Oz - aka Linux Guru

It's just a hideous atempt to drag out a point that is regionally applicable and one that you insist must be that way around the world as it applies to your area.

First of all,I am NOT a linux lover at all. I have never said anything of the sort in fact, not even hinted towards it. Again you are being conclusive and assumptive, just as your 4 year old market research showed.

Secondly, I don't USE linux myself other than a workstation for remote desktop/server support, although I have managed quite a few sites making the switch to the more stable and secure Novell Ximian. ALL of the users have commented on how they thought it would be a major hurdle but were pleasantly surprised to see that Suse was VERY similar to the Windoze environment they were used to.

Employers see a great value in the switch, hardware is less finicky than with XP, as the HCL isn't a tome needing a group to decipher. The roll out cost per desktop is FAR FAR lower than installing MS Windoze and MS Office etc. Suse runs about $100.00 CDN per desktop and includes MANY MS compatible titles, such as open office, the email system is more stable and a far lower cost to install and maintain as onsite support is reduced.

This comes from first hand, on-site experience.

Now, you insist that employers don't CARE how much IT costs??

Now I can't fathom such a business practice myself but then again as in all IT, I am sure it is area dependant.

From personal experience AND what I read here, this is definitely NOT the mindset of most (successful) companies.

But hey, like you said, Novell is a sinking ship of the past with no future in IT because nobody wants it anymore and they don't hold a reasonable marketshare to remain a player. (even though from what I understand thay still hold the number 2 slot for NOS installs globally).

And lastly, you live somewhere where companies are not concerned about IT costs, I suppose no outsourcing in your state either.

If I was you I would remain quiet about such things, you will have a maassiveinflux of IT staff moving there if this is so.

Were you trying to make a point somewhere along the line?

I would be interested in seeing a peer vote to determine just how many people feel thet the company isn't concerned about IT costs. From what I read here, this is a bigger concern in the US than I have even seen here.

...

also - your CPS of $100 per station for SuSE Pro is a lot higher than my CPS for MS WinXP and Office. So once again, cost aren't the be all and end all. Where to you see it picking up for Linux.

also - i renamed the original thread title. just needed to get your attention.

You renamed a title to catch my attention?
Is this now a Yahoo chat room or something?

First of all,please show me a post, any post, where I have indicated in ANY way that I am a Linux guru. I never said as much, it is just another one of your unqualified assertions.

NOw Idon't know how many thousand licences your company is buying but I am speaking of an over the counter cost of product, for even a single user. Obviously, MS licencing for Office AND an OS is going to be a higher per user cost than Suse, you are the first I have ever seen that feels MS licencing is even comparable to other vendors, yet alone cheaper.

So YOU live in an area where Novell is seen as dead, IT costs are irrelevant and MS Windoze WITH MS Office costs less than $100.00 CDN per desktop! Where are the flying monkeys?

I would suffest keeping VERY quiet about it, you will be infested with people moving there like the Yukon gold rush.

I don't care where you live, the per user licencing for MS products has never been lower than open source. If you are talking a national or government contract with thousands of users, then Suse would also be far less expensive.

Lets look at the retail end user costs, XP Professional = $499.00

MS Office 2003 full = $649.00

(taken from a competitive retailer's website)

So somehow, volume licencing reduces the MS cost from over $1100.00 CDA to less than $100.00 CDA?

Given THAT theory, Suse retailing at $99.00 would comparitively cost far less.

No wonder your company doesn't give a damn about the IT costs, it hardly represents the masses though.

as per your suggestion.

you are talking about book price. no one pays full book price for MS licenses!! do they? I have always paid heavily discounted rate.

From FUD over FACTS
http://itheresies.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_itheresies_archive.html
"In a lot of ways, both sides campaigns are mirrored by Microsoft's unabated campaign of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt ( commonly referred to in the information technology sector by the acronym FUD ). Microsoft's advocates probably consider the use of the same strategy by both Democrats and Republicans a green light to continue to spread FUD, despite the evidence which contradicts the claims, including Microsoft's own internal research. Any forum attached to an article that even hints at Linux being used on the desktop results in a similar barrage of FUD that is familiar in form to that spouted by the political camp followers. Microsoft's advocates claim the same thing happens whenever Microsoft's record of security is mentioned."

The above linked blog has all the links required to back up the facts.

By the way. I have deployed Linux in the server room since 1997, on the desktop since 2001 and "This Daniel Boone business is about played out.". The current generation of Linux distributions from Novell/Suse,Xandros,Mandrake and the upcoming releases from Redhat, are far easier to manage for both servers and desktops.

The Linux desktops do everything required by 85% of the employees and integrating the remaining Win2k and MacOSXs with the backend Linux SAMBA services is not that difficult. Day to day IT management is a breeze.

I don't visit Linux forums myself and I am not, as previously suggested, a Linux Guru by any means. I have just worked with Novell products for a few years.

One thing that I don't buy though is the reference that the FUD factor is an IT term! I laughed out loud as i read it, man these guys will take credit for ANY acronym!!

FUD Fear Uncertainty and Doubt is a sales term I learned nearly 20 years ago as it applied ot customer objections being due to F.U.D. When a sales rep has not properly qualified, presented and trial closed a prospect the perospect may say they are not interested,this USUALLY does not mean they are not interested but are suffering from Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

This term was coined long before computers or IT depsrtments were a thing of reality. In fact I taught the Dale Carnegie sales course some years back and the term is used in the book How to Win Friends and Influence People, written in 1936.

The rest of your post stands the test of time though. Novell has ALWAYS built a better NOS, the main reason MS market share is so high is due to MS Office sales attributing for over 65% of sales. At one time, nothing BUT the MS OS was compatible with MS Office ,with Open Office now being about 85% MS Office compliant, things are looking very differnt now. THe only issue I have seen that Open Office doesn't work with seamlessly is Excell Macro's, yet they are still only on version one. This will change very quickly. With MAJOR server manufacturers (IBM, HP/Compaq) providing so much R&D suport with Novell, the market will change on the NOS even if it takes a while to catch on in the Open Office respect, which in my experience is just as good as MS Office...but free.

FUD works both ways.

"I have deployed Linux in the server room since 1997, on the desktop since 2001"

That may have worked in your case, but the fact remains that this approach does NOT save money. (Gartner July 2004) In most cases TCO is actually 10 times more than a comparable MS Infrastructure.

