I can say this with 100% certainty. I've come to this conclusion by simply reviewing server administration times over the past three years. Admittedly not the most scientific approach, but it is all the info I need. Remember, experience is the best teacher. 
Post a Comment
I'm glad Linux is getting out there. By the way, have you tried to play with RH9, i like it more than the rest of 'em... just my $0.02
Of the few that affect Linux, they can't infect the whole system unless you manually give them root access!
I always have the feeling that this will change if Linux ever becomes as big as Windows in the realm of the desktop. The reason, the users. Right now when you try to do certain common tasks in Linux such as Adjust the Date/Time it asks you to sign in as root. Eventually users will become numb to this and anytime this dialog pops up they'll just type in the root password to continue. Want to propagate a virus on a Linux machine; pop up a root password dialog, I'm sure a majority of your users will type in the password. The Linux world may be in for a rude awakening when the legion of "click on anything that's an attachment" Windows users come over.
OS/2 users have been telling Windows users this for years. PCs that 'crashes' is NOT normal.
I agree with this guy 100%.
[QUOTE]Right now when you try to do certain common tasks in Linux such as Adjust the Date/Time it asks you to sign in as root.[/QUOTE]
Linux keeps better time than Windows, so why would they even need to change it?
Nt is what pushed me into trying Linux. I was running an NT box as a server and had constant problems with what I consider very simple things, like print serving. I finally got fed up enough to look for an alternative and gave Linux a try. I never had a problem after that. It performed flawlessly. After over a year of uptime with zero crashes or downtime I upgraded to a newer version...because I could. Again another year of uptime. My server is now on its third version and I no longer even look at it anymore. It just keeps running and running and running. Its running Mandrake 8.0 so that gives you an idea of how long its been running.
I now use Xandros as my desktop and no longer use any Microsoft at all.
>> One of the most interesting aspects of setting up Samba >> (and just about anything under Linux) are the
>> configuration files. Having files that could be viewed
>> and manipulated in a text editor is so gratifying. A
>> parameter can be modified and fully commented as to what >> was changed and why. Try that in Windows!
AMEN! Finally, someone said it. Windohs registery sucks and Gconf sucks just as bad. Hurray for flat text config files.
That's a facetious argument. Seriously, though, the only solution to this is user education. It takes a whole lot less time to learn how to properly seperate the roles of "user" and "administrator" than it does to recover from just one virus infection.
Interesting point: like the author, I used to find Windows to be quite stable as well. Of course, this was because I reinstalled once every couple of months. I found that I simply had to in order to keep the system in good condition. A year after being tuned last, all the Windows systems on my home LAN are long overdue for a reinstall. Stuff is just randomly breaking, and I just don't have the patience to try to debug an OS that actively prevents the user from seeing what is going wrong under the hood.
[QUOTE]Linux keeps better time than Windows, so why would they even need to change it?[QUOTE]
I have had problems in the past with setting the correct time during the installation of several different Linux distributions. This has become a non existant problem with more familiarity of the OS and the distributions that I have used. If linux is so much better at keeping time then why even have the ability to change the time in the first place? Here are a couple of valid reason for needing to change the time.
1. Change in location, may need to adjust the time zone...
2. System time may not be correct...
3. Individual may want to adjust the appearance of the date && time.
etc...
I had never thought of the fact of commenting changes in config files, but after reading his article, it made me think. Being a programmner, I always comment changes I make in source, so I can go back and see what I have done that may be causing this or that. So commenting config files makes sense.... I am surprised I have never read anyone else make the same suggestion.
My laptop runs windows 2000. I have not had to restore it in over a year (since I bought the laptop on ebay.) Windows 2000 SBS with service pack 3 runs and runs and runs. The only time I have to reboot is when I do updates. I just TS in at night and do the updates, reboot the server and no one is the wiser. All servers I order come from dell with win2k or win2k sbs on them. I never have a driver problem. Any client I move from nt or 98 to 2k or xp love it. They have no problems of it freezing or crashing. The only time that happens is when there is a hardware problem or a driver issue. The only gripe I have against using MS software is the expense.
I administer 11 WinNT 4/W2K servers. Mostly DELL PowerEdges, and a few boxes built from prime components, handpicked by myself. These machines are used for webserving, file/print, RAS, and application serving.
Maybe 30 minutes a month, total, I have to troubleshoot something. Big deal.
Seems this guy's issue is a PBCM.
that all the text-keyword ads on this page point to Microsoft products. :-)
(Then again, with their multi-multi-million dollar marketing budget, one shouldn't be surprised...)
You know, when I read the title to this article, and the article itself, I expect the author to get flamed by all the anti-GPL and Windows Trolls that frequent this site. I'm truly suprised by the low key, curdious responses he's getting.
My take: Most business won't make the switch to Linux servers for fear. They either fear something they don't know (anything without the Microsoft name on it) or fear something they can't sue (that's my company's excuse for not using GPL'd, or any open source, software). I agree with the author. From a server prospective, Linux is superior for most applications. The home desktop, on the other hand, is a different story.
Funny - the text keyword ads don't show up on my linux box 
AMEN! Finally, someone said it. Windohs registery sucks and Gconf sucks just as bad. Hurray for flat text config files.
Finally someone said it? Trolls say this all day long. GConf rocks. It's great for the app developer, because it makes it ridiculously easy to do your preferences and get notification of changes. It's great for the sysadmin, because it provides a unified mechanism to provide default and mandatory settings on systems. It's great for the user, because you have a central location of your preferences for backups, transfers to new machines, etc.
And GConf uses XML files to store preferences, which are a far cry from the binary database used by the Windows Registry.
Linux is not a panacaea. Anyone who thinks so has no business in the IT industry. I think it's most likely that this person's previous clients suffered from an Administrative version of the PBCAK (problem between chair and keyboard) bug.
>the text keyword ads don't show up on my linux box
Only work with IE 5.5+ or any browser that spoofs as such.
I'll check on my Linux box at home tonight...I'm at work right now (Win2K).
Your business's attitude is funny. Ask them to read the license of their commercial software sometime. They almost invariably contain the same "no-warranty" clause that the GPL does. Actually, correction --- they will refund you the cost of the software if a problem arises within 90 days of purchase. For all intents and purposes, GPL'ed software has the same guarantee --- I'm sure most authors will be happy to refund you the $0 you payed for their software 
So with Linux you can do the same thing for less. Think this isn't a godsend for cash-strapped IT departments (as long as they have at least one employee with some Linux expertise, of course)?
Seriously, for File, Print and Web serving at a low cost, Linux can't be beat. (I also prefer it on the Desktop, but that's another story...)
Safer, less administration to maintain, more powerful!
So why even discuss linux vs windows?
< Maybe 30 minutes a month, total, I have to troubleshoot
> something. Big deal.
Yes, it is when your system is down and you need your IT guy to come, charging many $$$$$$/HR...
> The only time I have to reboot is when I do updates. I just
In linux you DON'T have to reboot to do updates...
> TS in at night and do the updates, reboot the server and no
> one is the wiser.
That is why Windows has lousy UPTIME. It is a BIG difference to say "my system hasn't crashed for a year" and " my system has been UP for a year straight"... Some one WILL be wiser when they get that IT guy bill for $300/month....
It is funny that the 2 Windows supporters support my faith in Linux....
MarkP
I knew it. I knew that somebody would bring this.
Solaris is much better. Why should we bother with BSD? *sigh*
Linux is good at some things, BSD is good at others... Different people have different needs. However, I must admit that too few people are even considering BSD. I guess that's because "Linux" is the buzzword for "Windows alternative".
Yes W2K SP3 run and runs and runs... I have a house FTP on W2K SP3 (prev SP2) for about 2 years now, running 24/7 and it's being accessed by 3-7 people pretty much any time of the day. It never crashed on me -- BUT: After a couple month of operation it gets slower and slower. When down/upload-rates are down to about a third of what it used to be I finally reboot it - then it will be fine again. If you wouldn't reboot your system all the time you would realize the slow and unacceptable degradation of performance for a business. That's why I will switch it to SuSE with the next hardware upgrade and why I put SuSE for a friend's business in the first place: He doesn't ever want to look at it and certainly I don't either. Further, I save money on a W2K, Firewall, virus-scan and FTP-Server license.
Yea, I had read the story about the ads - I was just making light of his notice that they appeared on linux story by stating that they don't appear on linux boxes. So I guess it's kind of like preaching to the choir.
i like windows.. its a great desktop environment.. but why use windows for a server when linux does it so well, performance and price wise? Theres hardly any reason at all to use microsofts server products. i think linux has a little bit to go before i start using it on my desktop though. its about time i gave it another try. linux is eventually gonna take over i think.
Some people love the integration between Windows components, i.e. IIS, Exchange, SQL Server... It's also more simple to deal with one software provider than 2, 3 or 5. I'm not sure the paid support by RH (or any other vendor offering support!) is better than the one from MS. Finally, MCSE are usually less "expensive" than UNIX gurus...
Or it could be the fact that Linux has more comercial offerings and backing then BSD.
