Re: Evaluating Linux: Reality vs Hype

["t. bedlam" <bedlam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 03:25:55PM -0400, Tony Gettig was only 
   escaped alone to tell thee:

> 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.

> 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>

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.

> Just my $.02. :)

Well, let me hasten to get in on this two penny ante. :)

On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 03:25:55PM -0400, Adam Tauno Williams was only 
   escaped alone to tell thee:

> 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>.)

> 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. ;)

(And good riddance, say I.)

-- 
i'm determined to stand, whether god
will deliver me or not. -- bob dylan