Re: Evaluating Linux: Reality vs Hype

["Tony Gettig" <GettigAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

His points and your rebuttals are both well taken. I have to especially agree with what you say about troubleshooting. It is my contention that a stock Linux install has a command for nearly anything you need to do as far as troubleshooting (at least point you in the right direction). It's just a matter of knowing where it's at and how to use it. :) 

As to the choice of distributions, I look at it this way: when in Rome, do as the Romans do. If the senior members of the LUG nearby use a certain distro and you are new to Linux and going to need help, it might be a good idea to pick what they are using. There will come a day when leaving Rome and using a different distro isn't so daunting because the principles have been ingrained.

<rant>
"Well trained Linux experts" is one of those things that gets me. This is where corporate America expects to just send their people off for training and POOF! they have an in-house expert. Ala NT, Novell, A+, etc. That is not the case with Linux. Actually, it's not the case with other NOS certifications either, as there are many a paper-CNE, paper-MCSE, etc. Classes and certifications are coming along for Linux, and I think it's just a matter of time before they catch up to the perceived stature of the other industry certifications. For many IT managers, the certification paper has become at least if not more valuable than a degree. However, certification does not automatically qualify a person. That pesky thing called experience with all of its triumphs and scars is very important. :)
</rant>

My favorite paragraph is this one:

"A lot of the attention Linux has received in the last few years is based less on what Linux is and more on what Linux is not. Quite simply, Linux is not Microsoft. In fact, Linux might adequately be termed the antitheses of Microsoft."

This is so true! Nearly every review of Linux in print intended for the non-Linux reader is like this. If it's a favorable review, it's anti-M$. ("Windows sucks! You can do it better with Linux for free!") If it's a less than favorable review, it's pro-M$. ("Linux sucks! You can do it better with WinGadget!")

More than ever, I am excited about the future of Linux not only in the server arena (it's already here and growing well), but also on the desktop. I can see a day coming when the M$ model for licensing is just too bloated for companies and individuals alike. There again, Linux is not Microsoft. I am especially intrigued by this as I work for a school system. While ours is funded well enough to renew the licensing agreements each year for certain network operating systems, I can see a day coming when it may not be. Frankly, I think the cost of such renewals will one day be looked at as an irresponsible use of public funds in larger, publicly funded organizations like the schools.

Just my $.02. :)


Tony Gettig
Network Administrator
Kalamazoo Public Schools



>>> Adam Tauno Williams <adam@morrison-ind.com> 04/20/01 02:19PM >>>
>Was checking out Tech Republic today and come across this link:
>http://www.techrepublic.com/article.jhtml?id=r00220010418hin01.htm&page=1 
>Comments?

Not real impressed with this guy, although he makes some good points.

Linux advantages (he sited)...

No licensing fees - obviously agree

Most server software is stable - agree

Requires minimal hardware requirements - I always find this one dubious.  If
your going to have a box serving a 100+ people, NT or Linux, you need a
reasonably powerful machine.  And if you hav 100+ people you should have the
money to plunk down for one.

Open source allows for greater security - Dubious again,  only if the user/admin
has the knowledge required to take advantage of the source.  Since 90% of the
"admins" I know are just PC jokeys with visions of granduer and maybe a few
worthless certifications, I don't think this helps the average institution at
all.

Linux disadvantages (he sited)...

Supporting it is expensive - Huh?  An NT guru is cheap?  Given the average
salary of an experienced IT person (according to the trade rags), and that NT is
the predominate OS, seems like he plucked this out of thin air.

Trouble shooting is difficult - Whoa!  He's crazy.  With strace, fuser, /proc,
and friends trouble shooting is *******EASY****** compared to ANYTHING on a tool
impaired Win32 platform.  

Configuration is complicated and troublesome - No. "/sbin/linuxconf"  will do
everything 99.999% of people need in a very nice GUI.  Then there is webmin, or
how about SWAT?  All work very nicely.  I can configure a working
SMTP/POP/IMAP/DNS/PROXY box without EVER using the command like,  no sweat. 
Doesn't mean the command line isn't, in fact, easier if you really know what
your doing.

Desktop software is buggy and unstable - Pure opinion.   I use Ximian Gnome,
netscape, star office, gtelnet, gkadmin, gimp, sylpheed, dia, unixODBC, and
gnumeric for hours . . . no crashes.

I love this statement: "While Linux servers are rock-solid stable, the Linux
desktop is notoriously buggy and unstable. Key Linux desktop applications such
as StarOffice, WordPerfect, and Netscape Navigator are prone to frequent
crashes. Some Linux distributions and versions have no trouble with these
applications, while others deliver pitiful performance or can't even get them to
run."

So is this the fault of Linux or the users choice of an amatuer distribution?

Systems and Network Administrator
Morrison Industries
1825 Monroe Ave NW.
Grand Rapids, MI. 49505