You mean an in-experinced MCSE guy/gal is a lot easier to find and a lot cheaper ( expensive, depends on how you look at it ) to pay for. Most veteren MCSE guys/gals that know what the hell they are doing and do it very well are not cheap to hire.
XBe: Linux scales to higher end hardware, and I'm not sure what you mean by BSD being more "powerful" and "safer". Both systems have similar functionality (actually Linux has more) and about an equivalent security track record.
Linux is cheaper? Pfft. The problem is that no one in the open source/Linux community understands how to calculate TCO in any semi-realistic fashion. The software is NOT expensive! The hardware is NOT expensive! The time IS!
TIME IS MONEY. Wake up. If you spend an hour on something, reading, learning, tinkering, configuring, troubleshooting, or even staring into space in vast admiration of it all, that is time that could be spent DOING BUSINESS. When your users spend 2 minutes confused on how to do something because they are unfamiliar with the platform, and those milliseconds that they waste on every single interaction every single hour of every single day with their computer due to poor design or poor responsiveness, they are not doing business. You a losing money. It adds up. Fast.
Mail servers, web servers, file servers, workstations, browsers, kernels, updates, etc--people talk about it all like it's the product, like it's the goal. Guess what, no one who does serious business gives a damn how it gets done--just that it enables them to do business--silky smooth. They want users to be productive. And in all reality, they want IT people to have NOTHING TO DO.
When you spend even one hour of your time on IT related BS instead of doing useful work towards making money, you lose that money, pure and simple. Gone. And that's part of TCO.
With all the money you "saved" (read that as hid somewhere in your IT staff's pockets) on Linux, please buy a clue. Your time is worth more money that you'll ever spend on the software, or even the hardware, or in support costs. What do you pay an IT staffer? $60k/yr? How many do you have? 2? 5? That dwarfs a paltry $200 a month in maintanence fees, or even $2000 a month. If you have the software, systems, and services that can reduce your IT staff by ONE person, they have paid for themselves.
Personally, I have friends in graduate school who almost failed to get their PhDs because they spent so much time maintaining just a dozen workstations with Linux on them! The updates, the configuration, management, installation, dealing with user requests...it's all work...and it's all time--and all we're trying to do is some RESEARCH. People spend huge amounts of time maintaining their own platform JUST SO they can do business or pleasure, or school. Why?
I'm afraid the author lives in a distortion field. I'd ask him to write down how many hours a month he spends maintaining Linux workstations and servers with updates, troubleshooting, maintanence, and multiply it by an hourly rate, but I'm afraid he'd be embarrased.
Until Linux offers a package that is compelling in TCO and people figure out where the hidden costs are, it will not be a success.
Cost is not just money. Wake up.
This is not an ad. This is a rant.
The way I read the article, the author was saying that he IS the IT for these local small buisinesses, that they are outsourcing to him, and he is making less money because his customers need him less to run their machines. That sounds exactly like the definition of TCO which you have described.
Timekeeping is a bad example here, since both Linux and WinXP support automatic clock correction via NTP. As far as entering passwords for everything, the only time that I *need* root access to administer my desktop is when I install more software, and possibly to provide some global configuration information. The exceeding majority of applications will save their configuration information under $HOME/.something for the express purpose of minimizing root access.
Despite what you seem to think, you end up paying LESS in IT salaries with Linux because, while Linux CEs are a bit more expensive than MSCE's, you require less of them to take care of the same number of boxes.
Warwrat, re: RedHat's technical support...the good thing about Linux is that even if tech support isn't able to solve your problem (I'm not saying RedHat's tech support is worse than MS - which is known for its dismal tech support, BTW), then you can always find an answer for your question on the Internet within 15 minutes.
Foobar: as I said before, Linux reduces the total number of IT staffers needed. There are studies that show this very clearly. Because they are generally more stable, Linux Servers need less maintenance. Note that we're not talking about the desktop here, but about servers, i.e. you bringing in users having to relearn things (like what? "File -> Open" is at the same spot...) is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Personally, I have friends in graduate school who almost failed to get their PhDs because they spent so much time maintaining just a dozen workstations with Linux on them! The updates, the configuration, management, installation, dealing with user requests...it's all work...and it's all time--and all we're trying to do is some RESEARCH.
BS. Updates, config, management, installation, dealing with users...this is all stuff they would have had to do with MS servers as well. Security updates on Linux are a one-click deal (and in 99% of the time they won't touch your config file, so you don't even have to reconfigure).
Either your friends were incompetent (and thus would have problems with Windows servers as well), or they used an unstable distro for production purposes (which is incompetent as well), or you made that up to support your FUD. Personally, I tend to pick the last one, since you just repeated MS's line about TCO word for word - even though it has been disproven by independent study. So it is my opinion that you really are a paid MS shill. Nice try, though.
Your "logic" is only applicable if the techs involved are more skilled with Windows than with Linux. The cost of training one properly (in either environment) is dwarfed by the cost of the employee over the length of his service. To someone skilled with computers, Linux isn't harder, just different. Don't get the idea that Linux users somehow spend inordinate amounts of time configuring their system. Editing a few text files doesn't take more time (heck, it often takes less) than pointy-clicking through a GUI. Over the last year, the total maintenence of my Gentoo laptop amounts to the following:
1) 15 minutes (total) for installation. Time spent compiling is not included, because Gentoo's install is structured such that user interaction is only required three times --- once to bootstrap (1 minute worth of typing at the CLI), once to start the compiles (another minute worth of typing at the CLI) and a few more settuping up fstab and whatnot. Also, note, that unlike Windows, you don't have to spend hours afterwords downloading and installing the latest drivers, downloading essential utilities like Winzip and Acrobat, etc.
2) 2 hours tweeking KDE to fit me perfectly, including choosing themes and wallpapers and colors
3) 3 hours installing a 802.11b card. This was the biggest time sink, because PCMCIA 802.11b cards require special drivers in Linux.
4) 10 minutes reconfiguring networking to allow moving my laptop between home and work networks.
5) 9 minutes (10 seconds once a week) typing "emerge rsync && emerge world" to update the machine.
6) 2 hours restoring my system from backups because WinXP tried to mount and fsck my Linux partition.
7.5 hours over the course of a year. Not bad, considering that most of this stuff is one-time (now that I've had the sense to backup my KDE settings Sure, I play with my machine a lot (trying out GNOME, trying out KDE-CVS, testing beta kernels, etc) but all that stuff I would do anyway.
[i]"I agree with the author. From a server prospective, Linux is superior for most applications. The home desktop, on the other hand, is a different story."[i]
YES Someone said it! I haven't done that much Linux networking stuff myself but the little that i have done hasn't been that hard for me. However for most people making the switch from Windows to Linux will find it a bit confusing. This is why i highly recommend Mac OS X as a desktop OS and Red Hat Linux or Free BSD as a Server OS, however if you can get an Xserve i'd recommend it.
I say it's hard to switch because in Linux/BSD your average user wouldn't have a clue where the apps are. How the hell is the average computer user out there supposed to know /usr/bin/(i don't remember right off the top of my head) or whatever it is, is where the apps are stored? Windows and Mac users are accustomed to having a Program or App folder in the root level of the hard drive or pretty close to it, and it's Easily(mac)/semi easily(win) identifiable. For desktop os Mac OS X is the best by far, for me first getting into Linux it wasn't incredibly clear on how to do anything and appeared to be slower/less responsive than Windows. From discussions I've had with some people this scares the crap out of them and makes them wonder why they installed Linux in the first place.
Listen i am mainly for Mac OS X - personally i think it's the best OS around. Right after Mac OS X i think Linux/FreeBSD is your next best OS. I have a great respect for Linux seeing how it's evolved from the very first time i installed it, however it's far from ready for the avgerage user. The average user wants a easy installer for the OS and then to be able to easy navigate around and find the apps to make shortcuts for, or install patches(should certain apps require it. Most importantly the user wants an easy double clickable installer to install an app or an easy way to install it. Mac OS X excells ahead of every os at this, you can even run some apps that you haven't even installed. The average user out there won't have a clue what the hell 'cd /usr/bin/ then make apphere' means and as long as linux works this way it will never see it's full potential. However it's nice to see people make a linux os like arkLinux thats focus in on ease of use.
When your users spend 2 minutes confused on how to do something because they are unfamiliar with the platform, and those milliseconds that they waste on every single interaction every single hour of every single day with their computer due to poor design or poor responsiveness, they are not doing business. You a losing money. It adds up. Fast.
To the doomsday naysayer at Sun.com:
I wonder how many millions of dollars you just wasted at your work by typing up such exaggerated baloney. Let's see: a conservative estimate of 10 minutes reading the article and another 10 minutes typing up your hand-waving crap comes out to be at least $70,537,630.17 out of Sun's pockets.
I just installed Solaris 9 the other day. It was one of the longest installs I've ever performed. NT isn't much better. I also had to spend just as much time locking the thing down just to be as secure as a normal Red Hat or FreeBSD install takes in one click. More time than that for NT. Then I had to and install all the other useful software that RH and FreeBSD comes with.
In reality it sounds it's you that doesn't understand HASSLE. The hassle that Free operating systems usually take out of their systems because they don't have a marketing department and shareholders to please every quarter.