Linux servers and embeded systems, in major infrastructure, will generally find a home as (Non Critical) network devices.

As far as the desktop, many users continue to have a hard time with a simple double click.

"Transition to XP or even Longhorn on the desktop is going to cost any organization major blowout on hardware upgrades alone."

Absolutely..........wrong.

Not. Most businesses today refresh hardware every two or three years max. XP or 2K license costs are inconsequential & so is the desktop software. What does matter is the user trainning and comfort. His or her PRODUCTIVITY or TRAINNING is where the money is at.

On the desktop - Linux die-hards, like yourself for instance, can't see that a migration to Linux would kill user productivity. That's just for starters.

You'd have us believe that migrating 200 - 4000 users to a Linux desktop is good IT business.

I think your full of FUD - Friggin Unbelievable Denial.

Now instead of implying a market trend or the norm, you are actually saying that you situation is unique to the industry.

When comparing industry costs, does it make more sense to look on a retail cost level or based on YOUR company's specific volume discounts?

Am I to now supposed to quote estimated costs that include the specific discount levels available to your organization?

Two things:

FUD was coined by IBM in the 50's. They would use this technique against any competitor trying to gain entry into their accounts

Features advantages & benefits or FAB of MS products are clear. No CIO in his right mind would ever consider using LINUX or Open Office. Some of these places have 10 or 15 Million invested. Many Federal Gov installations still maintain Banyan Vines & OS/2 simply because the installation is stable and the cost to great to move onto to something else.

Linux will find a home in SOME network devices in the 'major leagues' but that's about it. Primarily, we've used some HP servers in our firewalling as I'm sure others have as well.

The cost of these products Linux & Open Office, looking at TCO, is about 10 times that of an MS based installation. (Gartner study July 2004).

http://www.novell.com/linux/truth/index.html

Millions invested in what? NT, Win9X and Win2k?
Transition to XP or even Longhorn on the desktop is going to cost any organization major blowout on hardware upgrades alone.

Recently Microsoft has been challenging the suitability of Linux for the enterprise, bending the truth quite a bit to make it fit their view of the world. This site is dedicated to unbending the truth and setting the record straight. Take the time to explore the facts, and you'll understand why Microsoft is challenging Linux, and why Linux is often a better choice than Windows for satisfying the business needs of enterprises.

The studies that dafe2 refers to have been selectively targeted and quoted as to ensure only a Microsoft favorable outcome.

Read: Let's play the Magic Quadrant game
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/24/magic_quadrant/

Things Microsoft Failed to Mention
http://www.novell.com/linux/truth/no_mention.html
Microsoft's ?Get the Facts? website summarizes and emphasizes the strengths of Windows as they appear in the reports and studies they provide (see www.microsoft.com/getthefacts). However, they fail to mention the strengths of Linux that are cited in those same reports. Here are some quotes from these publicly available reports which highlight some of the benefits of Linux.

It does require some research on the part of the customer to evaluate where Linux on the desktop makes sense. But in most cases, medium to large organizations can greatly benefit from making the shift. See
http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/nld/features/a_linux_switch_nld.html

Gartner is the most reputable & independant IT research group out there.

Left wing Linux trade rags dont compare. Sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I have read Gartner's recent studies regarding Linux on the desktop, and IMO both are flawed in regards to TCO and ROI. Both Gartner reports are correct in terms of the expertise required for *deploying* pre-2004 Linux distributions, but recent developments in both Novell/Suse and Xandros ( see http://www.xandros.com/products/business/xdms/xdms_intro.html ) make deploying and managing as easy or easier than WindowXP.

When you actually sit down and total the figures for Total Cost of Ownership comparison between Windows and Linux, disregarding the cost of virus on the Microsoft platform, then you get closer to the following ...
http://www.cybersource.com.au/about/linux_vs_windows_tco_comparison.pdf

I will whole heartedly agree with dafe2 on the "double click" comment. of my user base - and it's pretty large!! - i would estimate 25% are tech savvy users that are fairly to very comfortable with the PC, OS and APPS. the other 75% are very un-comfortable with the PC, OS and APPS. the ones that have trouble with the "double click" so to speak. and no - on one if going to fire them for not being tech savvy. they have been employed way before my time and before the PC took over every aspect of their work and they will be employed way past my time and until retirement. we have staff professional upgrading programs that they can take - it's optinal and up to them if they want to take them. in the meantime - they will continue to do their jobs and i and my staff will contiue to do ours.

as far as the "TCO will cost 10x more to deploy linux"?? i don't know about that one. but i am very confident that my work load will go up by 10x. and i personally like to leave on time and get home to spend time with my family instaed of hangin' around servers 'til the wee wee hours.

The driving force in my environemt towards moving to MS Win 2003 and AD is better and more efficient depolyement of APPS, patches, upgrades as well as AV and antispyware and the signature updates. all the apps and MSI's now.

Novell and their Red Carpet product is fine and dandy - but whats the use when no one in my environemt uses Linux apps. we need better deployement of MS Office, Adobe, PeopleSoft, Cognos, Oracle apps. not open source!!

This has nothing to do with Linux vs Windows. Linux is stable. I use Linux. but none of my users use linux. they don't want to use linux. design dept's don't come knocking on my door asking for open source - they want the latest quarks, photoshops, premieres!!!

i wear multiple IT hats in my job - as do all other IT guys these days. there is no fuggin' way i could get anything done if i have 500 users calling me at the same time asking for help with this or that.

as i always say to the linux advocates out there - i will make you a deal. you can come over and convert 100 of my users. all the converted users get one phone # to call, and you get to sit at that phone and answer the calls all day long. you won't have time to take a bathroom break!!! let alone work on re-compiling your linux kernel. ;-)

by paul110 Jan 2, 2005

"Transition to XP or even Longhorn on the desktop is going to cost any organization major blowout on hardware upgrades alone."
Correct - I have had to replace several machines which were using 98 very happly.
"
Not. Most businesses today refresh hardware every two or three years max. XP or 2K license costs are inconsequential & so is the desktop software. What does matter is the user trainning and comfort. His or her PRODUCTIVITY or TRAINNING is where the money is at.
"
No we run a very tight ship - IT spend is not on period!

