Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Nov 2006 18:26 UTC
Novell and Ximian "Someone just asked me whether, now that Novell's become buddies with Microsoft, I'll be turning away from Novell/SUSE as one of my favorite Linux distributions. My answer is no. I'm sticking with SUSE Linux on both my desktops and servers. Here's why."
Thread beginning with comment 179297
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Microsoft funded advertising
by NotParker on Mon 6th Nov 2006 18:50 UTC in reply to "Microsoft funded advertising"
NotParker
Member since:
2006-06-01

Many of the Linux savvy users are switching to another Linux distribution.

That is an excellent reason why businesses should stay away from Linux.

If a business does choose one distro over another, and the cult gets offended by something that distro does, then suddenly all the Linux "Admins" will be demanding the business switch to a more "ideological pure" Linux distro.

Stay away from cults. It will bring you nothing but grief.

Reply Parent Score: 1

KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

I'm not a system admin, but I would guess that they are more driven by how good a product is than by ideological purity. It's one thing post on OSNews, but it's quite another to move your company from one product to another.

Reply Parent Score: 5

IanSVT Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm not a system admin, but I would guess that they are more driven by how good a product is than by ideological purity. It's one thing post on OSNews, but it's quite another to move your company from one product to another.

Well put. I'm a sys admin for Novell products and I'm put off by Novell over this whole thing. However, I'm not about to run down to the server room and format all my NetWare and SLES boxes.

Actually, I'm still more steamed at Novell over the fact that they can't get a single management tool sorted out. iManager, Console1, Nwadmin. I need one tool with all the snapins, not five!

Reply Parent Score: 4

startxjeff Member since:
2006-09-29

That's the exact reason why I advocate NOT using Windows.

Anytime MS comes out with a new OS, MS "Admins" demand that the business switch to the more "updated" Windows, else the business can't recieve updates and "fixes".

And no thought is given to the fact that some applications don't work on the new MS windows.

I agree. Stay away from cults and forced upgrade artists. They will bring you nothing but grief.

Reply Parent Score: 5

DittoBox Member since:
2005-07-08

I don't know any Microsoft SysAdmins who think upgrading as soon as a new product is released is anywhere near a good idea.

Microsoft supports many of their products beyond what most Linux distros do. Windows 98, and agreeable crappy OS was receiving security updates until just a few months ago. It was supported with "fixes" for nearly 8 years. Ubuntu's only last 18 months until the recent LTS of 5 years.

Windows 2000 has been receiving updates for 6 years and will likely continue for another year or two, which would again make that an 8 year product cycle.

Indeed I know a few MS Admins who refuse to deploy the the latest version of Windows on current company computers --even on the desktops and especially on servers-- until a first or even second service pack is released, just to give time to iron out any possible major issues.

So, yeah, stay away from cults.

Reply Parent Score: 2

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Anytime MS comes out with a new OS, MS "Admins" demand that the business switch to the more "updated" Windows, else the business can't recieve updates and "fixes".

I'm assuming you are running an old, old distro like RedHat 7.0 and never upgrade ...

All joking aside, upgrading from one version of Windows to a new version to keep current on a reasonable business cycle (which most businesses do) is not comparable like the cult members advocating the dumping of Novell/SLED for another distro because of their hatred of Microsoft.

Reply Parent Score: 0

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

You're totally wrong.

First, admins typically recommend waiting a couple cycles of service packs before going to a new Windows version.

Second, MS has extended Windows 2000 support for 8 years. There aren't many other vendors who will support an OS version for that period of time or longer.

Third, the reason that admins don't recommend going to a new version of Windows when it's released is precisely because it takes time to test an organization's applications with a new release. Most problems are generally resolved in subsequent service packs.

There's no such thing as a "forced upgrade artist". That's a figment of your imagination.

Reply Parent Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I believe that business should confine themselves to ethical business practices, and since MS have no type of regulatory or governmental authority over anyone, spreading FUD like "if you don't use our approved version of Linux, we'll sue your asses" is not one. I may be more vocal on the subject when it comes to MS, but if I am it isn't because of any double-standard: it's because I feel I can do more to make sure they are eventually confined only to ethical business practices.

If you believe that the most important thing is money, then that's your business, but if you do, and I ever find out I've been dealing with your company in any way, I reserve the right to drop you like a hot potato.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Murrell Member since:
2006-01-04

That is an excellent reason why businesses should stay away from Linux.

If a business does choose one distro over another, and the cult gets offended by something that distro does, then suddenly all the Linux "Admins" will be demanding the business switch to a more "ideological pure" Linux distro.

Stay away from cults. It will bring you nothing but grief.


Speaking as a Sys-Admin in a predominantly (85%+) Linux company, we run Ubuntu, because it works, and because the GPL makes sense from a bussiness perspective. We use propietry nVidia drivers because they work, and if they became an issue*, we could switch to something else.