BTW, you just lost another $275 by reading this article. Get real.
I come to this site because of really good reviews. Now I can read anther cheap one.
Ever administrated decentral Linux boxes with 1000+ users?
*argh*
Why does someone always bring up BS about MCSEs being cheaper than unix/linux admins? If you hire someone who knows what they're doing, you'll pay more. It's about ability and experience.
The average user wants a easy installer for the OS and then to be able to easy navigate around and find the apps to make shortcuts for
In most distributions, the shortcuts are created automatically. And have you ever used Windows? First, you are supposed to know that applications are in "Program Files", and then, when you open it, a warning appears, that you are strongly discouraged to do anything with Program Files manually.
And when your distribution does not create shortcuts, there is KAppFinder. Start it from the menu, click the applications to make shortcuts for and voila.
And about TCO, why would I want an easy installer? Why should perform these steps:
(Optional:
1. Search through the Internet for the application you need.
2. Search for a download.)
(Optional:
1. First install WinZIP because the installation program is packed)
1. Read the entire license. (You need to read the GPL only once)
2. Click Accept
3. Click Next - Next - Next - Next - Next - Next - Next
4. Wait.
5. Click "Keep current DLL", "Keep current DLL", "Install new DLL", "Keep current DLL". (No, this is not phantasy)
6. Wait
7. Click Finish.
And then it is installed
When you can do these steps:
1. Select the application from the menu (SuSE) or do "aptitude install program" (Debian) or do "cd /usr/pkgsrc/category/app && make install" (NetBSD)
Now walk away while the application is being installed. How long is the interaction with your PC? Even with SuSE's YaST on a slow computer not more than a minute.
And for the rest, you forget how long it takes for someone to become comfortable with Windows! Yes, I am a child, and I have seen that after my father having used Windows for a year, and the Mac for five years, he is NOT able to download an application, UNZIP the installer and run it. You are right, the Apple is very user-friendly. But Windows is not as friendly as you might think.
Another example: a father of a friend of mine is Professor in Mathematics. He has used computers very often, and he is accustomed to the command line, and can do almost everything he wanted with ease. He does not want to switch to Windows, because he thinks all those icons and such are USER-UNFRIENDLY! Would you guess that would ever happen? Probably not. And this professor has a secretary, which was accustomed using Windows 3.11. Now the professor told that she needed to learn to edit latex files, compile them and view them from the command line. She understood EVERYTHING within an afternoon, if not even within an HOUR. And she has NOT forgotten it. So it is just to what you are accustomed.
Daan.
//Yes, it is when your system is down and you need your IT guy to come, charging many $$$$$$/HR... //
Not when I _am_ the "IT guy." I thought I made that clear.
Addition: I wonder how much TIME (and thus MONEY) it would cost to convert that professor to Windows. He also needed an HOUR, not to learn the command line, no, how to select, copy and paste in the GIMP. So a GUI is not always more efficient, more user-friendly and easier to use.
Daan.
I have a funny story.
2 weeks ago all the desktop computers at work all with Windos OS (about 20) got infected with a virus that came in a mail(outlook), the virus left the pcs useless we spend 2 days formating and reinstalling all the 20 pcs. Now that I think, we lost 2 days of money making thx to our unsecure OS (Windows).
But only one pc managed to survive and that was mine, I was using RH9 and Evolution so the virus didn't afected me.
Now tell me, ¿What OS is the real time saver?
The best OS, eh? Well, if you like to spend time maintaining anything, and really look at the situation (configuration + management) none of them are a "better OS"; re: Windows vs. Linux.
You can dance around all day and bash every OS in the book. This is a fairly technical savvy crowd here, we know how to use things, I'll give us all equal credit on that.
However, very few of us here in the these "comment" areas have enterprise experience. You can flash around knowledge you have on anything, that's not the point. The point is: when you walk into a company what are most people running, and can you manage it correctly?
Basically if you know Linux, great! You can make lots of money servicing whatever amount of Linux boxes are out there, from a consumer level to probably mid-business, maybe enterprise too! It may be easier to find a MCP/MCSE to admin MS networks, but really after having working in the IT industry does it REALLY matter what YOU PREFER? It all comes down to the client.
It's nice to read about these debates here and there, but they aren't productive. Both Windows and Linux have a long way to go. In terms of TCO, they are both costly to maintain in enterprise environments, or any, give or take a few dollars here and there. Give it 10 or so years and you'll be complaining once again what OS out of the next several that come out are the best. Just use what's easier for you!
How the hell is the average computer user out there supposed to know /usr/bin/(i don't remember right off the top of my head)
That's it, you remembered it...
or whatever it is, is where the apps are stored? Windows and Mac users are accustomed to having a Program or App folder in the root level of the hard drive or pretty close to it, and it's Easily(mac)/semi easily(win) identifiable.
Uh, I'm sorry, but don't 99% of users start programs by going to the Start/Main Menu, then selecting the correct entry in the Programs/Applications/Whatever menu? I mean, who still starts programs by going down into the folder/directory where it's stored and clicking on the executable icon? Hardly anyone I know...
Not only that, but if you DO use the command line, you don't even have to type "/usr/bin" as it's in the path. All you have to remember is the name of the app (i.e. "kmail" "galeon" or "gimp") and type it - that's even faster than using the menu if, like me, you have a little "command line" applet in your menu bar.
Give a user a well-configured KDE or Gnome desktop and he'll have no trouble finding his way around (personally, I recommend KDE for Windows users and Gnome for Mac users, but that's just me).
What I am about to say is based mostly on personal preference and experience, so don't take it as too serious an attack on either Windows or Linux, or on their users.
I have found that FreeBSD performs better, stays up longer, and requires patching less frequently than either Windows or Linux. Definately plusses for any buisiness.
I attribute this to both the free, open source nature of the OS, as well as to the fact that it is a mature system that has been evolving for nearly thirty years.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
I have a funny story too, it's about this guy who was so hung up on not paying for software, he didn't download any antivirus software and didn't know how to quarantine a simple virus! Hilarious! Actually your company lost money because they hired you, an obvious amateur. Installing RH9 doesn't make you any brighter than the guy who installs Windows 95. If you can't manage Windows, I'd hate to see how badly you have Redhat setup.
I have a funny story.
2 weeks ago all the desktop computers at work all with Windos OS (about 20) got infected with a virus that came in a mail(outlook), the virus left the pcs useless we spend 2 days formating and reinstalling all the 20 pcs. Now that I think, we lost 2 days of money making thx to our unsecure OS (Windows).
But only one pc managed to survive and that was mine, I was using RH9 and Evolution so the virus didn't afected me.
Now tell me, ¿What OS is the real time saver?
I just noticed a clear Linux-FUD in the comments, with a IP from Sun.com. 
"No one understands TCO
By Foobar (IP: ---.sun.com) - Posted on 2003-07-07 19:13:27
Linux is cheaper? Pfft."
Hey SUN, StarOffice and Openoffice.org is great products... but lets face it your Unix-version cost HUNDREDS OF TIMES more than a simple Redhat-station! >:-)
Also worth mentioning - I have both Linux & Win2k boxes at work. When I've had to reinstall Linux (I like to break things...) my home directory, which is on a separate partition, is preserved - so I keep all my settings, documents, and backup copies of 3rd-party packages. I can be back up & running in an hour from a full install.
Now, when I've had to reinstall Windows...let's just say I got a few hard lessons in making backups. Documents gone, apps gone...mucho time gone.
"Don't get the idea that Linux users somehow spend inordinate amounts of time configuring their system. Editing a few text files doesn't take more time (heck, it often takes less) than pointy-clicking through a GUI."
Well, for me, this is not an idea but a matter of fact. Once you know the drill you'll be able to do the same things on Linux in the same time as is Windows, but that is only "if".
I give you an example.. I mentioned above that I am running our home FTP for about two years on W2K now, I am running Serv-U FTP software. With the graphical interface indicating what/where to do I can setup an FTP fairly easy although I haven't seen the software beforehand. Figuring out how proftpd for Linux works on the other hand took me days. It does not say which parameters have to be set in the general, which the server-specific section, how to auto-start it, where the default directories are, etc, etc, etc... once you know it, it's no rocket science but it is by no way self-explanatory. I asked in the osnews-forum a week ago how to auto-boot into a user account and auto-start proftpd -- I didn't receive an answer, in fact I didn't in three forums. I have sorted out everything I need by now and saved my configs, so when it comes to set up the next FTP, it will take me minutes -- but it will be the same painfull process with every app I'll run into, I'm afraid, so I wouldn't sign that maintaining Windows is at the same ease as Linux for everybody.
TCO is a very simple concept. The less my clients see of me the better. My clients rarely (almost never) need me on the servers. I use Mandrake's autoupdate (automatic-daily) for security patches $0.00. I run bugfix updates remotely once a month (charge $120.00 per client per year). I have found that the majority of bug fixes are for apps that aren't (or shouldn't be) loaded on a server . I use NTP for time synchronization. I spend on average 4 hours a year on Linux servers, mainly reading logs or installing a new package ($480.00). I used to spend 2 hours a month per Windows server (loading patches, ensuring the critical AV software was updating, checking backups integrity, rebooting, etc). I write scripts for my Linux servers to alert me a backup was performed (a simple file listing emailed to me). AV software also alerts me ( a list of ide's emailed), a manual check isn't mandatory with Linux, it is with Windows.