There is a mention of productivity, what exactly do you mean?
Our staff are trained to do the jobs the way we need them done, the software they use is easy to use. They know enough to do whatever it is that they need to do or we train them so they can do it.

It is just a symptom of a problem with sales when lines are trotted out to justify me increasing my existing hardware and software. What I have works.

Use what you have effectively sweat the assets and keep sweating them until the accountant says they have paid for them selves. Do not upgrade just because some mega company wants you to.

It takes me less time to download a Debian desktop system than it does to install Win2k on a desktop! Then I have to patch the two systems.
So I walk away from the Debian one and play with Ubuntu - it also just works.

If it was not for some of the work we do where we have to have Microsoft products, it is a customer requirement.
To both sides of the divide:
Remember your customer loves you! Just some love is conditional on the software actually performing and not requiring 20 addtional packages with there hidden costs - office, AV, anti spyware, compression programs, crm, all the stuff that I can stick on Debian for no cost - and guess what it just works.

Compare like with like and then tell you you can make my day better.

I found this url and think that it says there is a lot of linux out there, from what I can see at least one version will solve most of my IT problems. http://distrowatch.com

You make other good points with regards to Enterprise software. Besides the subtle but important user trainning costs, side issues such as BI Software could include:

1 - Cognos Impromptu / PowerPlay (BI)
2 - PeopleSoft (HR)
3 - SAP (AP, AR & Materials Management)
4 - Primavera and Graneda (Projects)

But, apparently, some of the Linux crowd and the companies that did surveys on implementing Linux forgot Businesses and Industry needed to access a data warehouse, pay their employees and their AP, look after the AR, ship or receive materials or finished product and/or manage their projects.

I'm obviously not a fan of the Penguin, BUT I do respect those that have taken time to learn it and use it. Most of them know when & where to implement Linux to a business advantage.

As I said, it does have a place. Just not on a production server or a user desktop.

Once again, I said that Linux has a home in some cases.

However, you can't tell me that you'd deploy Linux in a Corporation with 200 - 5000 nodes.
These places usually run SAP, Peoplesoft, Primavera, Cognos & others.

I can deploy a completely secure Windows XP desktop using RIS in 20Min flat. The user is in business within 30 minutes.

There is no sane corporation that would deploy Linux on the desktop or in the server room. The general user would not accept it. Simple as that.

Productivity from your users comes from familiarity with MS products. Productivity from OPS support staff (Techs) is the same.

All I'm saying is there's no sane argument to be made to implement Linux in an Enterprise Network, unless some MAJOR software vendors in that sandbox buy into it. That's not gonna happen anytime soon.

the linux advocates assume that users just use their machines for email and web browsing. even their argument to just replace MS Office with OpenOffice - it does the same thing!! --> It's true to an extent - but have they ever looked at support logs of a full production network environment? look at % of level 1 support calls related to file attachements and file compatability issues. you add OpenOffice into the mix - you are just going to add to those calls. i guess they don't care as long as it's not them fielding those calls.

personally i love linux. especially for network admins - the sheer volume of network tools available is worth the switch. i am a big fan of the SuSE distro. been using it long before Novell got their slimy paws on it. and here comes my doomsday prediction. Novell are going to screw SuSE big time. They will screw up the best thing about it --> YAST! But lets wait and see.

by house Jan 2, 2005

That was the first MS argument that I fully understood without "if", "ands", & "buts".

"a migration to Linux would kill user productivity".

In a workstation operating system, I agree 100%. There is quite a learning curve involved, and you CANNOT expect users to take kindly to the change. Everybody (non-IT folks) runs a Windows OS at home. There are exceptions of course, but you can't deny the fact that the numbers are bordering on a perfect batting average, and have been for years.

In the server room, do whatever works. I'm not familiar enough with NOS outisde of MS to give a proper opinion on the subject.

You're right too that most active IT infrastructures, have a turn-over/lifecycle rate of 3 to 5 years when it comes to hardware.

As I said, it is used as a sales rebuttal technique in a text written in 1936. If IBM adopted it that's fine and dandy, most people had by then.

One more time, it is a sales technique described in detail in a 1936 text, and it was probably not a new concept then either. However, it is described as FUDD, Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt and Disillusion.

IBM can not possibly be credited with coining a phrase, 14 years after I have seen it used in print.

THough not rolling out organization-wide Linux desktops, in some cases, the following are a fwe smaller organizations who have selected Novell solutions as the most secure for thier data.

US Air Force, US Army, US Navy, Census, Commerce, DOJ, DCMA, Secret Service,
Intelligence Community: DOE, EPA, FEMA, GAO, DOD, FBI.

Definitely a sign of an over priced sinking ship.

Other less relevant organizations include, New York State University, Cal State, VCC, Sacremento Unified School District.

As I have noted before, these organizations have not necessarily rolled out Linux desktops, but the apparently dead and losing NOS developer has been requested and implemented by these organizations due to it's security, stability and dependability.

Novell doesn't make an Aircraft Simulator or a SIMS clone though, perhaps where they have missed the boat afterall by just focusing on better NOS development.

No one said Linux doesn't have a home. I still work with people who have Banyan Vines, OS/2 and Novell.

There are specific reasons for this. Cost of replacement is but one of them.

All of the organizations listed have recently purchased Novell's Government Solutions or Education Portal. This is but the absolute tip of the iceberg though, Novell is deeply rooted in Energy, retail and heathcare industries too with newest offerings. And again, this is just Nrth America, consodering Novell has its broadest depoyment OUTSIDE of the US, it just goes to prove that NO, Novell is not an old, dead nor sinking ship as originally implied.

Novell Linux has taken off pretty much as expected, though the quarterly results are a few percentage points out, as always. Other than that, it has been a successful move for them and is proving itself as a viable alternative to MS shops. (which I believe is the topic of discussion)

I will address a couple of points for the hell of it:

"In the survey, Linux admin salaries were slightly higher than Windows admins, with Linux at $71,400 per admin, and Windows at $68,500 per
admin. But Linux admins took care of an average of 44 servers and Windows admins an average of 10. So the salary per processing unit
was Linux, $12,010, and Windows, $52,060.4"

Allthough the salaries seem right, no Windows shop I know of has a 1->10 ratio. It's closer to 1 -> 50

If you read the intro (Disclaimer) to that document it states that it gathered it's 'research' from "sources believed to be reliable". Cybersolution has a stake in the results so it's hardly 'impartial'. So does 'Open Source Victoria.'

