*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 6/26/98, at 2:55 AM, William T Wilson wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Tony Wells wrote:
>
>> For the client workstation ease of use and penetration of
>> application software is the driver. Win9x and NT are the clear
>
>Right. We all agree that there is less application software for Linux
>than for Windows, there is no doubt about that, and that the application
>software there is is often saddled with some unsavory aspects relating to
>installation, ease of use, or some such.
>
>> of that century. Considerable time and training (as evidenced by
>> the number and variety of questions on this list) is needed to set
>> up and maintain a secure Unix/Linux server on a corporate site.
>
>That's true. Considerable time and training is also required to set up a
>Windows NT server for a corporate site that works at all; I don't think
>it's possible to make a stable NT server, and the training required for
>making one secure and efficient is at least as much as there is for Linux.
>
>The biggest cost for companies looking for back-ends and servers is
>neither the cost of the software, nor the cost of training, but the cost
>of support. When your system works properly, the support costs are
>reduced. When your system does not work properly, support costs are
>increased; and many companies lose lots and lots of money when they have
>downtime. Linux (and Unix in general) has very little downtime. Windows
>NT has a great deal of downtime.
Stating that NT has a great deal of downtime is a pretty broad statement.
I think it would be better to put that NT has a greater potential for
downtime but it can be just as stable as Unix. Linux/Unix do to its
maturaty has a greater potential for uptime but it can be unstable. I have
NT servers that stay up for long periods of time and run with no hands on
from day to day. I also have an NT servers that is a yoyo. Same for
Linux. My quake2 linux server crashes 2-3 times a week. It only runs ftp
and Quake2. Its a default RH 5.0 install with all apppropriate errata.
I'm working on a 2.0.34 kernel upgradewhich is supposed to fix my crashes)
but I'm running into some hardware issues. Your mileage may vary.
>Windows is only self-installing because the computers come with it
>installed by the factory. It is certainly not self-installing when you
>are given a CD and a blank hard drive. Granted, neither is Linux.
>However, for a person that knows the system he is working on, Linux is
>often easier to install than Windows, especially with well-supported
>components. One would hope that a person purchasing a system to use as a
>back-end server would be intelligent enough to purchase supported, quality
>components and know how to configure them.
I've done countless NT installs (workstation and server) and about 15 RH
installs (on the same two boxes do to my inexperience with Linux) and can
say that Linux is not up to NT for ease of installation. Redhat is making
great inroads but the lack up pnp support and other harware support isses
puts them behind the times. I think over the next year or so we'll se
Redhat and hopefully other distributions make installation of not only the
OS but of software in genereal less problematic.
Scott
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
