linux support?

[jominor]

Originally Posted by Kanati

.

My GOD!! Kanati and I are in agreement! Now, the world ends!!

[jominor]

Originally Posted by dbfresh23

I think that most people that are saying that Linux/Unix isn't more powerful then Windows have probably dabbled with Red Hat or another crappy version of Linux, where you may as well be running Windows.

Linux requres less power to do the same things as a Windows pc. I don't care what people want to say here, I'd like to see a single person here with a Windows box that has EVER gotten an uptime of over 500 days. Linux is also MUCH more flexable then Windows in terms of what you want installed and what you don't. I'm not just trying to bash Windows because it obviously does have it's place. We call that the desktop or entry level server. When Bill Gate will even admit that in the Enterprise with clustering and such, Windows cannot hold it's own, I can't really see the people here being correct. When we talk about stability and performance, I'm not sure Windows could even hold it's own against Netware! Only reason to install a Windows server is for Active Directory - a feature that really even *nix can do better...

Also I'd like to know how many people here have pretty good *nix skills and had a box rooted or hit with a virus? Oh did I forget that *nix is just plain out and out more secure?

Please. I make my living writing software that deploys on Unix and Windows. Only someone with an agenda would claim that Linux is better bar none. I've worked with A/UX, Clix, SunOS/Solaris, HPUX, Aix, Red Hat, and Suse.

I. Don't. Agree. With. You.

[dbfresh23]

I didn't ask you to agree with me. I make a living admining Unix, Windows and Netware servers, the windows has always needed the most hand holding and rebooting. I will give everyone 2k3, It most certainly requires much less rebooting then any other windoze product I have ever used before.

Just because windows may be easier to setup initially doesn't mean it is a more reliable system in the long run.

I've worked with Netware, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Red Hat, Suse, Caldera, Turbo Linux, Slackware, Dos, Windows 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2k, XP and 2k3.

[samgreco]

BeOS. No there was an operating system....

[dbfresh23]

I actually still own a copy of BeOS 5 - around here somewhere... Very neat OS so long as you don't care one iota about security. I actually used that as a desktop for a little while.

[insomniac]

zealots...

[Kanati]

I'd like to see a single person here with a Windows box that has EVER gotten an uptime of over 500 days.

We have a web server running Win 2000 advanced server that is sitting at 460 days (give or take a few now)... Not quite your 500, but the only reason that was rebooted was to add more ram to the box... Think it's uptime prior to that was around 200 days give or take.

One of the secrets to a super-stable windows box is having a LOT of ram. If it's swapping out to the hard drive a lot it seems to want a reboot occasionally. But if the swap-file activity is kept to a minimum... it's stable.

[Kanati]

Originally Posted by jominor

My GOD!! Kanati and I are in agreement! Now, the world ends!!

I'm not... quite sure how to take that...

[jominor]

Originally Posted by dbfresh23

I didn't ask you to agree with me. I make a living admining Unix, Windows and Netware servers, the windows has always needed the most hand holding and rebooting. I will give everyone 2k3, It most certainly requires much less rebooting then any other windoze product I have ever used before.

Just because windows may be easier to setup initially doesn't mean it is a more reliable system in the long run.

I've worked with Netware, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Red Hat, Suse, Caldera, Turbo Linux, Slackware, Dos, Windows 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2k, XP and 2k3.

Then I'll say that a refresher course may be in order. All the admins I know are capable. If you want, I can give your their number for advice!

[jominor]

Originally Posted by Kanati

I'm not... quite sure how to take that...

We, I was joking about the IR thing...

[dbfresh23]

Originally Posted by jominor

Then I'll say that a refresher course may be in order. All the admins I know are capable. If you want, I can give your their number for advice!

I assure you that I am more then capable. It's the MS programmers that I'm not too sure about. I'm sure that you do know some capable MS admins, I still think that 80% + of all MCSEs make it stand for Must Consult Someone Experienced. If you can read a book and pass a test you can be an MCSE. That is also why some people like it more, much easier to learn then more advanced platforms like Unix.