Ideaology is set by the owner of the company. If I decided to change the software on the machines to something more 'pure', I'd be out of a job.

Also - generally speaking, a cult is something associated with religon. If someone confuses the use of an a particular operating system with the worship of a god, then that person probably needs to get out more.

* An issue being along the lines of unfixed security problem or spyware issues.

Reply Parent Score: 4

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Also - generally speaking, a cult is something associated with religon.

Sure. But there are other definitions.

And I think many of the ideas expressed on this site are very cult like.

"great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion"

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?cult


"3. idolization of somebody or something: an extreme or excessive admiration for a person, philosophy of life, or activity ( often used before a noun )
the cult of youth
a cult hero


4. object of idolization: a person, philosophy, or activity regarded with extreme or excessive admiration


5. fad: something popular or fashionable among a devoted group of enthusiasts ( often used before a noun )
has taken on cult status"

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861601866/cult.html

"5) Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
The object of such devotion.

6) An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest. "

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult

Reply Parent Score: 0

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""Stay away from cults. It will bring you nothing but grief."""


NotParker,

One thing that I have noticed is that you like to pidgeon-hole Linux advocates all into one neat category.

You can't do that and retain an accurate view of that nebulous thing we call "the community". (This is really true of any group.)

I've been an advocate and administrator of Unix, and later Linux, since 1988. My primary attraction to Linux is that it is a great unix and has done a lot of things right that the proprietary vendors never got around to, like having a usable desktop. I am also a strong open source supporter; I strongly prefer open source software to proprietary for various reasons. Some of them practical, some of them could be considered idealistic. I would never go as far as RMS and the FSF on that point since I feel that being an extremist does more harm than good. And sometimes I am forced to go the proprietary route because I don't have an OSS solution that would work as well for my customers as a proprietary one. (For example, business accounting and Point of Sale are very weak areas for OSS.)

And guess what, NotParker? There are a *lot* of people in the community just like me; more than your realize. And the reason you don't realize it is that *we don't talk as much* as the people with more extreme opinions. (This is also probably true of most any group.)

I believe that this is the first post that I have made in *any* of these threads about the Novell-Microsoft deal, mainly because I am still making sense of it all. I've never really liked SUSE (personal preference) so I don't have any SUSE installations to delete.

If I did though, I suspect I might be considering a move to a different distro for my own workstations, since my feelings about SUSE's move are generally, at this point, negative. As an individual user, I have that luxury.

Now, if I had clients' servers on SLES or SLED, that's a whole different ball of wax. To move them to something else, I would have to have some good solid business reasons to do it. Oh, I could make up something and my customers would believe me because they have confidence in our company. But I would not do that. It would not be ethical. There is more to ethics than software freedom; There is my responsibility to do what makes the most business sense for my clients. That does not always have to mean "in the short term", though. Sometimes I recommend things, like a move from Windows to Linux, based upon gains that I see after the initial migration is over, and I'm usually pleased with the results, and so is the client. (I've never had anyone ask to move back, or say that they were dissatisfied, but then again, I only move the ones that I know will benefit.)

Certainly, at this point, there is not nearly enough reason to uproot a client and move them to a new distro.

And I consider myself to be a big Linux advocate. I sympathize with some of the FSF philosophy, but believe that if I let my attraction to OSS overshadow my responsibilities to my clients, I am doing a disservice to both the client *and* to OSS.

So please remember that "the community" has more depth to it than may sometimes be immediately apparent.

Some of us live our lives in what sometimes seems like a perpetual moral dillemma. ;-)

I don't really want to make a long thread out of this. But please, just think about it, OK?

Sincerely,
Steve Bergman

Edited 2006-11-06 21:31

Reply Parent Score: 5

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Oh well said, sir!

Reply Parent Score: 0

stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

I went to mod you up, but you were already +5 ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

/+1.

First, I'm no OSS purist. I rather use OSS when I can, but I use nVidia/VMWare/etc when I can't.
Second, I don't use SLED. I got burned by Novel in the past and I never let anyone screw my twice. (Needless to say, I'm not that surprised by the Novel/Microsoft pact).

If I was using SLED, I would have began making long term preparation to jump ship to another enterprise level distribution. Here's why:
A. This deal helps Microsoft sue other distributions, which in-turn, locks me into SLED. In the long term, I have a vested interest in breaking any attempt to lock me to a certain platform. (That's why we decide to [try and drop] Windows as a target platform to begin with)
B. This deal helps Microsoft impede the progress of the OSS movement and in my view, less OSS means less choice (in selecting which software to use) and higher prices (limited selecting of developers). As a consumer I have a vested interest in keeping the market alive and competitive.

While in the short term, I'd continue to use SLED, using it in the long term means platform lock-in, higher prices, less features and less freedom. Call me crazy, but funding someone as he tried to screw me doesn't look like a good business plan.

- Gilboa

Edited 2006-11-07 16:09

Reply Parent Score: 1