No way Windows is easier to install than Linux. I run a network with about 100 W2k boxes. If it wasn't for cloning software and sysprep it would take me forever to do rollouts.
About an 2 hours to install base OS, SP3, hotfixes, and then secure box; a few minutes to get the nic configured to go get the latest drivers for the motherboard, video card, etc., and then spend the next hour installing and rebooting. Then I get to spend about a half hour installing Office2k and then another hour installing sr1a, office sp3, and office hotfixes. Then all the other apps and patches for manufacturer sites. Using windowsupdate and officeupdate don't save that much time, but it helps. With Red Hat, about 45 minutes to install a custom install where I choose each package. This includes database server, ldap, office, firewall (where's a good firewall for windows during install?), dev tools, etc, etc. Then after reboot, the box goes to one site and updates "everything", not just office, not just the os, browser, and then manufacturer sites for app patches. One stop patching with up2date. As for standards, MS does not follow standards. Remember, its "embrace, enhance, and extend" with them. Just look at their implementations of java and ldap, MS JVM and Active Directory, respectively and their kerberos implementation. The UI isn't so user friendly in XP either, I've already got "lost" users with that. I can park people in front of Red Hat/KDE or OS X and they are on their way without hand holding or calls to my techs for help. It just plain costs more to use Windows, period. John -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