[Kanati]

Originally Posted by dbfresh23

I assure you that I am more then capable. It's the MS programmers that I'm not too sure about. I'm sure that you do know some capable MS admins, I still think that 80% + of all MCSEs make it stand for Must Consult Someone Experienced. If you can read a book and pass a test you can be an MCSE. That is also why some people like it more, much easier to learn then more advanced platforms like Unix.

More complicated doesn't not always equate to more advanced.

[insomniac]

im drawn to this thread like a bad car accident. I think your pocket protectors are showing people

[jominor]

Originally Posted by dbfresh23

I assure you that I am more then capable. It's the MS programmers that I'm not too sure about. I'm sure that you do know some capable MS admins, I still think that 80% + of all MCSEs make it stand for Must Consult Someone Experienced. If you can read a book and pass a test you can be an MCSE. That is also why some people like it more, much easier to learn then more advanced platforms like Unix.

Well, there is a difference between an admin and a programmer, but I do agree with your assessment of certifications. However, Unix is not more advanced. I learned Unix first and have known it longer. Just because it is harder to set up, doesn't make it more advanced. No offense to you whatsoever, but that kind of thinking is what stifles Linux acceptance. A bunch of people with too much time on their hands think they are smarter because the have time to figure out command-line options.

I say work smarter, not harder. I use things like Spring because it frees me up from grunt work to concentrate on the real problems.

[jominor]

Originally Posted by insomniac

im drawn to this thread like a bad car accident. I think your pocket protectors are showing people

I think, ultimately, that there aren't any significant differences between Linux and Windows for a Sage systems. My server and clients, all XP Pro boxes, are are rock solid. I think that Sage, rightfully so, targeted the system that offered the largerst market share. Years ago, Id software's John Carmack said that Quake 3 sales accounted for something like less than 5% of their sales. With that kind of ROI, it really doesn't make sense to target Linux.

In terms of security or stability, XP matches Linux for most Sage systems, I suspect because of the nature of the people using Sage. Most of us have firewalls, routers, and patched systems so not much is going to happen. Remote Desktop provides remote access for system administration and of course, Windows is unmatched for hardware support.

[dbfresh23]

Originally Posted by jominor

I say work smarter, not harder.

Well then we are both in agreement there as well. The part where I start to differ is where I believe that the command line can be very powerful if you know it well enough.

[jominor]

Originally Posted by dbfresh23

Well then we are both in agreement there as well. The part where I start to differ is where I believe that the command line can be very powerful if you know it well enough.

I agree that the Unix environment is powerful. Even with the various GUIs available, I still prefer bash. My point, though, is just that Unix isn't necessarily, inheritably,*more* powerful.

However, I suspect that we can swap stories about people with certifications and that's agreement enough for me!

[zik]

I want a linux version because it will allow me to get more performance out of my rinkydink 1.4 ghz amd t-bird and I don't like paying the MS tax.
If my school didn't give out MS OS licenses like candy I wouldn't even have the ones I have now.

[dbfresh23]

I mostly want a linux version because it would be fairly easy to make a "live" client - similar to using XPE. Boot from CF and run in ram - thus no HDD in client. Main dif is that with linux I wouldn't have to pay MS $1000...

[krutaw]

Originally Posted by dbfresh23

I mostly want a linux version because it would be fairly easy to make a "live" client - similar to using XPE. Boot from CF and run in ram - thus no HDD in client. Main dif is that with linux I wouldn't have to pay MS $1000...

Exactly my thoughts. I figure that there's a million and one distros of linux that it could be run on to meet these requirements (I personally use a remastered version of Damn Small Linux for other tasks.)

Realistically, given a decent client and attainable set of required libraries, the linux client would be a heck of a lot more stable than any windows client could think of, and be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY cheaper.

I mean, I'm currently using Damn Small Linux as a bootable environment for slapping new hard drives in old machines and using them as network attached storage. Why couldn't a decent decoder card be placed in an old machine, and pxe boot a sage linux client?