Graham wrote:
> Responses inline.
>
> On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 19:07 +0100, Tim B (Systems) wrote:
>
>> And you expect the monkeys to be sysadmining your network???? (ref. cartoon of
>> all the monkees sitting in a tree)
>>
>
> Of course *I* wouldn't, but it's not my networks and not my decision. A
> good windows admin can be picked up for the fraction of the cost of a
> good Linux admin and are a lot easier to replace. Most companies have
> predominantly Windows clients, and a Windows server suits those needs.
>
I don't agree with that. Most Windows admins are not good admins and
just bluff there way through the job. I'd say there are very few good
Windows admins, and they probably earn big money. Having worked on a
major mail server upgrade in a UK bank, I'm appalled at the level of
diagnostics the Windows admins have. I mean basic telnet on port 25 to
send an email is just not in their capability. Thankfully the upgrade
was Linux based mail server, interworking with exchange.
> >From a management perspective, the Windows admin is cheap. And a
> reasonable one will be able to design a reasonably reliable network.
>
>
>> Keep it simple, install linux, clean the dust out every 6 months, you'll be
>> fine.
>>
>
> Except the lack of a distribution facilitating a fast out of the box
> installation and the lack of a good set of management tools imposed on
> you mean the cost of setting up Linux as a cross-platform server
> platform is prohibitively time-consuming.
>
Like for Like here. If you buy a Linux based mail server all the GUI's
are there and work as well as Exchange. The difference is you stand a
chance finding problems as you have a wealth of Linux diagnostic tools.
> Setting up a windows domain controller is a few clicks -- add a new
> domain controller and you have multi-master functionality with automatic
> failover. I've met windows admins that don't understand DNS at all,
> have installed Exchange without needing to understand much more than the
> basics of what they are doing (evident by one occasion where a company
> Exchange 2000 server was configured as an open relay and found itself
> blacklisted for a week).
>
> MMC provide effortless setup of users and adding windows machines to a
> domain is dead simple. You can setup a whole network and there's no
> need to even know about designing building an LDAP directory to contain
> your organisations details, adding service keys, etc. It's all done for
> you. Although not universally implemented, single signon largely comes
> for free. One might argue that if you are only provided with a limited
> view on the technology you are using then you only need to understand
> that view to be able to operate the software.
>
> Setting up a Linux equivalent to AD with LDAP, Kerberos, etc is not so
> trivial. I'm not arguing it's a bad thing that you have to understand
> what you're doing, but to get the same level of functionality is a lot
> of work.
>
Again, like for like. If you buy a Linux server solution, the LDAP will
be as easy to set up.
>
>> As soon as some-one says "XYZ must be able to login and change ABC" I worry,
>> because (at least in the company I work for) "XYZ" hasn't got a clue and
>> it'll take me an age to sort out "ABC" properly afterwards. I'm quite happy
>> to use config files. at least you need some idea of what you're doing before
>> you change them!
>>
>
> Having worked with a Windows admin who insisted he was competent enough
> to make simple changes to a BIND configuration, and consequently broke
> it regularly, I can confirm that you don't need some idea of what you're
> doing before changing config files. You just need to *think* you do.
>
>
>> What I like about MS Software is that it doesn't interoperate seamlessly with
>> other systems from MS. Half the time I find myself running linux to
>> troubleshoot Windows issues.
>>
>
> I'm no fan of Windows based stuff -- I work with Linux every day on
> clients and servers. I find Windows frustrating and when things go
> wrong on a Windows machine, there is always a chance it may just be
> completely unfixable. Nevertheless, I think it's smart to acknowledge
> what it gives you.
>
Yes, it give you what they want and not necessarily what you need. From
experience, without Firefox/Thunderbird and their plugins (e.g. firebug)
we would only solve half the problems we see with Windows web and mail
problems. For example, we are seeing problems with mime format ms_tnef.
This is were different Microsoft documents can be combined in to one
mime format (Outlook RTF setting on). Some exchange servers just don't
decode it properly, which considering it is a MS propriety format is
priceless!
http://sourceforge.net/projects/tnef
> In the same way that I think that C++ is a much better programming
> language than Java, I may pick it by preference but it's foolish to not
> acknowledge what Java provides.
>
If depends on what you mean by better. They are very similar languages
but have different aims. I'm sure that if C++ could provide the same as
Java, it would have been used.
I acknowledge that Microsoft were the first to exploit the i386
processor while the Unix world sat back and let it happen. They created
a market were the manufacturers were locked in to selling only Windows,
even though it was poor software and insecure. After creating a monopoly
in the desktop they are now ruthlessly pushing Windows Server. Again
another inferior product to Unix/Linux but they have the power to sell
it and fix the problems later. AD is yet another rip off of an existing
technology, tightly coupled to Windows to ensure the lock in continues.
You'd be foolish not to understand the history and why it is important
not to just except what M$ tells you.
John.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Linux - Open Source Solutions to Business and Schools
http://discoverlinux.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
