booting into the new kernel).
For instance, the recent time zone updates - for linux, it was a simple update of the timezone package, something that took a few seconds on each server, and no interruption in service. For windows, it was a major outage, the typical mcse dance, i.e. hotfixes, reboots etc. (For that matter it was a big deal for the sun and hpux servers too, but that's a different story)
I certainly can't think of any situation where it would be more difficult to change something in a linux server environment than in a windows environment. Can you provide an example?
Quoting:In a shop with both Windows and Linux servers, for example, it's likely -- not just possible -- that the Windows and Linux servers are doing different things.
Very well. Let's compare apples to apples. Another company I know has about 10 Windows webservers and 20 Linux webservers. I'm leaving all the other one's out (DNS, mail, etcetera). They have one sysadmin to run it all. It takes him about 3-4 times more time to manage the WIndows webservers than it takes him to manage the Linux one's.
That same company has two mailservers. A QMail machine doing mail for the clients and a Windows Exchange machine for internal mail. The Exchange server takes a lot of work, going off on a tangent every 5-6 weeks or so. The QMail server hasn't even hickuped in a year.
Quoting: I certainly can't think of any situation where it would be more difficult to change something in a linux server environment than in a windows environment.
There are a few things. Simple SOHO networks with centralized user authentication and access control are easier to set up (not to maintain though). SBS server and SharePoint come to mind. It's what gets unexperienced "admins" hooked into the "Windows way". So easy to set up at first and get hooked on the features, but so hard to manage or migrate away from.
>Can you provide an example?
The best examples I can come up with are not Linux per se, but free software in a business environment, including those time zone updates you mentioned.
Updates themselves were very easy. Getting the information wasn't hard either, but did take more research than for, say, our AIX servers.
More to the point that I'm thinking of, would be issues with libxml2, or changes to MySQL, or, ghostscript or imagemagick, or curl. Those were all packages that I had to deal with in a work environment. Again, the problem was not in the doing but in the information gathering. My favorite example being an strange interaction between .Net clients and our Apache servers whenever the .Net clients were using HTTP 1.1 instead of HTTP 1.0.
To support my case that this cost is a positive, the .Net guys on the other end were utterly helpless in each case we encountered the problem. We helped them (even provided sample C# code) to get past the problem. In one case, they were unable to do anything, so we took advantage of having the code to do a little mucking around to smooth things out.
The best examples I can come up with are not Linux per se, but free software in a business environment, including those time zone updates you mentioned.
Updates themselves were very easy. Getting the information wasn't hard either, but did take more research than for, say, our AIX servers.
More to the point that I'm thinking of, would be issues with libxml2, or changes to MySQL, or, ghostscript or imagemagick, or curl. Those were all packages that I had to deal with in a work environment. Again, the problem was not in the doing but in the information gathering. My favorite example being an strange interaction between .Net clients and our Apache servers whenever the .Net clients were using HTTP 1.1 instead of HTTP 1.0.
To support my case that this cost is a positive, the .Net guys on the other end were utterly helpless in each case we encountered the problem. We helped them (even provided sample C# code) to get past the problem. In one case, they were unable to do anything, so we took advantage of having the code to do a little mucking around to smooth things out.
Quoting: Simple SOHO networks with centralized user authentication and access control are easier to set up (not to maintain though).
Networks that can make use of SBS (I am SBS certified and my employer specializes in it) rarely really need Active Directory or LDAP. Most are in the 10-15 user range and a workgroup would be fine in most cases. The license limit on SBS is 75, but at 50 MS recommends that you start looking at Standard Server. I would put the effective limit at 20-25 users. It is very heavy on the hardware, and it is also a precariously balanced monster: Exchange, a domain controller, SQL Server, ISA server, Sharepoint server...all on one box. If something goes wrong, the whole thing can become a twisted nightmare. I hate SBS. I got certified because the man who pays the salary wanted it.
Actually, experienced Windows admins are more of a danger to SBS than noobs, since they are used to doing things the "normal" Windows way. In SBS, you use the wizards for everything and you do everything the same way every time, or else something bad happens. You can't approach it's AD in the normal way, you can't freely move users from OU to OU to work with them, user permissions are screwed up if you don't use the wizard or if you copy another user..."real" Windows admins get on an SBS and hose it up in about five minutes.
Yep, I know SBS enough to hate it thoroughly. Shoot, it's impractical to upgrade within the Windows family, once Exchange is on you it can be a royal nightmare to move to Linux, particulary if you've married yourself to a Blackberry server or some other form of handheld that is connected to Exchange.
Quoting:once Exchange is on you it can be a royal nightmare to move to Linux, particulary if you've married yourself to a Blackberry server or some other form of handheld that is connected to Exchange.
Nah. Just shared calendars in Outlook is enough. There is no open source replacement for shared calendars in Outlook. Some companies offer open source Exchange replacements, but the make you shell out $$$ for a little piece of software that makes Outlook talk to it (Open-Xchange, I am looking at you).
