It’s more likely to keep making greater strides in single-use areas, such as cash registers, than in consumers’ PCs says BusinessWeek. However, the future of Linux probably rests with corporate IT departments says Will Harvie in his talks to Kiwi organisations about using open-source operating systems and software.
Before Linux Is on Every Desktop…
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
What’s harder to troubleshoot and requires a larger IT staff than Windows? Linux! Corporate IT types should love Linux! Gooooooo Penguin! Next year, sir, we need to double our IT staff, but at least the OS is free! Wooo!
This moment of sarcasm brought to you by the lucid dreaming of Ed Stevens.
What part were you sarcastic about? The difficulty to troubleshoot? Or your excitement about it being more difficult?
I don’t see how linux is any more difficult than windows to troubleshoot.
Right, well most people don’t want to muck around editing text files with VI. That’s what makes it hard.
Oh I know there are lots of magical graphical configuration systems for linux — but what do you when something goes wrong and they don’t work how they’re supposed to? Something usually gets broken then you’re back to mucking with text files.
My experience with these systems is mostly negative. They look nice and are easy to use until something breaks.
How can nobody see how Linux would be a bitch for an IT department!? Think about it. The lack of standards in software, the lack of standards in protocol (what happens with somebody decides to recompile their kernel and in the process screws with the network stack?), and the overall number of headaches it would cause. What happens when somebody wants to install an AIM-esque program? They have to either figure out how to use RPMs (or whatever), but if they can’t, they call IT for such a stupid little problem. Windows is just easier.
Oh, and then there is the lack of a good AD replacement.
How are text files any more difficult than the registry?
It’s really really simple to fix things remotely, it’s quick to ssh in and fix something, I don’t have to run VNC or some other graphical interface just to fix my webserver, add a user, change dns. I can mount a new hard drive when the filesystem is filling up with relative ease.
A competent unix admin will end up doing less work than a competent windows admin. And there really aren’t that many competent windows admins, Microsoft has decided to oust them when they said that ‘windows is so simple, you can do it yourself’ while turning around and charging $5000 for MCSE certs.
Would you pay $5000 for something that the issuing company is actually convincing possible employers isn’t needed?
Of course not. So those companies hire stupid people without certs, or end up trying to do it themselves, thus causing MUCH more problems than before.
I ranted, I apologize.
The issue at hand is: I am much quicker at fixing bugs in Unix/Linux than I am at Windows and i can do it remotely over a dialup with ease and little slowdown. Can you do that with windows? Or will you be sitting there waiting……………..for your window to refresh.
You let employees install 3rd party software on their workstations?
That’s a terribly run infrastructure. If you want your employees to run AIM, then you should use a remote administration application to install it on ALL workstations.
It is my understanding that when something breaks on Linux, the shit is a whole lot easier to fix if you know what you’re doing than does Windows.
Of course, the initial learning curve might be a little steeper for the IT department if they have to be trained (lest you hire a new IT department), but assuming that Linux supports all the apps you need (and that’s a big IF), the extra training would probably be worth it.
You let employees install 3rd party software on their workstations?
That’s a terribly run infrastructure. If you want your employees to run AIM, then you should use a remote administration application to install it on ALL workstations.
I think this comment is perfect in regards to why Linux is easier. On Unix machines its perfectly safe to let users install what ever they want in their own home directory. There is no need to limit users nor to have unending committees about what everyone needs. Unix server, thin clients and you get wonderful mix of freedom and control.
Linux a headache for IT department? Why? Can somebody get beyond the rhetoric and give specific examples? Managing linux on the LAN is a natural extension of managing it on the server, which is already being done. If anything, it will make the job of a competent system admin 100 times easier.
The real problem is APPLICATIONS. Companies use custom applications, and those have almost invariably been written for windows.
On Unix machines its perfectly safe to let users install what ever they want in their own home directory. There is no need to limit users nor to have unending committees about what everyone needs. Unix server, thin clients and you get wonderful mix of freedom and control.
What if a user installs an app that scans the corporate intranet for files and transmits them to your competitor?
“I don’t see how linux is any more difficult than windows to troubleshoot.”
when windows breaks, it’s hard to find out what broke, and even if you know, the same solution won’t always fix the problem. it’s like windows has a mind of it’s own, sometimes it will work, sometimes it won’t.
in linux, when something goes wrong, unless you’re very linux savvy, you’ll have NO clue what’s broken or how to fix it. however, once you find out, and you actually do it, you can bet your ass it’ll work again.
that said. i’d say that 99.9% of problems with windows is shotty drivers. if you have a system that uses hardware that windows ‘likes,’ it’ll be VERY stable.
