Re: Evaluating Linux: Reality vs Hype

[Adam Tauno Williams <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>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.
>"A typist was a girl who could, under controlled conditions, distinguish a
>typewriter from a washing machine. We later took out the washing machine."
>-- Robert A. Heinlein
>Well, it's a case of demand outstripping supply. Remember the "ninety-day
>wonder" of WWII? It was any wet-behind-the-ears 2nd Lieutenants who rolled
>off the OCS stamping line.  :) I remember (and I am comparatively young!)
>when IT was a social non-issue. Today it is almost a battleground: content,
>immigration, law enforcement, "patents," IT "colleges" popping out of the
>ground matching explosive growth.... the 2001 "recession" will be a bubble
>for IT, if not the dot-coms, but that kind of growth is often painful.

I don't see the 2001 "recession" effecting most of the heavy issues like intellectual property issues, fact it might impel corporations to be even more voracious.  I do hope that it will trim some of the fat (including about 70% of the so called "Linux" companies).

>>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 agree, though with some reservations:
>Good News: I copied my mom's hard drive to the new one and installed WinME
>over 98. <phew> Now all I need to do is install the LS-120 (no hurry) and
>that upgrade nightmare is *over*. One less weight on my mind.
>Bad News (more or less): Wow, it's fast. Of course, it's hard to tell with
>it being on the new hard drive, but it seems faster. It sure boots faster. I
>remember the performance hit I took when I installed 98 over 95. Now her
>P-II 400 192MB boots a little quicker than my Athlon-900 256MB. (Of course,
>I have yet to prune my Linux install on that box, or install 2.4.3 for that
>matter.) We're aiming at a moving target, here. Moss grows not on Chairman
>Bill. <distant gonggg...ggg..ggg>

I'm not so certain that desktop performance of any OS is really that big of a factor at this point.  THe machine you can buy for $700 today will run almost anything with a fair amount of pep (with the exclusion of enlightenment of course).

>In a year, when Star Office is a bit smoother (and integrated with GNOME or
>simply replaced) I'll stick Linux/GNOME on the desktops of CARES without a
>moment's hesitation.

I watch the Open Office thing pretty closely, and while I have *NO* idea when it will be released, I run the build versions and they are quite a bit faster, more stable, and have shed their "My name is Ozymandius, King of Kings, Look upon my works ye Mighty, and despair" monolithic behaviour.  If your adventerous you should give them a try.  If any one wants them on CD I'll burn them (it is a MASSIVE download).

>>Requires minimal hardware requirements - I always find this one dubious.
>Well, let's just say it scales well. My P-90/32 MB is wonderfully usable 
>under Linux. At work, NT drags a bit on a PPro-166 64MB, but it's only a 
>personal workstation! And I have to wonder how 2000 would perform (if
>Pharmacia could afford it <snicker>.)

You can't get them to cough up more than 64Mb?  I don't know anyone who runs NT on 64Mb,  but there is no doubt in my mind that it is quite a bit slower than Ximian GNOME on the same box.  The article was dealing with server side stuff up until about the last three paragraphs.  I have very little experience with WinY2K, but I can tell you that booting is a glacial process.

>>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.
>I'm curious about this. Not so much the going rates as the number of support
>personnel required. At work, my co-workers are always bragging at how little
>support VMS needs--4 guys supporting 27 or so machines, whereas the NT and
>Unix admins are 2:1 to machines.
>Questions I wonder at:
>1. How many Windows desktops do the NT guys support, or is it only servers?
>2. What are these admins doing on Unix and NT? Damage control, or
>configuring new apps? After all, the latter only makes sense as VMS is due
>to be phased out in four years. ;)

I hope it is configuring apps, because 2:1 is a ridiculous ratio for any OS (IMHO).