Most important, nowhere in that document does it talk about Enterprise business tools (SAP & BI & Others) except on the MS solution. Don't you find that curious? Most Business & Industry can't run on an office suite & e-commerce alone.

by jaqui Jan 3, 2005

I'm sorry that Novell SuSe costs your clients that much.

debian -> FREE
Mandrake -> FREE or purchase ( 250 USD, install on as many stations as wanted )
Red Hat / Fedora -> FREE or purchase
Slackware -> FREE
list goes on.

the gpl that applies to these distros requires they give sources away.
they usually offer network install ability.
download on network install boot image then point it at ftp server to source packages.
free
( also can download iso files with full install free via ftp )
cost per station this way..$0.00
support costs. about $100 USD / year
while suse is, so far, only distro with security rating, novell is violating gpl by not making it available free.

The $99.00 is the 'suggested retail' cost for a boxed version. This also includes Novell setup support and links to nearly 2000 titles that can be imported to Suse for free. The company cost per user is far lower.

As stated before, one person says that an XP rollout WITH MS Office costs far less than $100.00 per station for his organization, I suppose that VOLUME break would leave Suse at about $1.00 per copy if any cost at all.

But it can also be downloaded free as an ISO.

by jaqui Jan 3, 2005

gnucash.
full professional level accounting software.

oracle for entrprise systems runs on linux also.

vendor specific software ( peoplesoft et-al )

well, if they get enough requests for it on linux they'll port it won't they.
oh, hold it a second, it's not a 3d modelling application..vmware or wine will run it under linux.

tco is far less with open source, specially when you include costs of virus software and damage to systems from it, security breaches from adware getting in from users.

more work for admins? not really, after install and configuration, less overall. configuration including cron job to get security updates regularly. 250 viruses a year for unix systems, 250 month for windows systems.

no outlook, or ie, oh well they are nothing but security risks anyway.

project management software.
Mr. Project ( gnome )
Contact Manager,
Schedules,
Calender
all exist already, all designed for large projects.
the open source systems are in and of themselves huge ongoing projects with deadlines, schedules and extensive requirements for completion, do you REALLY think PROFESSIONALS would ignore these vital tool sets?

by dingletec Jan 3, 2005

Actually, I'll bet Linux is taking off to a much greater extent than can be measured. I am one of several admins I know of that have all but a couple servers replaced with Linux servers. I don't have to ask if we can spend money, and don't seek approval. All management knows is that the servers rarely need attention anymore, we don't have to even consider viruses, and we spend zero money on better solutions. I don't buy Linux, except for 2 servers with Linux pre-installed. Red Hat immediately came off, and Debian went on. All the rest were replacing Windows/Novell/Unix and installing Linux. How do you gauge a market size when money is not changing hands? Keep reading and believing the news, it will keep me in work.

That's another point - No money changing hands.
Now, where do you supose that will lead?mmmm?

by dingletec Jan 4, 2005

My company spends much more over the lifetime of a product for support than we do on the actual product. A few of these systems have moved from SGI/Irix to Dell/Redhat. They are saving us both in license fees and hardware upgrades. While we pay for the software on these systems, the bulk of the income to these companies comes from support services and data subscriptions.

As an IT person, that is what I would like to see more of. More money spent on the person doing the work, and less on overpriced software.

Pay me more for my skills, giving me the incentive to keep learning and improving, rather than paying me custodial fees to keep Windows running.

We have to buy new hardware, we have to buy certain software and services, but if money can be saved on the OS and general desktop software, GREAT! Spend the money on people who can actually solve problems, not just those who have to call someone else to fix problems for them.

I guess my point is that money will still change hands, but with Linux and open source, more money can be spent where it is most needed, skilled workers.

by tony hopkinson Jan 5, 2005

WEB Server + database (mysql), hotstandby, raid and replication for the cost of two PCs. The firm I'm working for even zeroed the training costs. I just did it with the help of the linux community and this network connection and a mandrake download. Probably not the absolute ideal setup, but it works, it's nowhere near the edge of it's capacity, and the only maintenance I have to do is swap the dvd backup disk out once a week.
Most surprising of all, my employers are positively jurassic in their IT outlook. They still have a large number(100s) of 95 desktops on Pentuim IIs, running Lotus Smartsuite. They chose to go down the linux route because of cost and weren't scared of the fact that it's new. Whether they go down the microsoft or linux route for desktops eventually the cost is going to be hideous, and that's without re-jigging all the internal software, and coping with issues like 'I can't find Find' that I remember from 2K rollouts in other places way back when.

I'll get back to my Fortran 77 compilations running under VMS 6.2 on one of the DEC Aplha's now.

Not a joke unfortunately

by david mohring Jan 3, 2005

In response to the various naysayers in these forums who say Linux on the business desktop is either not possible or not worth it.
Read ...
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=5&threadID=165827&start=0

Yup, more selective writting and a perfect example of what to avoid to me.

I think we've pretty much beat this horse to death for about the 700th time.

by house Jan 3, 2005

As much as we all love Linux on the desktop, you can't deny the productivity cost that you will face when deploying workstations in a well rounded environment. Sure an MS install is more apt to failing, but the problems that we face usually stem from the "user". I will keep my comments brief, because I need to actually get some work done today, but I will subscribe to your discussion so that I might give more insight later on. Your opinion is not without it's pros, but user comfort plays a big part in productivity ratings within an organization.

In my experience, hardware standards and supported models, play a huge part in the recovery process. Having standard images and basic installs ready to go out on the floor, removes the fear of an MS system failing. Swapping the box, home folders on an h:\ drive, 10-20 minute network install... there is more time lost in training somebody on the OS than there is in replacing a failed station. That is my "general" opinion. I've used Linux worstation distros at home myself, and I love it, but perhaps it is not the best option in corporate rollouts [b]yet[/b].

ON that same note,I felt the exact same way regarding Novell and Linux. I was perfectly happy running Novell servers and Windoze desktops for years and cringed at the though of Novell Linux on the desktop for those exact same reasons.