Thank you, finally, someone actually bringing up a valid issue.
Yes, this issue is being addressed by mono. Eventually one only will require opening the source code, tweak it a little to work on mono and voila, no problems. Don’t hold your breath, I’d say wait till september/october when you will see VBMono completed.
Oh, for the anti-mono-or-anything-that-microsoft-related, mono is suceeding and there are some sexy POSIX addon’s being made available to C#, VB and other languages that mono will/does support.
Why?
The division of my company that I work for is moving all software and support engineering personnel to linux. The division lives in a Unix world, develops unix software and implements onto linux or Solaris boxes.
Like many people have already said, there are good things and bad things with this situation.
We started out using NIS inside the network with tcpwrappers (no it is still not super secure and we are looking at openldap which is becoming the unix standard) for authentication and nfs mounted home dirs for universal roaming profiles.
We do not let programmers install 3rdparty software on their boxes. When people talk about the fact that getting a support professional to install Aim for you is a pain in the ass but it is ten times more of a pain in the ass to troubleshoot a box ridden with 3rdparty crap all over it. I did windows support when I started out and badly behaving 3rdparty shite software was at least one-third of all critical issues with boxes that had to be wiped and reinstalled. If they want Aim or the latest Acrobat and they have to give a valid frickin’ reason why they need it.
However, OpenOffice still starts too damn slow and they hate it. Mozilla makes most of the developers happy. I was afraid I would have to find a version of Phoenix or something lighter but they like Mozilla a lot. The learning curve for developers, system administrators, network administrators and DBAs is not that bad at all. I would NOT however put secretaries on linux. Why? Is OpenOffice that bad? No. The deal is that if you already have the windows licenses in house there is no legit overwhelming reason to re-send the business staff through training all over again for linux. Keep the business folks on windows.
Ok, the other down-side in both situations I have used linux in the workplace is the fact that corporate IT if they let you use linux will still NOT support you. Therefore, it goes like this. Your division, developers, network guys and DBAs all move to linux. However, only the admins have root. Suddenly the same guys that do all your production administration suddenly become part time tech support people. Corporate IT has no clue about linux and everybody in the office thinks they should have root to their box. Still, it beats paying for windows, exceed and possibly a Solaris workstation for a bunch of developers. They just use linux and go.
They have an overwhelming reason to make the switch because they want a workstation that works like the servers they are developing for. No, cygwin and other emulators are not a real answer for these users. The killer app for the developer is having all the tools they use in unix development right there on their workstation. It works for them. It might not work for you.
The real issue is that people cannot make these kinds of decisions based on “religious” hatreds aiming at a company. They have to make decisions about technology based on what works best for their situation. The idea of a homogenous system environment is dead. Pick the server or system that works best for the task at hand.
What if a user installs an app that scans the corporate intranet for files and transmits them to your competitor?
OK this is a good situation to examine. I will assume you lots of employees that have access to semi-sensitive data on the corporate intranet and a competitor interested in this data and likely to use a program to get it. You also have lots of employees that require access to a full featured public network.
First off assuming your employees are on Windows and I had inside a little inside information, I could cook up a Word macro would probably handle this fine. So right now you are at ground 0. Also remember the discussion was about ease of administration not security, you want security I really think you shouldn’t be on Unix nor Windows, but something like VMS or zOS.
Now in a Unix situation with thin clients; I just simply set the permissions to open a port very high. I use setuid programs to allow standard browsers… to get out. To install an app which requires ports you need to link the networking component to these setuid scripts which is fairly easy for anyone knowledgeable enough to catch your competitors trojan. Other employees can still any software they want that doesn’t need ports or ask someone for help.
The main thing is there is no need for a global corporate image. System administration can be very public about it. This doesn’t address subversion.
The deal is that users in a even somewhat secure unix-style environment would not have root to open up that high port in /etc/services and they would be able to set programs up to run setuid.
There are other ways in unix to get sensitive information out of the environment in unix but you choose IMO a bad example.
Each style of system windows and linux and corporate versions of Unix have exploits.
The real value of Linux that I see is in “thin” clients. There are lots of great low-cost hardware (Via EPIA comes to mind) that screams to run linux. The main reason, I find it hard to justify spending more per box for software than hardware–especially when it’s basicly used as a terminal.
