Re: [Hampshire] Happy Happy Joy Joy

On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 22:34 +0100, John Cooper wrote:
> 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.

Well, I guess I agree with that. I suppose what I describe as a 'good'
windows admin isn't one with any technical skills or knowledge of the
protocols they are using. I've never met one like that. But unlike
Linux you can create a setup and manage a network without knowing
anything. It's all relative.

> > >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.

I really disagree this is the case. 'Setting up' AD is literally about
4 clicks -- 5 minutes.

Setting up a similar Linux setup is not in the same league. At a
minimum you have to worry about:

- Designing your LDAP directory
- Setting up LDAP in multi-master mode
- Setting up your KDC, configuring a Kerberos load balancer or at least
HA failover
- SASL/SSL for LDAP
- Deciding on a set of administration tools, or writing some scripts.
- Distributing your service keys.

If you want your company LAN to have a DNS server, its a few clicks in
windows. The basic entries are populated for you. All the SRV records
are added and the A records for your Windows servers are there.

I'd sooner look after the equivalent Linux setup, but a Business can
find a Windows admin for 18k who can run through a wizard or two.
Ignoring the amount of extra time the Linux box will take to set up, the
cost of the Linux admin to do it would be a multiple of the Windows
admin.

On top of that, I think the graphical Linux administration tools are
generally pretty terrible. Feel free to point me to some that aren't
(not webmin please).

> > 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.

The lack of an object lifecycle and the lack of constness are just two
of the things that continue to frustrate me with Java. Until 1.5, there
were also no templates or enums.

However, Javas huge set of API's OOTB and the quick development of web
services are I believe what sells it.

> 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.

I understand the history. But I also think it's important to
distinguish between morality and business decisions. Businesses mostly
don't care about ethics. They don't care about something being
technically excellent. It just has to be good enough at a predictable
cost. If they did care, then Microsoft would be having a lot of trouble
selling their software. They aren't.


Graham