I was PROVEN wrong though by the users ability to instantly adapt to and accept Suse, with many offering VERY favorable comments about it. Thier main comments were general how they THOUGHT it would be a real pain in the ass to learn and nothing would be where they expected it, but Suse has done such a nice job of the desktop that users were pleasantly surprised. It wasn't the big bad ogre they had expected at all, they had no problems doing thier work, whether administrative, accounting etc. and actually rave about how they can get a full days work done now without all the reboots or bugs they had with Windoze. More than a few user have had me go and install it on ther home PC's since changing, and they are tickled pink with it.

Yes they thought it would be hard, I thought it would be hard, but it PROVED it wasn't and it was accepted without issues. In fact they have several users at one company that have become HUGE Linux advocates that initially screamed blue murder at the thought of learning a new OS. Once they see it, are forced to use it, they find out just how familiar and yet more stable it really is. It is a result of FUD, people as they get older form comfort zones, stepping outside that zone scares many, but once they do it is usually found to be far better.

Just like people who are scared to quit work and move on with thier lives, it is a comfort zone. Once PUSHED from that zone, they generally move on to bigger and better things.

This also stems down to the tech, an MCSE who has ALWAYS seemn it as the furture in IT, will put up such a fuss about changing technologies, as demonstrated here, but al in all they and the company are generally better off in the long run.

It's also no different than the old mechanics raising a stink when fuel injection was being introduced in new cars. People have security in MS jobs, they will ALWAYS be needed because it always has issues. Now it may mean that two or three techs may be let go, it is a fear of the unknown, just as users fear leaving MS until they try it.

These feelings aren't unique to IT at all, they are just basic reactions to change of any sort.

Just typlical psychological reactions, not really any proof either way as to the best product.

Hey, just like a US election, it's merely a pissing contest with lots of flaming the other guy.

"but it is not perhaps the best option in corporate rollouts yet."

As user comfort grows, and SAP, Peoplesoft and some other major Enterprise players buy in....until that time nothing will happen in that area.

In small environments change management is easier to control. They don't have to deal with existing Enterprise Software Solutions and roll-outs don't cost in the millions. As well, you don't have Sally Sue and two hundred of her friends down on the fourth floor complaining her backround has changed since we installed that new thingamabob.

We haven't touched on collaboration issues with partners & vendors yet either. That's even bigger.

Seems like this has turned into a he said she said type deal now anyway though. :-)

The election is over, we don't have left wingers in IT.

You sound just like a republican shooting down the dems or vice versa.

Nothing is valid unless it is from YOUR side, believe me, this will go nowhere on TR except around and around in circles, you are merely comparing personal opinion based on who wrote what now, discountingany other 'conflicting' opinions based in their source. Been there done that, goes nowhere and answers nothing.

I have a lot of respect for Linux & those that use it. I use it myself for select network devices.

I've clearly stated my opinions with logic & common sense as it applies to Networks with 200 -5000 nodes. That's it.

The tone of your message is unwaranted & unwelcome.

Your righht about one thing though, this is going nowhere.

DAFE2

YOu went on about how Cybersource has an interest and therefore must be considered a biased opinion. They outlined this issue, knowing very well people such as yourself would deem it biased.

They actually gave MS a leading edge on purpose for this reason. (read HOW WE TIPPED THS SCALES IN MICROSOFT'S FAVOUR)

[i]There exists survey research by the RObert Frances Group which indicates that it takes 82% fewer resources to support Linux systems than Windows systems. They have not included the costs of malware, viruses, spyware, worms, keloggers, adware, etc. Every research point we found suggests that this cost is essentially and predominatntly a WIndows platform cost, resulting in billions lost by business every year.[/i]

So in essence, they have completely ignored what most people see as the biggest advantage to utilizing Linux over MS systems. I know you seem to think that MS is a lower maintenance system, contrary to the remainder of the worlds population. This is simply untrue, I have taken over Windows shops that converted to Novell Suse (desktops and all) as their LONE tech working remotely from my home. They then removed the 4 MCSE's that they used to have and replaced them with ONE offsite tech. IF users had problems I would remote to thier desktops for repairs or walkthroughs, ending up onsite at various stores for only hardware related issues. For the most part these former Windows users were shocked at how similar SUSE was to the old Widows look and feel,though some menus were moved around they had no problem adjusrting at all and all recognized the instant reduction in desktop problems they suffered under the MS system. I NEVER had people phoning me every five minutes and wondering about stupid user issues over how things were different than MS.

Just one of four organization-wide installs I did last year.

Now this was a fairly small organization less than 150 users (again with 1 tech offsite), another was the largest chain of food stores on Vancouver island. Connected ALL locations with NEC PBX based VoIP, then swapped ALL location servers to Novell Suse (again one solitary remote tech needed). No users complained of the change at all, many being big MS advocates themselves and never having seen nor used Suse. Learning curve? Maybe at one time (and I would have agreed it was a difficult curve to throw into most organizations), but nobody complains of it in my experience.

The main thing that has been forotten in ALL these posts though, MOST companies will deploy MS AND Novell in their organizations to get the best of both worlds. For security, printing, and directory services, Novell outperforms MS everytime hands down, I haven't heard anyone that has both systems installed say otherwise.

But mainly, if you are going to discredit something due to a disclaimer, read the rest of the information first, not just the disclaimer.

I did not say Novell was dead nor did I imply it. I was saying that each had a home & will continue.

Also to the original Linux crap:

It happens most of my business in Canada is Health, Utilities & Federal Government. I haven't tripped accross any Penguins in the hallway to date.

I've addressed a Linux 'talk' with common sense & if some continue to believe that Linux will gain market share in the ENTERPRISES so be it.

I didn't quote you as saying as much, but where do you think THIS discussion stemmed from?

It wasn't you but it was implied and THAT's what lead us here.

I did read it completely.

Unlike yourself, I had glasses on and an open mind.

Seem like Linux die hards have a problem with logic & COMMON SENSE though.

While you questioned a paragraph that was clearly explained later in the article, you have proven yourself much wiser than Linux admins.

It must be true that as you imply, Linux admins are simply clueless sand have blinders on, whereas MS admins are the open minded and flexible workers who see new products for what they really are. That's why MS is the best solution.

Novell engineers don't even come into the picture.

You didn't misread the article, everyone else did. You just decided to point out the disclaimer regardless that the point you were making was invalid, maybe because you wanted to add some keystrokes to your day.

Now if only I had taken my MCSE and not the MCNE exam, I too would know better!

Well it certainly isn't NEW that's for sure.