Personally, I think Knoppix (it’s my new hobby) fills this gap perfectly. Once it gets a little more polish it could be the killer Linux IT app. It fills lots of rolls: locked down, no user programs, don’t need hard disk-cd-boot/net-boot. Most people in job shops, call centers are one or two program monkeies. They don’t need power and they shouldn’t have it.
My goals for shop PCs is to be invisible-like pencil and paper-you should never hear about the boxes!
Linux needs –
– Idiot proof hardware setup
– Simple printer setup
– Setup without editing text files in VI
– A good range of software available from stores like PC World
– More developers who understand users, not Uber-geeks who spout RTFM at every newbie on the block
– Less techno speak documentation (man pages are not easily understood by everyone)
I know that these are being addressed by specific distributions, but that’s the thing – they are distro specific.
I teach operating systems and the reaction that everyone says when they get their hands on Linux is that it sucks. If people want Linux on the desktop then these problems (and I’m sure there are others) need addressing.
Those who think Linux is easy are in the minority.
>Those who think Linux is easy are in the minority.
At least it’s easier than Windows.
What I remember from Windows, when I got an error it said, error code 423209843 having no clue at all what was actually wrong, when Win2k wouldn’t boot anymore also safe mode didn’t work anymore so I had to completely reinstall, after a reinstall I had to hunt the web and reboot all the time for hours to get my drivers and updates installed.
Where I work I say what Linux is supported and what is not (based on my customer’s requirements). We have as many Linux systems as we do Solaris. It is almost as easy to admin RedHat as it is to admin Solaris or HPUX. Solaris is a better product, of course, but RedHat is getting better by leaps and bounds. What I mean by that is Solaris is quality, and it shows in how the system is put together and how it just works. For example, Solaris doesn’t have problems with its authentication configuration for NIS networks. RedHat 7.x did and required manual editting of /etc/pam.d files so users could login. But these are minor bugs that once worked through are no longer a problem. The fix required changing one line in /etc/pam.d/system-auth for every installation. So it becomes part of your install/configuration documentation and you move on.
Within the next 2 years Linux will become the easiest platform to admin across an enterprise, except, maybe, OSX, but probably not.
Now the difference between admining a Windows and a Linux network. A Windows network will spread viruses even if you have installed the latest service pack (Linux service packs include all the patches necessary to keep this from happening). Windows will be happy to crash, reboot or have strange problems with your hardware or software or network that are unsolvable. Linux, on the other hand, has no such problems. It does get bugs, glitches, crashes, etc. But they are always solvable, always leave some clues, some log file, core dump, etc. And usually you can trace out exactly why a problem is happening and have access to source code so you can compare it to the system calls in the trace. I’m sure you can do that on windows, too, but it doesn’t come preinstalled with the proper tools to allow this sort of maintenence, as far as I know. But I don’t use XP, so maybe ol Billy boy snuck a few things in there while I wasn’t lookin.
Anyway, my point is Linux is far easier to maintain on a network because once you work out the bugs they go away and never return, most things can be scripted or automated. And the rest of it, the software and application level problems can all be troubleshot and solved remotely, unless you have a really stoopid user on your hands.
1) Idiot proof hardware setup
2) Simple printer setup
3) Setup without editing text files in VI
4) A good range of software available from stores like PC World
5) More developers who understand users, not Uber-geeks who spout RTFM at every newbie on the block
6) Less techno speak documentation (man pages are not easily understood by everyone)
1) Knoppix
. I use Debian which does not have automatic hardware detection system but the result is unbundled system which outperforms in speed and stability any, and I mean any other Linux distro and any suitable Windows version (both XP and 2K since they are the unly wotrh of considering).
2) I never worked with printers on Linux so I can not comment this one. I hope someone else will. As far as I understand there is that CUPS thing.
3) webmin. Have you ever heard about it. Do you know on how many different platforms it runs (excluding Windows of course). Since it uses a browser for administration, I find no such powerful tool in the Windows world. Please tell us if there is some similar thing out there.
4)freshmeat.net. I do not understand this. What are you trying to say?
5) Uber-geek sound a little bit strange to me. Still, RTFM is the best way to fight against lazyness.
6)http://www.tldp.org
If you teach operating systems, I am Daredevil
– Idiot proof hardware setup
With kudzu and SuSE hardware detection the setup is fast becoming NOT the problem. The problem is the limited range of devices supported in linux. Without hw manufacturer support, this hurdle is going to be a major issue for linux for awhile.