A Linux server costs my clients about $600.00 per year in maintenance. WIndows cost them $2640.00, if they encountered no viruses or other problems.
I've been hired by MSCSE's to take care of major headaches that weren't covered in the MS course, so I do know Windows. Windows servers don't always crash, and I was not insinuating that they do (Desktops are another story). Usually they need a reboot to clean them up or after a patch. A monthly reboot does them good. A monthly reboot is time, especially when a system running Linux can go a year without slowdows or reboots. I had one Windows server that ran for 11months with no problems. I thought the client moved on! When the client did call, they informed me that only one person was using the Windows server for the past 9 months, due to company downsizing. The call was to inform me the server was down. I tried the basics over the phone but came out to find the system totally inaccessible. I even tried the recovery console (deep shit territory) but the system reported the drive was at capacity and wouldn't allow any access, I couldn't delete anything without it spontaneously rebooting. I popped in a temp drive, loaded Linux, moved the data off the NTFS drives onto a workstation. Wiped the system, loaded Linux plus Samba, and copied the data back. This took three hours and I haven't been back! I ssh in to check the logs, and all is well. Linux is Better for Businesses.
I'm glad Linux is getting out there. By the way, have you tried to play with RH9, i like it more than the rest of 'em... just my $0.02
there is no need to change from Mandrake. just let
it be. there are many businesses out there that do
use red hate.
be nice
hi eugenia
[QUOTE] I had never thought of the fact of commenting changes in config files, but after reading his article, it made me think. Being a programmner, I always comment changes I make in source, so I can go back and see what I have done that may be causing this or that. So commenting config files makes sense.... I am surprised I have never read anyone else make the same suggestion. [QUOTE]
Here's another good idea: use RCS to track changes to config files. Makes it even easire to undo a mistake.
I'm flattered that you accused me of anti-Linux FUD. It was marked as a rant, if you noticed. I'll take that as a compliment as I smile at the sickening beauty of the FUD volley unleashed by all of you against me personally, my friends, and their experiences. A Microsoft shill? A Sun.com doomsday nayser? I can see now there are plenty of people who have severely distorted perceptions of my point.
For those of you who have a hopelessly polarized view of the marketplace in software / systems, both in servers and desktops, and thought by pointing out some misgivings I have about the open source movement I was putting both of my arms around big brother Bill and kissing him square on the lips, please point to a single sentence where I support implicitly or explicitly Microsoft or their products. I didn't, and I don't.
Believe it or not, there are platforms out there besides Linux and Windows. Companies like IBM, HP, Apple, and Sun all have their own platforms--hardware and software. For things like critical infrastructure where users don't matter, you might be shocked to find that some of these machines exist! Some companies believe strongly in these platforms because they save them money and allow them to do business--without having the worry. Those companies offer solutions--packages. "Let us take care of it"--and many fortune 500 companies do. Big vendors work damn hard to make their clients businesses go smoothly, and many, many companies trust their critical infrastructure to them.
This is the point I am making. Businesses don't care how many dollars their software costs up front or how expensive their servers are--they want peace of mind, stability, security, and availability. They trust that to professionals, and realize the deal they are getting--if they could do it cheaper themselves, they would. They realize its about TCO, not about religious wars or software budgets.
Thanks for the insults to my friend the administrator. That was flattering. He happens to be the hardest working, most dedicated people I have known, and after relinquishing control of administration to the department, was able to finish his PhD. I watched and helped with the administration to help take pressure off him--I knew what it was like to keep those workstations and servers up and running--and it was more than a couple researchers were able to do.
And why did we have to do it ourselves? Who else who do it? Not the department of course. No one supports it. No one will do the job for you. Linux is supposed to be this do-it-yourself kit that can make a highly productive administrator out of anybody, right? Well I found my experiences to be quite different. Quite.
It's getting better. So what. Without at least a little idea of where to go with it, its not getting anywhere fast. Who leads?
Switch away from Microsoft? Be my guest. Switch away from IBM, HP, Sun, Apple? Be my guest. But please don't piss your dollars away on some religious exorcism or on a dillusion.
Your attempt at flaming Ramsees is flawed by the fact that you're making three assumptions about his post:
a) the company didn't have anti-virus software installed
b) the virus they were hit by was already included in popular anti-virus software
c) Ramsees was the person in charge of securing the network
One cannot conclusively know these from what was written, so you shouldn't assume anything. In any case, it doesn't take away from the fact that here and now Windows is more vulnerable to viruses than Linux by multiple orders of magnitude. This may change in the future, when and if Linux becomes more prevalent - that's all speculation. The cold, hard truth remains: Windows requires more time and money to administer than Linux when viruses are taken into account.
Timekeeping is a bad example here, since both Linux and WinXP support automatic clock correction via NTP. As far as entering passwords for everything, the only time that I *need* root access to administer my desktop is when I install more software, and possibly to provide some global configuration information.
I was just using setting date/time as an example. I run Red Hat 9. With a default install if I choose anything from under the System Settings menu (usually stuff that's in the control panel on Windows) I need to provide a root password. These include Add/Remove Applications, Display, Keyboard, Language, Login Screen, Mouse, Printing, etc. Like I said, once people become used to seeing a prompt for root password (and with some people they only need to see it once or twice), they'll get used to just typing it in whenever they see it. It all comes down to education, but so does the simple fact of not opening every attachment your sent, or updating your virus software once in a while.
...I hate to admit it, but it's true that setting up a FTP server is still a pain in Linux. There used to be a great GUI tool for configuring proftpd, called gproftpd, but last I heard it was no longer maintained...
Anybody else know of a good user-friendly FTP server app (or configuration utility) for Linux?
Linux scales to higher end hardware, and I'm not sure what you mean by BSD being more "powerful" and "safer". Both systems have similar functionality (actually Linux has more) and about an equivalent security track record.
Well you see since there are so few people who manage to set up a safe Linux box due to the fact that it's not just one package it results in less safe. This doesn't mean that you can't make it safe, but hey let's face it, most people can't.
Powerful is also for the very same reason, it's hard to bloat a BSD server and since you don't spend time updating and patching half as often as you do with Linux you can spend more time with what application you want to run and therefor spend time on getting that powerful, not patching stuff everyday.
Just because BSD not the buzzword like someone said doesn't mean it's ideal. OFcourse IBM would favour Linux, means they can sell a lot more consultancy time.... with BSD they'd have a lot less time supporting running systems.
But I recon the average Linux user to busy being cool rather than productive so the BSD side ain't thought about yet. I'm not concerned with it, after a couple of years of nix usage people tend to move to BSD...
"Just because BSD not the buzzword like someone said doesn't mean it's ideal. OFcourse IBM would favour Linux, means they can sell a lot more consultancy time.... with BSD they'd have a lot less time supporting running systems. "
Should be
Just because BSD not the buzzword like someone said doesn't mean it _ISN'T_ ideal. OFcourse IBM would favour Linux, means they can sell a lot more consultancy time.... with BSD they'd have a lot less time supporting running systems.
I thought I recently read that RedHat is going to make a Desktop Linux distro. Anyone know if this is true? I thought it was supposed to compete with Lindows and/or SUSE's new desktop offering.
...they remind us Linux advocates that we should try to avoid coming out sounding like snobbish, know-it-all pricks when we criticize windows...
Oh yeah, making Linux secure is very difficult, sure...
http://www.bastille-linux.org/
*Yawn*
"I can say this with 100% certainty."
Someone pretentious enough to claim he knows something as complex as business computing as 100% certain, is either an idiot or a lunatic, and doesn't worth a second of my attention ...
Why couldn't he said something like "based on my experience, here's what I think, in my opinion, is better".
100% certainty. Right. Never heard of Socrate don't you ?
I don't know Bastille, but I know for SUUURE that the one who chose this name hasn't got the slighest clue whatsoever about the Bastille... ;-)
"...they remind us Linux advocates that we should try to avoid coming out sounding like snobbish, know-it-all pricks when we criticize windows..."
I bit too late, tho.
If they do I hope they add in Ximian Desktop 2 along with other features and fixes targeted for home user desktops onto Gnome. Oh yeah I hope they make it a i586 or 686 version. Trust me I can tell the differrence between RedHat, Mandrake Arch Linux OS. Arch is so much faster then Mandrake and Mandrake is so much faster then RedHat when it comes to my P2 450 mhz machine ( 256mb's of 133 ram ). Of course once you get to the 800 - 1 ghz range you can barely notice a differrence between the three IMHO. I know on my main rig ( 1.7 ghz Athlon with 512mb's of DDR400 ram ) I don't really notice too much of differrence between RedHat and Mandrake except for a few faster start times on certian applications.
Ouch.. SuSE 8.2 is not a supported operating system, it says... latest Suse supported is 8.0 -- still interesting, I'll watch it...