Many people here ASSUME a tone in what they are reading.

Have you ever dealt with someone over the phone for a period of time and THEN actualy met the person? How many times was YOUR mentalpicture of who they were or the office they sit in even remotely acurate?

The problem with posts is there IS no tone to be understood or misunderstood.

The 'TONE' of any message is unwarranted and unwlecome if you want it to be. TONE is an audio reference, not a visual one.

As for multiple users, Novell is proven as the more stable system with high volumes of users, it can handle more concurrent logins, print requests and file requests than anything MS could ever DREAM to deploy. THis isn't a metter of opinion , ANY comparisson by ANY organization prove it hands down. Those large corporations also generally deploy a mix of Netware, Linux and MS servers in their IT departments based on individual task performance required.

I'll assume you where laughing your hole off during the first paragraph.

This really is turning into a bitch fest isn't it?

:-) DAFE2

Believe me. You should read some of the bitch fests we've had in the past. THis is just a difference of opinion. No personal physical or legal threats have been uttered, it is actually one of the more sane disagreements I have heard in a while, and it mirrors ALL of the other MS vs Linux and 2K vs Xp standoffs. (and I am not even a big Linux user myself I just spend a lot of time with market and regional research).

It the same old crap and nothing new really.

Now political discussions, they go way overboard, or WENT way over board when people actually cared.

There were many US Dems, many Repubs, one or two Canadians an Aussie or two and and Englishman all arguing presidential candidates, when outside (the US) opinion was too strong, people were flamed as being anti-bush, anti-American you name it, including unqualified to speak because they weren't American, though we all share the same network TV plus some interesting local news that was never reported in the US. Now THAT was a catfight. LOL :D YOu aint seen nothing yetm stick around and see it all unfold again in 3 1/2 years, it's eally a three ring circus and some people take politics so personally it is funny as hell.

That's all I was trying to say :-)

I'm a Maritimer & we just feed em all beers till they come arround to thinking our way.:-)

Been in IT now for about twenty five years & I've seen more than my share of this stuff.
We'll see the same BS flying in another 6 months...or sooner. Linux die hards are a thick headed bunch. (No offense to you here.)

Anyway, I enjoy a good circus too ;-)

As I said, I am not a Linux die hard. In fact I grew up hating and beating up computer geeks, they didn't fit MY crowd at the time.

I then found that the biggest geeks were these open source guys that wanted to change the way everything was done, whatever! But as an MCNE and a Novel junkie, I was pleasantly surprised by the changes with NOvell Linux. It just seems to make the most stable and reliable platform all the much better.

I often referred to working as an MCNE to be like the Maytag man, it's so good it didn't take much maintenance and my days as a remote admin are mainly waiting for the phone to ring with a problem.

The issues have always been desktop issues relaed to Windoze software. I figured it would be AGES before Novel Linux actually devloped a viable desktop OS for business, but thier aquisition of Suse and a few tweaks on the Novell end proved mewrong. Users loved it and my phone once again stopped ringing, which was good as I was salaried
at the time.

So my experience is not as a Linux lover at all actually, I had never defended Linux before, though I knew it was more stable than MS, but didn't think it would fit the workplace for the exact same reasons you have all cited here.

What can I say, they proved me wrong and it was welcomed into businesses without a hitch.

I'm still beating them up......only now with common sense in a conference room. heheh

My experiences with Microsoft are the same as your Novell / Linux experience. NOVELL is a proven performer, no doubt about it. Microsoft Infrastructures, contrary to (seemingly) popular beliefs, when managed & implemented properly, ARE rock solid...including the Win2K & XP Desktop.

It's human nature to trash what people don't understand or know how to use. A popular passtime seems to be to trash MS product too.

Major issues with MS product are the paper MCSE's & MCSA's who implemented poor solutions and new nothing about IT. Also at issue are the office gurue/user who tweak things till it's useless. Then there's the attention IE receives from script kiddies................

That puts us in that loop dee loo.

by house Jan 3, 2005

Don't forget all of the applications that they have been running and any internal appz that might have been in development for a long time. The change cannot be weighed solely on common applications that are packaged with the distros, nor can it be compared without an individual "case by case" analysis. I would not consult a move to Linux, if they are married to Microsoft based applications. It all depends on the organization, the function of the various departments, what kind of information solutions they require, etc. There is no right or wrong answer here.

Wow... why am I defending MS?

I don't se ewhy it has to be all or nothing anyway. MOST large corporations have a mix based in the needs of the system.

If you MUST have MS desktops due to user inability, then so be it. This still does not mean that Novell Linux is going nowhere. (which is why this topic was dragged from anothe thread)

by house Jan 3, 2005

[i]Standards[/i] are very important to me, whether it includes Microsoft or not. Of course, Linux does have it's home in the corporate workstation world, but it would be difficult in transforming some from an MS client base, and leaving others be, while maintaining any sense of order in "standards" during the move.

There is a lot of grey area in the concept. I'm not for or against either side. I'll subscribe to the flexibility in seeing the advantages of both Windows and Linux distros. However, I would not recommend a mix, unless of course the alien stations were few.

PS - I agree that non-MS NOS's are everywhere. I don't know where the MS drones get their facts.

People are throwing server and workstation deployments around, like they are one in the same, while defending their favourite OS. I'll be very clear that the last few posts of mine were in regards to workstations. I see no problem whatsoever in mixing up the NOS's.

by secure_lockdown9 Jan 4, 2005

in order to improve security and keep support costs down --> we try to maintain a standardized and centrally controlled desktop to as many users as possible.

your post does not explain the rational behind putting some on Novell Linux. so what -- we are to urge the tech savvy users to go onto linux so their systems won't crash as much?

again, if they are working on something that required linux -- then yes. but if they don't work on anything linux -- why bother with the effort?

by secure_lockdown9 Jan 3, 2005

is it bed time yet?

Insted of yawning, try getting some sleep and eventually forming a counter opinion if you wish, but to simply yawn all day is neither clever nor an effective way of stating your point.

or did I miss the disclaimer stating that all TR peers must be held in interest of your comments? I don't see why I am the one who is supposed to entertain you, if you aren't interested don't read, but why respond with a yawn? Is it some kind of half-assed attempt at being cool or appearing to know better?