– Simple printer setup
Once again, I plugged in this Brother Laser Printer I bought from Dell. Kudzu recognized and set up the printer to work on my system. Then I went under Printer Admin for RH8 and set up queue for the printer. It was not any harder than setting up a printer in linux than Windows in this case.
Now, if I had an unsupported all-in-one printer I would have been in trouble. The setup is easy the support in terms of drivers is lacking.
– Setup without editing text files in VI
How long has it been since you used linux?
RH is in my opinion lacking in terms of tools for this purpose. A boot manager and some services like NIS, OpenLDAP server tools and other things you find in say webmin are needed to round out the bunch of tools they have. However, SuSE for example is really good in terms of the number of tools and when I am admining workstations in the office yast2 has become my best buddy. Even without this, webmin is an incredible administration tool for a number of different *Nixes.
– A good range of software available from stores like PC World
This is true. I remember back in the day you could find Unix versions of Framemaker, Wordperfect and a large number of other commercial packages but that number has seriously dwindled. There are a large number of good OpenSource alternative programs available but normal folks love buying things off the shelf.
– More developers who understand users, not Uber-geeks who spout RTFM at every newbie on the block
Ok, where the heck did you ask questions? IRC is useless. The redhat-list and the suse-en-list are both good sources where RTFM is like a dirty word mentioned only in jest. Also, for desktop support, there is gnomesupport (I am sure KDE has an equivilant).
The RTFM myth needs to die.
– Less techno speak documentation (man pages are not easily understood by everyone)
This part is true. There are a couple of efforts going on right now in this regard but it is tough because not a lot of good documentation people use linux. Programmers, System Administrators, Network admins and DBAs use linux primarily. We tend to speak our own language like most technical people in any field. Ever listen to a bunch of pharma reps sit down at dinner and talk shop. That stuff is alien-speak.
Those who think Linux is easy are in the minority.
Define easy. I think it is easy to control and admin linux boxes. For Unix people, it is the easiest form of a unix-like OS to use on a x86 platform. It has some steps to make before it will be easy enough to use in a widespread office environment. However, easy does not matter as much as the fact there is no single overwhelming reason for most organizations to move business folks off of a system they already know and are familiar with. I remember moving folks from DOS to Windows. It was a painfull experience for the company. There has to be a very important reason to move folks off of their current desktop to something new. That is not the case right now.
What’s harder to troubleshoot and requires a larger IT staff than Windows? Linux! Corporate IT types should love Linux! Gooooooo Penguin! Next year, sir, we need to double our IT staff, but at least the OS is free! Wooo!
Right, well most people don’t want to muck around editing text files with VI. That’s what makes it hard.
Comments like this come from people who don’t understand the *nix.
Take this scenario, which incidentally happens quite often:
You’re company is bought out or rebranded and every single employee needs their e-mail address changing to the new company name. You’ve got over 600 employees/addresses in total.
Sure, Windows makes it really easy to open up exchange and edit the email address by going click-click-click but on 600 employees you’ll be there a few weeks and the room for error is enormous.
On *nix I can telnet into the server write a three line shell script with a regex in and run it and I’m done. Wow – all of two minutes work and I now every address is 100% correct – hard to administer my backside.
But you’ve screwed up? What does the Exchange Admin do – go back and change them all back – another few weeks. What does the *nix admin do? Replace the original text file of course.
Now imagine that on say more than 1 server – in fact maybe 10 or 20 across various sites. Sure exchange can replicate but it’s a little on the dodgy side – especially if you loose a connection half way through your 600 employees (back to square 1 sysadmin). My shell script can be ran anywhere on as many machines simultaneously and I can check quickly to see if the work is done.
There’s a reason why Unix uses text files and its because its damn easy, quick, simple and secure (in fact so much so even M$ are talking off going down that route). Sure you can buy expensive overpriced management tools to help you out but with *nix its all there part and parcel – no secrets, no hidden costs.
There’s an old saying: To look after one NT server requires one dumb admin, to look after 1 Unix server requires 1 experienced admin. To look after 100 NT servers requires 100 admins but to look after 100 Unix servers still requires 1 admin.
“Still, RTFM is the best way to fight against lazyness.”
Sorry, but users are lazy (I certainly am) and that’s not going to change. When one OS lets me do something with a couple of mouse clicks and another requires me to spend all night reading TFM, I’m going to use the simpler solution.
Regular system crashes are unacceptable to me as they interrupt work and waste my time. I would never chose to work on an unstable OS like Mac OS 7/8/9 or Windows 9x. But an OS that requires me to spend large amounts of time reading boring documentation to get simple things working, is just as frustrating and wastes just as much of my time as one that crashes.