Yeah, I always though it was a strange name for a security app (for those who don't know, the Bastille was the French prison that was overrun and taken by the revolutionary forces on July 14th, 1789 - therefore giving France a date for its national holiday).
The irony being that it was pretty much unprotected/unguarded at that time, so in fact, there was no "storm of the Bstille" since there wasn't nothing to storm in the first place -- at that time -- normally, the Bastille would have been a pretty much safe place to be, to put it modest...
I know I'm feeding a mountain troll, but...
Well you see since there are so few people who manage to set up a safe Linux box due to the fact that it's not just one package it results in less safe. This doesn't mean that you can't make it safe, but hey let's face it, most people can't.
FreeBSD isn't just one package. What is ports? Why, it's a collection of packages... *sigh*
Powerful is also for the very same reason, it's hard to bloat a BSD server and since you don't spend time updating and patching half as often as you do with Linux you can spend more time with what application you want to run and therefor spend time on getting that powerful, not patching stuff everyday.
FUD. Back your claims if you're sure they ain't pure, raw and rotten horseshit. Personally, I don't know any people patching their system everyday, not even Windows users. Btw, if a security bug is found in an application (Apache, for example), you'll have the same bug in *BSD than in Linux. Perhaps the userspace is less buggy, but you shouldn't give access to the console (via telnet or ssh) to servers, anyway...
Just because BSD not the buzzword like someone said doesn't mean it's isn't ideal. OFcourse IBM would favour Linux, means they can sell a lot more consultancy time.... with BSD they'd have a lot less time supporting running systems.
FUD. I said the thing about BSD not being the buzzword, and I believe it. However, you have no proof that Linux is soooooo unstable. "Look out there, they are everywhere" is not one.
But I recon the average Linux user to busy being cool rather than productive so the BSD side ain't thought about yet. I'm not concerned with it, after a couple of years of nix usage people tend to move to BSD...
...and some UNIX and BSD people moved to Linux. What's your point?
>> The software is NOT expensive! The hardware is NOT expensive! The time IS!
>>
Are you trolling? Sad? Lying? Or you just never had a real IT job??
>> I have friends in graduate school who almost failed to get their PhDs because they spent so much time maintaining just a dozen workstations with Linux on them!
>>
Not surprising! Your "phd" friends must be complete morons, which is exactly what one would expect.
Mandrake is fantastic for no fuss Linux. People should use Linux, rather than pirating M$ products.
The BSD versus Linux argument is abosulety ludicrous and many atimes uncalled for. I need to ask one question. What the hell is wrong these zealots?!? BSD is this... BSD is that...blah...blah...blah. BSD has been in existence for approximately 30 years and yet they have never been considered a threat by Microsoft. Sometimes I think people just mention BSD as an alternative to the major alternative. Outside that BSD is pretty much as lousy as linux is.
I can't stand this BSD elitist attitued anymore. I will say it here now and again. *BSD isn't any better than Linux is. It's all a matter of preference. Serverwise, desktopwise even gamingwise, *BSD is just as lousy as Linux is and even in my experience much lousier. It doesn't offer any technical innovation over what Linux has today. It doesn't offer any performance gain over Linux. It is not as recognised and supported as linux is. So what the heck are these bloody zealot clamoring about?!?
One would think an operating system that has been developed for approximately 30years would be milestones ahead on Linux. But no it isn't. And in several respects it is behind. If BSD continues at the pace is has been going for the past thirty years, LInux will cleary outshine it tomorrow. Bah, I like *BSD, but don't tell me it is better than Linux, especially after illustrating sentimental views as your reasons.
Geez, I'm fed up.
Mystilleef
I have a funny story too.
I have a Win2k box at work serving as a "server" which doesn't do much but used once maybe every month. I remember telling my co-worker that "Look at it! It's up for a month!" seriously, a month without rebooting a windows machine is not usual.
I also have a Linux box at home built with old hardware, and it had been running for 4 months, but I brought it down for an upgrade.
I never setup a real Win2k server so I don't know, but from my NT experience, I prefer Linux as my server OS.
>Anybody else know of a good user-friendly FTP server app (or >configuration utility) for Linux?
Well, setting up pure-ftpd was a breeze for me. Easy to configure and get running.
Interesting… I have also supported many small businesses over years running Microsoft’s Small Business Server and other Microsoft Server products. I have rarely run into the problems you are talking about. Most of the problems I run into are inexperienced administrators who do not understand the operating system. I know, I used to be one! When you have a server that functions similar to the workstation on your desk it is easy to get in there and mess around, install new apps, etc.
This is the classic (and I must mention old) Windows vs. Linux argument. Comparing unlike versions of software does not tell me anything. This is like me saying a 2002 Ford F-150 gets better gas mileage than a 1995 Chevy Silverado so Ford must be better. Mandrake 8.1 came out in late 2001; of course there is going to be support for newer hardware when comparing it to Windows 2000 and especially 98SE. To make it fair compare Windows XP.
Here are a few thoughts on Microsoft. 90% of all system crashes in Windows are OEM (Third Party) driver or application related. Writing software for Microsoft is like ordering pizza for 75 Million people, someone is always going to complain!
Let’s face it, you chose Linux for the same reason the rest of us did, you’re a computer nerd and you were bored with Windows.
The graphical config tools for Linux can be sparse, but a little Googling goes a long way. kwuftpd is a good front-end to the wu-ftpd server. However, I would not expect a problem, even from the text file interface, from somebody properly trained in the software you are using. Training, as always, is important. I certainly wouldn't hire somebody to maintain my Windows webservers who didn't at least have some training in IIS! Remember, we are talking about servers here. The people maintaining the server are expected to be familiar with the software they are administering. The intuitiveness of a GUI might allow a desktop user to successfully do something just by futzing around the config tool, but it would be utter idiocy to hire an admin who needed to rely on that method!
'It's all a matter of preference'
Mostly true, yes.
'It doesn't offer any technical innovation over what Linux has today.'
ACPI perhaps? How about DevFS? Sure they're available, but not built in.
'It doesn't offer any gain over Linux'
Checked Netcraft's uptime survey lately?
'Geez, I'm fed up'
So am I. BSD people aren't the only ones engaging in pointless FUD wars, spreading misinformation.
- No, Im not in charge of the security, Im just a programmer (SQL stuff)
- Yes, We have an updated antivirus software but the virus was new so the antivirus wasn't able to detect it.
- The software services provider would charge a $700 bill for antivirus protection.
- I like RH9 and its becoming my main OS.
[QUOTE]Anybody else know of a good user-friendly FTP server app (or configuration utility) for Linux?[/QUOTE]
There's an easy wizard in the Mandrake Control Center ... clickclickclick ProFTPD works :o) ... urpmi wizdrake first.
Anyway ... proftpd is easy, never had much luck with wuftpd- it's hard to chroot a user with wu.
The TCO thingy? ... lol ... http://ltsp.org ... chuckle!
STIBS
we have windoes people trolling here, i bet some
of them are gate's own personal trolls. and we
all know that trolling is not very nice and it
it dont work.
come on bsd people. when u see a Mandrake or red hate,
or suse article , lighten up. u can always join in
on a bsd article.
by the way, i read a couple of years ago that
bsd was gates favorite. oh yes.
be nice
hi eugenia
'u can always join in on a bsd article'
this is a 'Linux & Open Source' article.
that include the open source BSDs by definition.
Think man!
'It doesn't offer any technical innovation over what Linux has today.'
ACPI perhaps? How about DevFS? Sure they're available, but not built in.
Both are built in. In fact, I'm using devfs... Okay, it's labelled as being "experimental", but it works great here.
'It doesn't offer any gain over Linux'
Checked Netcraft's uptime survey lately?
I did, but I've also read the FAQ:
Additionally HP-UX, Linux, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD cycle back to zero after 497 days, exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at that precise point. Thus it is not possible to see a HP-UX, Linux or Solaris system with an uptime measurement above 497 days.
Source: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#whichos
'Geez, I'm fed up'
So am I. BSD people aren't the only ones engaging in pointless FUD wars, spreading misinformation.
Agree, and that's sad, as the average user DON'T want to be a part of an elitist community... Geeks fightings can scare them.
Sorry people but I would still use Netware and eNDS for user, file and print services over linux and windows any day of the week.
a.) I'm not assuming that, if they did, they didn't have *good* antivirus protection.
b.) Rubbish, the only virus at their company is the human behind the keyboard for being lame and downloading that crappola.
c.) He seemed pretty keen on the situation. He seems to be really good at securing his own desktop. That or really bad at finding any viruses on it.
Your attempt at flaming Ramsees is flawed by the fact that you're making three assumptions about his post:
a) the company didn't have anti-virus software installed
b) the virus they were hit by was already included in popular anti-virus software
c) Ramsees was the person in charge of securing the network
One cannot conclusively know these from what was written, so you shouldn't assume anything. In any case, it doesn't take away from the fact that here and now Windows is more vulnerable to viruses than Linux by multiple orders of magnitude. This may change in the future, when and if Linux becomes more prevalent - that's all speculation. The cold, hard truth remains: Windows requires more time and money to administer than Linux when viruses are taken into account.
We learn everyday.