Bored? Good night then, have a nice sleep!

by dafe2 Jan 4, 2005

I agree with most of what you said. The only issue would be the 'commerce" side of things.

Business is still business and funding is a necessary 'evil'. It matters not that we think it's overpriced.

by romerogt Jan 4, 2005

First, I am not crazy about a platform, neither think one of them is to be trashed; in fact, I was born with DOS, then UNIX at my firt work, then Windows (at a 2000 pc installation and even an MCP) and actually getting back to learn how Linux can really help.

I agree most with OZ, others pointed to "linux hard die" people but they really are MS die hard, that without really doing research and testing of alternatives think they can predict Linux will not be able to compete with Windows. Some of the people, like me, that want this to be clear have to install the product, test it, and compare it with Windows. And this is an ongoing process, 6 years ago I co-decided to implement a new network that will grow with Windows, my decision consider Linux and discard it promptly; if I have to do the same job with the actual conditions, and have to deal with license cost, security related issue and stability, there is a really good chance that Linux be elected.

And this, despite that here in Guatemala we do not have yet a strong presence of Novell or RedHat, but web and local people support could do the job, meanwhile Novell or Redhat stablishes local support/offices to compete with MS marketing people (this is its rock solid area).

Then again, suppose we go with Windows because of an application that requires it, you can be sure Open Office would be an excelent oponent to Office, Firefox to IE, 7zip to Winzip, Thunderbird to Outlook, and this would have lower costs and perhaps let us buy better hardware.

I alread forgot, the not-to-smart point that MS is lower in licenses costs or that these costs (OEM) are not important to consider, I just can say that this means that you apply "costs as a state of mind", because, since you have never really do your numbers, you are assuming that your MS is costing less than alternatives.

Then again, there is no universal solution, they all try to convince/confunse with biased articles (see MS Know the facts, Novell's Truth Untold and Redhat's Truth Happens), but you need to apply your own analisis, once you have done your homework and research, test and do the numbers for YOUR company or project.

What you have paid for your Windows PC (9x, NT, XP) will be paid higher when you are asked to migrate to next version, and maybe your apps will have to be migrated, and your hardware, and your knowledge ... and your provider would have retired your support and you will not have the access to the source code or a comunity to back it up...

by house Jan 5, 2005

I'm under the impression that most of us are only interested in IT related issues, and do not subscribe to corporate management as a whole regarding such cases. Both sides have shown positive perspectives, but fail to understand the grey area that is involved when we are dealing with a fully functional environment and an infrastructure that has been in place, evolving over the course of many years.

Running a lab is but a small consideration when planning a drastic move like the one stated in the original post (among others). IT is a client service industry, and we service our clients accordingly. What we see as the best solution, is not necessarily what will be the most productive and accepted throughout the organization. When it comes to the flow of a corporate machine, why fix what is not broken? Why interupt the user's work in the name of IT? There is more to this discussion than a simple battle between MS and Linux.

I cannot state enough about the importance of [b]standards[/b] and the management issues that we would face without a solid backbone.

by dafe2 Jan 5, 2005

I think you & a few others here may understand this, but i'll tell you a secret -

IT IS NOT ABOUT OS's OR ANY OF THAT TECHIE CRAP ANYMORE.

It's about standards & service. If your going to stay in this business, that's what needs to be learned. Closed minded Linux die hards wouldn't know a standard if you put it in front of them.

Not one person said don't use Linux here.

I think you just solved this whole argument for the fourth time myself.

Microsoft Computers Seen Everywhere - almost like some sort of Waco brainwashing, when Gates passes on they will all start ingesting toxic components so they can join Him in the better place.

Mind you, St. Peter will have to step down and find another job because he will be outsourced. God will ltake more of a historical position and leave the big decisions up to Gates, much like British royalty.

One company with multiple brtanches has all Windows at the HO and nothing but Suse storewide, all managed via VPN to the HO that has a mixture of NOS's all working together in the server room.

HR NEEDS Windows due to custom coded acocunting software that is Unix based but with Windows emulation, which is then saved into a Unix database. The rest of the stores all find Suse more reliable and requiring less support, which can be costly for some of the more remote locations.

When HR needs to correspond with the other stores, thier MS office docs are sent out, opened flawlessly by Open Office users, and replied to with Open Office in Word Format. The HO recieves documentation that opens flawlessly in MSOffice. In the RARE case that an Excel doc with an embedded macro is sent that is NOT Open Office compliant, there is more than one small free app that the users use to open it.

The stores don't get access to HR's accounting system so the two need not be related. The HR department doesn't need to track store stock and all electronic transactions are sent via Python ecryption to a central sever that stores the info in a common Unix database that is accessible by ALL.

Not brain surgery, has the best of all world's and works flawlessly while reducing company costs BIG TIME.

by house Jan 5, 2005

I cannot say enough about the fact that I am neutral on the topic...

It all depends on the environment. It may work for certain organizations, but for large IT infrastructures that have been trying to repair historical problems directly related to the lack of standards in models and installations, it is not a good idea. This is a common business practice nowadays. I am also speaking of IT departments that consist of more than one or two employees. I've seen places with upwards of about 50 employees in IT. There is no one man team here. The standards are necessary.

by house Jan 5, 2005

I'm running out of ways to voice my same opinion over and over without sounding too monotonous. I'm glad that some of us are able to take that sort of "bird's eye view" outside of the IT department.

I will try to shut up now, but those who jump in and claim to have read every post in this discussion, have also failed to give even the remote impression that they have a solid understanding of the point that I am trying to get across.

Considering this is a discussion spawned from the idea of a complete workstation rollover, I was under the assumption that we were talking about larger organizations. It would be a little easier of course to impliment such changes in small to medium size networks. I will not sacrifice a network of clients in the name of IT. Nuff said. :)

The biggest problem now, is to merge all of the discussions into one. There are about three or four recent threads that have all spawned from the same discussion. What a mess. I think we started with servers, but workstations have now taken over as the "hot topic".

by tony hopkinson Jan 5, 2005

There is a lot of good about linux, much of it to do with open source, but in a corporate environment open source is considered unpredictable as many people can impact it and no one can be viewed as having a vested business interest in keeping it available.
Even if/when that issue was addressed succesfully why would the bean counters approve that sort of massive investment, simply to put their testicles in another vendors vice. They might not squeeze as hard now but they would if they could.
Give it a little time and some clever chaps will be coming out with another OS, open source or not, more reliable than windows, more windows like than linux, much better at application serving than Novell, ad nauseum.