I wasn’t saying that Windows is better than Linux or vice versa. I wanted to make the point that there may be security reasons for not letting people install applications on their work machines.
But you guys have a point: even without the ability to install applications you can always get a Word macro, or a shell script which can be run by any user (no root/setuid priviledges needed) and get out of the company’s firewall, using HTTP which is usually allowed to get out.
So, not letting people install applications doesn’t eliminate the risk.
Linux is difficult to support for one reason. You don’t know Linux. Every OS is difficult without knowledge of the system.
I remember listening to the “wise sage” Windows users explaining to me that a Macintosh could not possibly meet their demanding computer needs. They required a system that offered the power and flexibility of Windows. After all the Mac didn’t even have a command line or the latest games!
Now the Mac has a command line and the computing world has Linux. These same users have been forced to change their story. They don’t need a command line or a complex system like Linux… and Linux doesn’t support the latest games… neither does the Mac!
True. You do have to know how the OS works in order to run Linux. If the pretty buttons occasionally die, you have to type. I’d rather be stuck with a Linux box and a command line than a Windows box, a blue screen, and a bootable CD to reformat my system.
// I don’t have to run VNC or some other graphical interface just to fix my webserver, add a user, change dns//
Funny, I just did all three via the command line during a secure telnet session in W2K Advanced Server …
To Jonathan Bailes
You mention kudzu and yast, as I stated these are distro specific tools – the only non-distro specific way of setting up Linux is to use a text editor but even then the way that those text files are set up tend to be distro specific.
To Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz
You obviously don’t understand what I mean by users. Most users don’t download and compile software, and why should they? Just because Mr. Techno says so? No. They want to buy, install, run.
Users don’t care a fig about GPL or Open Source.
While users care about stability, it is not on the top of their list (otherwise why do they prefer windows) And I’ve been using Windows XP for over a year and had no problems with it whatsoever – so stability is less of a selling point.
Users want plug and play. They want to plug in a piece of hardware and they expect it to work with little or no work (and what you may think of as no work they may still think is too much)
Webmin may be easy, but what every day “Joe” user would think of using the web browser to configure their system?
You also must be DareDevil.
You mention kudzu and yast, as I stated these are distro specific tools
In that case everything is distro specific outside of the kernel Mr. Lynch because kudzu for example is not closed source and a couple of different distros use that.
Most users don’t download and compile software
No they don’t. That is why there are rpms for things users routinely download like plugins and drivers for their video cards and other things that Windows users download all the time. That is why many of the common apps like Opera either come in rpm format or they come with their own installers like OpenOffice and Mozilla. Yes, I do know about dependency issues and Redhat should really do better to configure out an apt backend to their package install tools.
For a Redhat user to install say the Flash 6 plugin they download the rpm and doubleclick on it. The only pain is having to type in the root password before they continue pressing next.
While users care about stability, it is not on the top of their list
I agree with this and the whole prospect of using this as a selling point for linux is kind of silly.
Users want plug and play.
If they use hardware supported under linux then almost every major distro has some way of detecting and setting it up. The real valid criticism is that linux is still an alternative OS and some hardware is still not supported.
Webmin may be easy, but what every day “Joe” user would think of using the web browser to configure their system?
Is that any harder than going to the control center. Why is different automatically harder. Even without this, as I said before, all major distros like Mandrake, SuSE and Redhat have configuration centers or controls for system administration. Redhat’s list of tools is not as complete as I would like but then again it is more than enough for desktop users. Yast2 is wonderful and I have heard Mandrake’s Control Center is quite complete and desktop friendly.
You also must be DareDevil.
I want to be Spiderman then. :->
>Webmin may be easy, but what every day “Joe” user would think of using the web browser to configure their system?
Uhm, Windows uses Explorer to show the control panel. Are you telling me that is not a webbrowser?
I think for the supported harware, Linux has much better plug and play capabilities than Windows. What’s harder if the drivers are not on your system
1. downloading the driver from a web site in module format and insmoding the driver or
2. using the disk from the manufacturer (which usually has an non-current driver) and going through a series of stupid click interfaces to get the indriver install with a whole lot of other crap you usually don’t use?
I mean windows has a far from ideal for of plug and play of which Linux is better but the best still has been BeOS.
You obviously don’t understand what I mean by users. Most users don’t download and compile software, and why should they? Just because Mr. Techno says so? No. They want to buy, install, run.