But whyyy do people stick with Outlook, which is a big fat freaky pain and excels at being a malware vector and nothing else? whyy whyy *cries*
Quoting: There is no open source replacement for shared calendars in Outlook.
I am very interested in seeing what SugarCRM 5 is like, particularly considering that it will be GPLv3. From what little I've played with version 4.5, it is rather a replacement for everything Exchange does (at least in general), including calendars and contacts (hey, it's contact management software). You can attach it to a generic Linux mail server running POP or IMAP and use the builtin email client and not need Outlook at all. It's pretty nifty. I don't know about connecting handhelds to it, though.
Quoting: But whyyy do people stick with Outlook, which is a big fat freaky pain and excels at being a malware vector and nothing else? whyy whyy *cries*
I will cry with you, particularly since it always seems to come up with errors that have no explanation, other than "Your profile is 'corrupted'", which users hate when they have to set their Windows profile up again. I think companies would be much better off with a web-based situation. One client we have is the local Marriot, whose email is connected to corporate, and they access via a web interface (Novell email server). They have no problems. Okay, Novell is also proprietary, but SME's Horde interface rocks, too. A little ugly, but plenty functional.
Quoting:But whyyy do people stick with Outlook, which is a big fat freaky pain and excels at being a malware vector and nothing else? whyy whyy *cries*
Because of the (shared) calendars. The only two apps that come close are Thunderbird, but it's Sunbird plugin is very much in alpha stage (no timezone support!). The other is evolution, which just plain sucks trying to screen-scrape Exchange's webinterface. So, the only possible migration is Evolution + open standards mail + calendar server, migrating the servers and users at the same time. And open source calendaring servers aren't that great yet. CalDAV is getting there, but slowly. As usual, Microsoft's lock-in is integration and closed protocols.
Face it, open source lacks integration at the moment. Probably a heritage of the "do one thing, and one thing well" philosophy. About the only place where we managed to get MS beat on integration is in the LAMP stack. We're starting to integrate more and more, based on open standards, but that doesn't move as fast as MS does with it's all-proprietary stuff. It's hard to try to work on integration with so many disparate software applications.
Perhaps what we really need is a HAL/D-BUS for software. Something that applications can use as a messaging protocol between eachother to provide integration. A system that lets Evolution know that KOffice is available to show office documentts embedde, that tells Pidgin we'd like to match contacts with Thunderbird, that tells KDE applications that I am running them on GNOME and act accordingly, etcetera.
Quoting: Because of the (shared) calendars.
Remember Outlook doesn't have shared calendars, Exchange does, and they can be accessed through the web interface. Outlook attached to an Exchange server is much less a hastle than stand-alone Outlook accessing a POP or IMAP server, because all of the meat is on the server and you can treat the Outlook client like a disposable piece of crap and uninstall it without worrying about losing emails. Few of our companies use the shared calendars anyway, so the excuse for using Outlook is that each Exchange license grants you an Outlook license, so it's like free software (but not Free Software) to those running Exchange.
Have you tried Sugar? It's a sweet suite, and I don't see a reason not to consider it an Exchange/Outlook replacement, particularly considering how most smaller companies use Exchange and Outlook. I know a lot of companies who are still using a separate contact manager (ACT!, anyone?) that they work hard to connect to Outlook and Exchange. Sugar solves all of that. Not sure about Citadel, haven't played too much with it.
We recently changed the college from using outlook/some proprietary mail system over to use the Horde framework.
Mail, shared and personal calendars, shared and personal address books, etc.
Citadel is not Free software. It's merely gratis. The license forbids redistribution of the source.
Quoting: Citadel is not Free software. It's merely gratis. The license forbids redistribution of the source.
Wrong.
http://www.citadel.org/doku.php/faq:generalquestions:what_so...
> Because of the (shared) calendars. The only two apps that come close are...
Umm, are you forgetting Lotus Notes? Yeah, it's almost as bad as Exchange/Outlook, but it does offer equivalent functionality.
Umm, are you forgetting Lotus Notes? Yeah, it's almost as bad as Exchange/Outlook, but it does offer equivalent functionality.
Quoting: Umm, are you forgetting Lotus Notes?
Trying...trying hard...
I wish I could forget, unfortunately I have to see it every morning.
Quoting:Wrong.
Apologies. It's Centric CRM that does not allow redistribution: http://www.centriccrm.com/ProjectManagementFiles.do?command=...
Quoting: It's Centric CRM
I've never actually heard of them, is the software itself any good? Perhaps Sugar's GPLv3 decision will light the fires under the arses of some of those "open source" companies who really ain't.
Also...I just really noticed that my "Wrong" response sounded a bit short, possibly sarcastic or smarty...I was doing a million things at the time and just wanted to post a quick response. I did not mean it to sound in any way negative, confrontational or disrespectful, and I apologize if you found it to be that way (hopefully you didn't).
I've never used Centric. When we heared Sugar5 will be GPLv3 we chose Sugar.
Fuggedaboutit :-)
Quoting:I apologize if you found it to be that way
Fuggedaboutit :-)
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post