However, I must admit that I've heard that the ACPI implementation for Linux is a little bit broken... Well, the ACPI implementation from Microsoft is broken, but manufacturers are using that one as reference... and the group doing the Linux one is refusing to emulate "bugs" from the Microsoft one. x_x
I don't remember where I saw this, and I don't even know if it's 100% true, but I'll try to find back a source.
KarlSak, that's a good choice, but it's quite an expensive choice for small business. It's like the guy from Sun (Foobar)... I believe he's right with TCO, but he seems to aim big companies rather than small ones... and the guy in his editorial do the opposite. Both are different markets and have different expectations. Personally, I wouldn't trust a mission critical server with >1K users on it to Linux, but I wouldn't use a SPARC or an AS/400 for a SB with 15 users either.
This might be off topic, but anybody knows why the uptime number get back to zero after 497 days? I hope it's not because of 2^32...
I dont know if you are getting paid by Bill Gates or you have a closed mind, We have Norton antivirus and a Soho3 SonicWall ,we are protected, what do you want us to do? Tell to our customers to stop sending us viruses by mail, they don't even know they have them, Are you gonna give us the $700 for virus protection? no?, then please shut up cause you have no idea what you are talking about.
I always amazes me how people consider "VIRUSES" the reason to use Linux. There are over 150 native Linux viruses currently. Sure that far less than Windows at over 80K but what most people forget is that Windows viruses transfer over a Linux+Samba server as fast and as easy as a NT/2K server. The "virus" cannot tell the difference. Also what about Windows viruses stored on a Linux server that other Windows clients can access of Samba?
What about Microsoft Word or Excel viruses that you get and open use and save in OpenOffice?
Windows virus still cause problems in the Linux world. Get a grip people. Viruses are NOT the reason to switch to Linux. There are far better reasons to switch but it is not because of viruses.
'ACPI perhaps? How about DevFS? Sure they're available, but not built in. '
I see it's been a while you've used Linux. :-) Well both ACPI and DevFS are already included in the kernel, and mind you not as modules. In fact, I have both features built into my kernel, version 2.4.20 gentoo-sources revision 5.
Really, both operating systems are great, and I can barely see any technical or performance difference between the two. There just both doing their *things* and doing it well, at that. And frankly, I enjoy the competition they both exercise. ;-)
Mystilleef
(Quote) i like windows.. its a great desktop environment.. but why use windows for a server when linux does it so well, performance and price wise? Theres hardly any reason at all to use microsofts server products. i think linux has a little bit to go before i start using it on my desktop though. its about time i gave it another try. linux is eventually gonna take over i think.(Quote)
Active Directory. It makes it much easier to manage things.
Linux makes a good webserver or file server. That's it though.
Does anyone know of a way to run a large scale Win2k-esque domain on a Linux boxes? Novell doesn't count by the way.
it's good to see some level-headed people here. yeah, it has been a while since i've used linux, but i do like to try it out every now and then, just so that i can see what's new/cool, as well as so i know what the hell i'm talking about. sometimes admittedly, i drop the ball.
i did know about devfs being in the kernel actually (my lfs based system uses it as i am a tad dense, and despise using slackware's MAKEDEV or mknod), but it was my (perhaps mistaken) understanding that (as pointed out by Wrawrat), ACPI on linux left much to be desired. to be fair, the freebsd implementation (which is based on the same code as linux's) doesn't play nicely on some i386 machines.
for all of us, these are exciting times with the upcoming releases of linux 2.6, and freebsd 5.2.
What about Microsoft Word or Excel viruses that you get and open use and save in OpenOffice?
Strange, I thought that OpenOffice was NOT using VBA, but its own version of BASIC. However, you're right, it's not the best reason to switch to Linux. There will be more virii for Linux once l33t kiddies start to use that platform.
since i am using red hat as my server platform for my ibm/lotus domino server; i never had any problem with my server.
domino may crash (yes... it happens. and especialy if you start using custom made c/c++ applications wich are using the notes/domino c/c++ api) but linux never ever had a crash.
and i never had to reboot my box because of any slowdown. in windows i had to reboot the server, just because the server started to get terrible slow and only a reboot seamed to fix the problem.
and my compaq server is up since more then 200 days (i did not rebooted it since i switched to 2.4.20 kernel):
# uptime ; uname -mrspv
2:00am up 219 days, 13:35, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.02, 0.00
Linux 2.4.20-xfs #1 SMP Sat Nov 30 10:22:49 CET 2002 i686 unknown
and domino is runing and runing and runing. and this box runs as well samba (having more then 1/2 tb of data) and tomcat and pure-ftpd and nfs and hylafax without any problem.
with windows this task would be possible, but i am 100% sure that i would need much much much more reboots and i would need to pay much much more attention this server then i am doing now.
microsoft has 100% lost me on the server site. i don't see any reason of using microsoft windows as my server os. what can windows do what i need and is not available on linux?
cheers
SteveB
that all the text-keyword ads on this page point to Microsoft products. :-)
Just how do you turn these $#%^&^$# things off??
'I always amazes me how people consider "VIRUSES" the reason to use Linux.'
In fact, it is one of the strongest reasons. You can't imagine how many times I've reformatted my hard disk because of it.
'There are over 150 native Linux viruses currently.'
I'd appreciate a credible source or two.
'Sure that far less than Windows at over 80K but what most people forget is that Windows viruses transfer over a Linux+Samba server as fast and as easy as a NT/2K server. The "virus" cannot tell the difference. Also what about Windows viruses stored on a Linux server that other Windows clients can access of Samba? '
That's got to be the funniest statement I've read this year. If 80000 virii wouldn't make you switch, I don't know what will. Viruses are executables with an .exe extension, of course usually masked. A ton of windows executables will not work on a native linux filesystem like reiser, ext2, ext3 or jfs. So if you sent me an .exe file to my linux machine. I'll be able to read it but it will never get launched automatically when I open it to read/edit it. Isn't that amazing?!?
' What about Microsoft Word or Excel viruses that you get and open use and save in OpenOffice? '
Hahaha...you never stop to amaze me. Read above!
'Windows virus still cause problems in the Linux world. Get a grip people. Viruses are NOT the reason to switch to Linux. There are far better reasons to switch but it is not because of viruses.'
Nope, all the windows viruses I know of are executables. All the windows executables I know of don't work natively on Linux. So your argument it flawed. If you doubt me. Copy any windows program to Linux and try to launch it in Linux. If the launch without any form of emulation, like wine or winex, I'll buy you a beer. If they don't, well you learn something new everyday and that includes that windows viruses can not be executed in a linux envrionment. See, we are not just 'halaing' for nothing.
Regards,
Mystilleef
Very understandable. ACPI doesn't work too well on Linux either, but I guess work on it is in progressing. Hey, all the FreeBSD users I know insult the Gentoo devs for stealing so much from FreeBSD. :-) Ironically, they all happen to use Gentoo too and they like. So I say give it a try if you haven't. You'd be pleased with what you see. In fact, I wouldn't forgive you if you don't give it a try. :-D Okay, I was just joking.
As a FreeBSDer I think it will be a wonderful transition into Linux, too see what's happening in the linux sphere. And as a lsf linux user, you'd hate yourself after using Gentoo. :-)
Regards,
Mystilleef
There are over 150 native Linux viruses currently.'
I'd appreciate a credible source or two.
Here's some:
http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/index_linux.html
http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/index_linuxworm.html
http://securtyresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/auto/index/indexL...
Note that they are all identified by Linux.something, so I might miss some. Btw, I want the beer!
http://linuxtoday.com/security/2001032800520SC
;)
Gentoo "borrowed" a lot of things from FreeBSD, but that was expected as Robbins is an ex-FreeBSD user, after all. Perhaps that's why it's my favorite distro, too. However, I must admit that I would probably use FreeBSD if my hardware was supported... Linux is far from being ready for desktop, but IMO, BSD is even farther.
I've been comparing the lists of drivers for both linux and freebsd, and there aren't too many things that linux has that freebsd doesn't.
Two issues I personally think need to be addressed with freebsd at the moment regarding the 'ready for the desktop' thing include better hardware detection by the installer (not like 'kldlaod snd' is hard, but new users shouldn't be expected to know this), and a working set of OpenOffice packages.
Don't let anyone claiming that there are adequate OpenOffice packages for freebsd fool you, they (the packages, and quite possibly the people making the claim) are half-baked and flaky as all hell.
Apart from those two issues, I have been running FreeBSD on my desktop machine for about a year now with no real problems.
There are over 150 native Linux viruses currently.'
I'd appreciate a credible source or two.
Here's some:
http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/index_linux.html
http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/index_linuxworm.html
http://securtyresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/auto/index/indexL.....
Note that they are all identified by Linux.something, so I might miss some. Btw, I want the beer!
http://linuxtoday.com/security/2001032800520SC
'
I took a look at the links you provided and none of them specifically stated GNU/Linux has been afflicted by 150 virii. In fact, the last link you provided contradicts that notion and I quote from the last link.
"David Millard, technical manger of Command Software (a seperate anti-virus firm to Central Command), said there were fewer than 10 viruses that infect Linux systems and he said the bug should be treated as a "proof of concept" rather than anything more serious."