That is what I do with debs, download (if necesary because Debian consists of 7 CDs), install and run.
the only non-distro specific way of setting up Linux is to use a text editor but even then the way that those text files are set up tend to be distro specific.
Webmin has the same interfance regardless the OS used. Still, it’s good to have option of manually editing the text files. The are full with explanatory notes.
Yast2 is wonderful and I have heard Mandrake’s Control Center is quite complete and desktop friendly.
You’ve heard well Obi-Van.
Uhm, Windows uses Explorer to show the control panel. Are you telling me that is not a webbrowser?
It certainly is. You can use it to access webmin server remotely.
And I’ve been using Windows XP for over a year and had no problems with it whatsoever – so stability is less of a selling point.
I use it at work and it is terrible. My PC is COMPAQ EVO D300V (128 MB of RAM). That is not a good amount of RAM for XP. Still, it is far from minimum for a Debian GNU/Linux system (or any other Linux distro).
I don’t think you people get that most average users are “Stupid” (in a nice kind of way) think of how “Stupid” you think a user is and try to think of someone a lot more “Stupid” and you may be getting there. I know, I teach a lot of them and use to work on a helpdesk.
Re: Webmin/control panel
Yes control panel/Windows Explorer is just really Internet Explorer, but that fact is hiden from the user by them being able to select control panel. Yes it could be hidden with webmin, but as it stands it is not.
I also find that users are turned off Linux by the with the “Linux is easy for me, what are you complaining about?” attitudes of some of people on forums like this.
Linux may be fine at the moment for a corporate desktop where it can be locked down, users do a specific job etc. but Linux is a long way off being good for home users. Linux really needs to become more like OSX (not in the way it looks but in the way all the Unixy stuff is hidden from the user) for this to be the case – a very long way off in my opinion. Don’t get me wrong, I have used Linux a lot and I am confident enough to find my way around the text files if need be, but I think that’s it – it’s not hard, it’s just most home users don’t have the confidence that some of us have that if we do something wrong we can fix it.
I don’t think you people get that most average users are “Stupid” (in a nice kind of way) think of how “Stupid” you think a user is and try to think of someone a lot more “Stupid” and you may be getting there. I know, I teach a lot of them and use to work on a helpdesk.
That’s why Linux is ideal for corporate desktops. MS made Windows to be run by ‘stupid’ people. In fact the most stupid of people can download a virus and run it. To prevent a user doing this requires a very good sysadmin locking down all the boxes and installing mountains of software.
And there’s the point. Windows is designed to be self-admistered. *nix is designed to be adminstered by and administrator and no one else (hence root). Local admin on *nix is difficult unless you know how, remote admin is piece of piss IF you know how. On windows its easy for local admins to trash the network and its way too easy for remote admins to trash the network. Hence – Windows maybe ‘easier’ to break if you don’t know but *nix just won’t let you get that far.
But the question is – in a corporate network do you really want stupid people being able to administer machines? Especially servers?
Somebody said:
>Webmin may be easy, but what every day “Joe” user would think of using the web browser to configure their system?
Exactly the point – Why the hell should Joe Blow be able to use Win 98 to log onto your NT server and administer the web server – THEY SHOULDN’T – NO WAY – NOT EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Sure, at home do what you will but I don’t see many home users queing up to learn about serving web files of their machines.
Thing’s should be difficult to a degree and that’s why Linux is better. Any Tom, Dick or Harry should not be able to f*ck around and wreck their machine – that’s just plain stupid.
I am confident enough to find my way around the text files if need be
This is what drives me nuts. Windows advocates love to cut off the arguement at the knees when somebody starts screaming about stability because XP is a lot more stable than NT4.0 or ME ever thought of being. However, I hear people constantly talking about issues with Linux that you just don’t run into with a any of the major distros anymore.
What text files are you editing man?
If I want to set up a SuSE box as a NIS client I go through YaSt2. If I want to set up a network share out from my Redhat 8 box I go through redhat-config-samba. If I want to install fonts in Mandrake I use the Mandrake Control Center. Every distro has a way to change X settings.
Where is the command line? I use that on the servers when I am in a hurry and need something done quick or have things compiled special in an odd place. Yes, all the administration tools are distro specific and vary and I wish that projects like Gnome-setup-tools were further ahead than they are. But the arguement about vi and editing text files is the wrong arguement to make as opposed to focusing primarily in terms of the disparity between distros.
read the subject, you’re not an automotive engineer just because you learned how to drive a car. Same goes with learning windows, MSCE my ass.