This further validates my point that viruses on *nices have never really been an issue. I have never been infected by a virus throughout my *nix computing years. Sadly, this is not the case with windows.
Beer you said, may be some other time. ;-)
Regards,
Mystilleef
Why is it ironic that the mail was outsourced? It's certainly amusing, but doesn't seem ironic to me.
Also - it is not true that Linux viruses have to be given root access - necessarily. There are some existing flaws in older versions of the software (and yet undiscovered flaws) that allow an intruder to obtain root access. There are ways to guard against this, but if you leave your system unpatched then it can still be compromised.
Having said that, I've never experienced a Linux virus, but I have enjoyed it's uptime - once the nvidia drivers became stable - and always on my server. The idea of rebooting to solve a problem is a foreign concept to me, as such I get a bit confused when windows users talk about rebooting their machine because it's been running a while, or other weirdness.
'Linux is far from being ready for desktop, but IMO, BSD is even farther.'
That depends on your defination of desktop ready. I use GNU/Linux very comfortably as a desktop. In my opinion, that's enough reason to stamp a 'ready for desktop' seal on GNU/Linux.
Primary desktop usage.
1). Word processing
2). File editing
3). File management
4). Web browsing
5). Emailing
6). Instant messaging/chatting via ICQ or IRC
7). Multimedia
i). listening to music
ii). ripping/burning mp3s/oggs to compact disks and vice-versa
iii). Watching DVDs or video files on your file system
iv). Creating movies
v). playing games
I bet anyone can do all the above on GNU/Linux and a ton more. Agreed navigating your way around GNU/Linux is a different experience as compared to Mac or Windows. But that's the point, it's neither of them. And I hope they all remain innovative and different.
Regards,
Mystilleef
You have a list of three viruses from sophos none of them have a method of propogation between linux machines. So basically this makes them concept viruses. Any fool can make a concept virus. If you emailed me a file containing that virus do you think I would get infected? Maybe you don't understand the difference between outlook and a normal email program.
As for the worms yes they exist. People should patch against them.
When people say viruses are the reason to switch from windows they are talking about the outlook virus propogation engine. Linux does not have it.
Lets see, I can have a linux server running RedHat up and running with Postfix,Apache,PostgreSQL etc etc in about 1 hour with raid. It takes the same amount of time to setup a windows 2k server, and then to get SQL server up and running propery takes another hour or so.
You forget that it takes time to learn new versions of Windows as well, if you think you can simply jump into windows server 2003 and have zero problems you are sadly mistaken.
Now here is another example, I can install Firebird SQL in a matter of minutes and have working DB's that will do just about everything MS SQL server will do in a couple of hours, now consider if the cost of MS SQL server, if you buy per seat it's around 150 per user, or if you buy the unlimtetd server license it's around 5000, either way the few hours I spent setting it up ever at 200 per hour is way less than the cost of the MS SQL server, and my clients don't ever have to worry about buying more Per Seat Licenses, and if they need another server, no problem, no licenses :-)
The whole thing about TCO is a bunch of crap.
I have the knowledge in both Windows and Linux and I would recommend Linux over M$ in tons of situations, and it takes the same amount of time to set either one up.
Linux is not rocket science and if you have people that can't figure it out then something is wrong. Maybe you need to get better qualified people :-)
"Agree, and that's sad, as the average user DON'T want to be a part of an elitist community... Geeks fightings can scare them. "
Never joined a club, have you?
Thanks, I had a look at the project homepage and it sounds interesting. I'll definitely give it a try.
"There are over 150 native Linux viruses currently."
I've heard smaller numbers. In any case, these are known viruses, but only a fraction of them has ever been seen in the wild.
As far as propagation is concerned...viruses may propagate over a samba network, but only because of Windows apps, i.e. Linux apps will not propagate the viruses. I don't know about MS Office macro viruses, but these ones don't seem to be making much problems these days. The biggies are mostly outlook viruses (and MSSQL ones, IIRC).
So in fact Viruses are a very good reason to switch to Linux, until of course enough people have switched so that virus writers target Linux more than Windows...we'll worry about that problem when we get there! :-)
Active Directory. It makes it much easier to manage things.
Samba 3.0 supports Active Directory.
Working for an outsourcing company, most of our clients are Windows shops. Properly set up, monitored and left alone, even NT4 servers can be stable. A number of NT4 f&p / exchange / sql servers at clients have been up for over a year. However, these are usually 'edge' servers at branches that dont experience a particularly dynamic environment (ie they get set up and left alone, because their requirements dont change).
Most of the linux servers I use are back-end servers for monitoring and webpage serving etc and they are typically very reliable and more able to support change without affecting the entire server (eg adding a virtual interface on Linux is a 2 second job, NT4 requires a reboot). Ive never used Linux as a front-end samba server as (without using XFS) providing the file/directory ACLS we generally need isnt easily possible. Also, being a mainly Windows shop, the politics of trying to make this happen isnt worth it.
A GUI front-end to an application, be it on Windows or Linux (or whatever else) usually makes for a more intuitive setup/configuration of an application, especially if you arent particularly familiar with THAT application. A text-based configuration requires you to do more research and learn more about how to set it up and the implications of changes (a good thing IMHO). Once you have that knowledge, then its usually quicker to set it up on subsequent servers than it would be with a gui.
Typically, i find that open source apps are usually less feature-rich, BUT the features that ARE available usually WORK without serious problems and the little annoying bugs that seem to continually crop up in closed source s/w.
As a note, experience-wise, Ive been in the industry for about 12 years now and started with DOS 3.x and Windows286 etc a few years before that. Ive worked with various flavours of Unix, done a LOT of Netware 2.x/3.x/4.x, worked with NT since v3.51 and have played with linux off and on since Debian Hamm.
At home I run a gentoo server and a dualboot XP/Gentoo w/s. Im typically booted into Gentoo, whereas the better-half and flatmate typically use XP, although there was a comment the other day from the better half as to how much faster Linux (Konqueror) seemed when she needed to do some webbrowsing.
I enjoy tinkering and find that Gentoo is a great environment for this. I do find that I end up needing to access the forums and doccos lot when setting up a Gentoo w/s or server from scratch as I dont do enough of it to imprint the commands/syntax in memory, whereas setting up XP is pretty much follow your nose.
Basically, I find that most things work fairly well, some things are better suited towards one OS than another. I leave the religous arguments for others. I just use what is most suitable for the task at hand, or what the customer wants.
When my server was running Windows XP Pro, I could copy large mpeg files to it at 3.5 megs per second on a 10mb LAN. The client was also Windows XP Pro.
When I changed my server to Debian, I was able to sustain 4.5 megs per second for hours.
When I changed my server from Debian to FreeBSD, I was able to sustain 8.5 megabytes per second.
When I changed my client to FreeBSD, I am now able to sustain 11 megabytes per second.
Changing from XP to FreeBSD made my systems about 3x faster. That works for me.
:)
You are able to sustain 11 megabytes per second on a 10mb LAN?? Even assuming you mean 11 megabits per second, it seems quite impossible. Are you sure you didn't upgrade to a 100mb lan somewhere in the process?
Aren't (almost) all network cards 100 Mbit nowadays?
I asked in the osnews-forum a week ago how to auto-boot into a user account and auto-start proftpd -- I didn't receive an answer,
The auto-login is rather easy if you use X+KDM, you can even do it with point-and-click! Settings->System->Login Manager->Ease(?)->Activate autologon and select the user.
I don't know the English translation, as my KDE system appears entirely in Dutch.
And I am soo happy Linux and BSD have a text-mode console, to do simple administrative tasks. For example, if I want to add an user with Samba support, I can login quickly, do an "useradd -m user" and "smbpasswd -a user", fill in a password and within ten seconds it's done.
In Windows I need to login as Administrator, wait for all those stupid services like QuickTime, the virus scanner, WinZIP tray icon and MSN Messenger to appear, as they are all-user, open the MS Management console, dive my way into it, right-click, add-user, fill in the properties, OK-Close, dive my way into the "Documents and Settings" to find his documents, Right-click-Properties-Sharing, enable, OK and logout.
But wait, the login step is not needed, you need to know the trick. You know there is an option "Run as another user"? Well, probably you know this option won't work if you create a shortcut to the Control Panel or to c:. But what is possible is to make a shortcut to "c:program filesinternet exploreriexplore c:", then enable the option, and when you launch the shortcut and provice the password you can browse files (and use the Control Panel) as administrator. Gee, isn't that user-friendly?
When I use the scp command, it displays the speed it is transmitting at. It oscillates between 10.5 and 11.
Both NIC's and my (Netgear) Hub are advertised as 10mbits, but I suspect they are capable of a little more. I do have cables rated at 100mbit.
When I first saw the speed exceed 10, I though FreeBSD must be pushing the hardware to its uppermost limit. The time to copy a 700MB mpeg file went from 3 minutes to 1 minute when I changed from Windows to FreeBSD.
As a test, I just copied 3 of my DVD movies, and this is how FreeBSD performed (I don't how to paste yet, so I'll recreate scp's output):
12_angry_men.divx 100% 598MB 10.8MB/s 00:55
Ali.divx 100% 964MB 10.6MB/s 01:30
Beautiful_Mind 100% 825MB 10.6MB/s 01:17
There use to be a 4.5 where there is now a 10.8. The amount of data copied increments about 10 megabytes per second, so I assumed MB/s meant "Mega Bytes per Second". A (roughly) 600 meg file in (roughly) 60 seconds would be 10 megabytes per second, too.
10.8MBps (or even 10Mbps) is not possible on a 10Mb lan. Best case, you will see 8Mbps or 1MBps on a 10Mb segment. 10.8MBps barely obtainable on a full duplex 100Mb lan.
yeah, you are either wrong or lying. in the "real" world it is impossible to get 10 out of a 10 lan. there is some analysis that will help you out with this in various network books.
yeah. something is awry here.
dude, you dont even know how to paste, so I doubt you know what your talking about. On top of this, SCP is extra slow, with lots of overhead.
One interesting point, and i don't know if this has been raised before (im too lazy to read all 100 comments), is that being the cheapest can often be a disadvantge with the crazy world of managers and corperates.
These middle-manager types often want to be in control of as much money as possible, and hence pick the big expensive MS SQL server (or oracle) when something smaller and simpler would actually be better.
Hi,
I agree with the article - switched over (not to Linux but to its older 'cousin' FreeBSD) from Windows 95 for stability reasons. Writing code (with Borland C Builder) and testing the applications caused the system to crash constantly and I really got fed up. FreeBSD is stable as a rock - never had a kernel panic (in 5 years).
At work I see a lot of people that illegally use MS Windows software since they don't want to pay the price. When I point out that they either should pay for it or look for cheaper alternatives, they don't know any answer to that. Basically Microsoft shoots itself in the foot for asking such absurd prices for its products. Sooner or later everybody will do this. I am glad to see that Open Source is actively eating away at the Microsoft monopoly and simultaneously not suffering from the same things as Microsoft (viruses, instability and piracy).
Re: FTP server software for Linux. I use proftpd, its pretty much the one the best if not the best out there.
Re: BSD.....yes, I too am growing tired of these guys. BSD is a great OS no doubt, but look at its dev pace over the last 30 years and compare that with Linux's pace year to year. Linux is just blowing straight past BSD and is already farther ahead in many aspects. When 2.6 kernel is out and stable there will really be no comparison. When you consider the fact they are both free, Linux has much larger industry backing, much faster development, and much better hardware support......Linux is the obvious choice.
Re: Novell? I agree Novell eDirectory is pretty much a work of art for large enterprises. Combine that with your choice of OS (edir runs on most anything) and ZENWorks and youve got a really sweet setup....and yes, despite is declining marketshare, Netware 6.x does kick serious bootea
Here Ive got a monster RS6000 running AIX for our proprietary credit union software, several Windows2000 servers for proprietary windows only apps, several Netware 6 servers for edirectory, file, print, and non-proprietary apps, and Linux servers for DHCP, DNS, Web, Ftp, email and all firewalling and intrusion detection. All of the servers are stable and about 99% crash free. However, a lot of time is spent patching, updating virus definitions, and the resulting reboots all the Windows2000 boxen.
Mine isn't so funny, but I can't seem to get an uptime longer than 45 days on my cheap Linux fileserver at work. Damned removable IDE drives. Nice having 300+ GB available to store all those redhat beta CDs.
I recently rebuilt my fileserver at home. 300 GB software RAID 5. First I moved all the disks and IDE controllers to a new system. Booted up without needing any additional software or configuration, mounted the RAID, even tho all the disks were on different controllers than before, and proceeded to boot up to multiuser mode and configure itself for my LAN. But since I was only running on 3 of the 4 drives I pulled the disks out and replaced 'em with new 200GB drives.
Unfortunately the kernel has not been going through the proper QA and regression tests. They seem to have messed up the promise IDE controller's driver since 2.4.7 ~ 2.4.10. The driver just spat out error messages on boot, tho it did detect the disks, but then it could only write to them, no read access. 
So I swapped out the controllers for some siimage chipsets. Only now Linux wanted to boot the PCI controllers before the onboard chipset. Great job Marcello, sheesh.
Anyway, I eventually got through the mess with a ide=reverse kernel option and now have a 500+ GB encrypted RAID5 array that is independant of the hardware and current system configuration it sits on.
External SCSI might be nice, but there's no way you could do that for under $1000. That's the TCO I'm talkin about.
Nice setup hmmm
My linux SMB fileserver is pretty nice (I think) tho nothing compared to yours.
My uptime is currently at 130 days on the 2.4.20 kernel.
BTW, for the person that is looking for an FTPd, Try vsFTPd (very secure ftpd) its supposted to be the most secure, and the fastest. (just look at the sites running it: ftp.redhat.com, ftp.debian.org, ftp.suse.com and ftp.openbsd.org) thats quite an impressive list
Both systems have similar functionality (actually Linux has more) and about an equivalent security track record.
Not freaking likely.
Ever heard of OpenBSD? I think it's security track record completely blows any linux distributions out of the water....and I am correct in thinking that.
"...stated GNU/Linux has been afflicted by 150 virii."
The plural of virus is not virii. Actually, there isn't a plural...
The closest thing is viruses, so use that.
@Kevin
'Viri' is the latin plural of the latin word virus. In English 'Viruses' is the correct form. In my opinion both is valid.
Smartass ;-)
" 'Viri' is the latin plural of the latin word virus. In English 'Viruses' is the correct form. In my opinion both is valid.
Smartass ;-) "
'Viri' is the pluarl of the Latin word 'Vir', which means man. So when you say 'Viri' you are really saying 'men'. There is no correct Latin pluarl for virus.
Vire, viri, virum, viros, virora, and virii (which isn't even a word) are all incorrect. Because there is no Latin plural of virus it's best to use the English form, viruses.
Consulting my latin dictionary the plural of virus is viri, as well as viri is the plural of vir.
Strange thing...
You Latin dictionary is wrong. 'Vir' means man thus 'viri' means men. I don't know what kind of latin dictionary you are using, but it is incorrect. Would you like for me to send you one of mine?
Or, to save time, check out this page:
http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html
[QUOTE]Right now when you try to do certain common tasks in Linux such as Adjust the Date/Time it asks you to sign in as root.[/QUOTE]
[quote2]Linux keeps better time than Windows, so why would they even need to change it?[/quote2]
My system clock is adjusted by a secondary time standard everyday by 'cron' through the 'rdate' command, so I don't need to become root for this. I have the habit of typing
'exit' whenever I need to 'su' to root. I suppose it is harder to do these things under Windows.
"1. Change in location, may need to adjust the time zone..."
Doen in .bashrc or e.g. KDE and Gnome setup tools on a per user base. Just think of a machine living in timezone A logged into from a user living in timezone B. What you set in the system is the system or defautl timezone.
"2. System time may not be correct... "
NTP: xntpd or ntpdate either on dialup or in cron
"3. Individual may want to adjust the appearance of the date && time."
Locales. KDE or Gnome setup. On a per user base.
Sorry but the idea that users need root for most simple desktop tasks is nonsense.
Use sudo - user can start internet connections, change times, add a new printer, etc by entering their own password.
easy, problem solved.
I administer 50+ W2K and NT servers + about 100 W2K and XP workstations (web development group) and unless you have IIS and many other services completely disabled you are asking for trouble by not installing the required hotfixes and updates. Installing these updates usually require rebooting. If your server has 1 year of uptime, your server is either 100% locked down (which is questionable anyway with windows) or you are not doing required maintenance (Slammer anyone?).
I have just spent a solid week rebuilding systems and installing a very expensive anti-virus software package (good for the economy!) to combat a worm that has spread via legitimate file shares. Now that this is mostly done at least I feel better about things, but there goes one week of my life.
Whoever thinks that administering Windows is a: simple b: not time-consuming or c: a task that doesn't need "expensive experts" is smoking some really good stuff.
1. Change in location, may need to adjust the time zone...
You set your system clock to GMT then you use the locale to display it according to your current time zone. Changeing the locale doesn't requir root login.
2. System time may not be correct...
This could happen, but if you use a time server to get
the correct time (most likely from some atomic clock) an incorrect time setting would be very unlikely
3. Individual may want to adjust the appearance of the date && time.
This is done through environment variables on a per user basis and doesn't require root log in
You mention that the cost of training one properly (in either environment) is dwarfed by the cost of the employee over the length of his service.
Actually this isn't quite true. If you learned Unix 20 years ago, you can probably still use that knowledge as a Linux admin. If you learned windows 15 years ago, you will not have very much use of that knowledge administrating windows XP of today.
If you run windows systems major changes in administration occurs for every new version Microsoft releases.
As a result you can expect Linux training costs to be much lower over time.
At least later versions of RedHat contains GUI configuration for ftp. I would guess that most other distros do as well.
> This particular server has never been down since it came online over 14 months ago.
Yikes; I hope that server, and the others he mentions with long uptimes, are behind *good* firewalls. There have been several kernel security patches that are a good reason to reboot a system.