In fact there's this little project I've been working on ....

Sort of a cross between CP/M and MPE/IX with a Mac front end

Is that a tongue in your cheek Tony ?

by dafe2 Jan 5, 2005

It's like fighting with my wife when she's PMS'ing. Same results too.

Wait a sec.....I think that's easier to deal with.

Go figure

by romerogt Jan 5, 2005

Since English is not my main language, I would like to think my redaction missguided your replys... but then I only see attack to my person (which was just readed but not taken) and again "linux hard dies" and no answer to my arguments, if you want I will list it so you can answer one by one ...

1. IT is not the main issue, right? but you have to consider, if MS and "other" desktop solutions cost the same, but one will give you better performance, stability and security, shouldn't you consider the hidden cost your actual platform has as it is not the best (technically speaking). this again, is a technical matter that reflect in cost ($$$).

2. Forget, technical comparison mentioned in point 1. Think about money, at a five year period, have you done your homework how much licence for MS platform for the desktops costs you ?? And how much of the "power" of your current solution is really being used and needed ?? You might be paying a BMW Z4 in order for your mother to go shopping...across the street. This is of course, not a technical issue, but a direct economic decision ($$$$)

3. As you talk about desktop platform, I assume you all agree we are not talking about Windows OS vs Linux OS, but, a combination provided by the OS, the security tools, the office tools and applications running on top of that. So you should also see that despite Windows could be your best desktop operating system, maybe in other tiers of your desktop stack is where you really can save money (meaning office productivity and internet browsing). This again, sacrifices IT staff commodity of not learning new tools for the sake of keeping functionality, security at a lower cost. (maybe from the IT perspective they would prefer to get marry with only one provider... despite the risk this is...).

4. MS, Redhat, Novell and other companies (commercial/oss/hibrid) offer solutions, labeling all OSS as unpredictable is ignoring all news, discussions, media attention and advocacy that this -movement- is gaining. There is a fact with Linux and OSS getting in the enterprise, this doesn't mean you should adopt it, but maybe you should evaluate it, and see if it offers both, a god tech solution and it garantees to help you keep your SLA at a lower cost.

And to point out something, I didn't say a lab was enought to decide a change, neither I recomended broken a well deployed Windows implementation just because Linux hits the enterprise... in fact, I would be crazy if the six years of work could be swaped away in one year, I just will keep and I on licensing and support costs for my platform and see if there are alternatives that make a -bussiness case-.

by dafe2 Jan 5, 2005

Romero I don't believe anyone answered the 'person'.

I believe the more vocal here - Oz, House, Secure & even myself all said THE SAME THING as you did. We all used diferent words. That's all.

Simply put:

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Allthough we got off topic from time to time; All we where saying is follow processes & standards. Align yourself with business goals, keep your customers happy.

Linux & Firefox & others aren't ready for an ENTERPRISE class networks at his time.

That does NOT mean don't deploy it in small numbers.

To the others I reference here: My appologies if I put words in your mouth. I didn't do so intentionally & I respect your opinions.

by jaqui Jan 5, 2005

don't you mean Microsoft Certified Sales Executive?
( what networking prof friend calls it, after taking the exams and only picking answers that sold ms product, and passing with flying colours )

exactly. Now Ms has grownin infinite proportions, not because they make a better OS, definitely not because they make a better NOS (they are still playing catch up while introducing new apps to make it appear more robust), they don't have better support (in fact it just plain SUCKS, unless you don't mind wading through thier KB articles and trying multiple things before finally breaking down and paying for support) they DO make SOME good games, a popular Office App, (responsible for more than 60% of thier sales success by itself)and the Microsoft Sidewinder joysticks aren't THAT bad, though better are available, sometimes for less).

Microsoft to me is just another WalMart. Over marketed to make you believe you are getting the best value for money, when such value only really applies to a small amount of thier inventory.

Most of what WalMart sells is cheap garbage made in third word country sweatshops to look like popular leading brand products at a more competitive price. Most people that simply don't know better flock to WalMart like it's a god of some sort. They push locally owned businesses, who provide decent products at a better value for money, until they have no competition.

They have little or no credibility, break all laws of ethical business and still remain a favorite for most trailer park shoppers with no consumer sense to be found.

Funny how it is so popular in some places yet others seek value for money and go elsewhere.

MS is nothing but junk in my opinion, I use it, but I hate it, it's junk.

I have NEVER had sever issues or desktop problems with others the way thet I have with MS. Even out of the box it needs ot be patched, tweaked, secured, patched again, tweaked some more, and then secured even more. Just to become a reasonably stable NOS.

I would prefer to buy products that cost less,work out of the box with little attention and don't require daily, weekly and monthly maintenance schedules.

MS is popular in one sense because of all the people who jumped on the MCSE bandwagon and are now fighting each other for lower and lower paying job in an inundated market. This massive influx of gung ho MS techs have dragged MS into so many companies now that it is seen as a leading NOS, yet they were probably better off with the old Unix servers they ran before in most cases.

Many say Novell hasn't succeeded due to poor marketing. This says it all, if it isn't marketed in a way that brainwashes the masses, it can't be better, or can it?

How did such a company with little or no marketing efforts, new product showcases four times a year etc. possibly reatin market share and stay the number two choice for Networks behind MS? It couldn't be because it is better and SOME people realize it could it? or are those people all just blind, deaf and dumb and should be using MS?

by apotheon Jan 5, 2005

The way to manage multiple platforms for workstations is to implement them in separated divisions. You could easily run a 50:50 shop that way. It's stuff like replacing half the workstations in one large bullpen-type office area with a wholly different platform, even though everybody in the room does the same job, that can cause problems.

That's about it in a nutshell.

As for splitting up common desktops, WHY?

When it comes to converting a department, no problem!

by apotheon Jan 5, 2005

Er? Is "thank Apotheon" a typo, meant to be "thanks Apotheon", or did you mean it the way it appeared? I'm not sure what you meant. Ahem. I guess I need it explained to me. You know how easily confused I am.

Heh.

by robdew Jan 6, 2005

to know that you are an "ass bag"

by apotheon Jan 6, 2005

That was highly amusing. I'm not sure why I thought it so funny, unless sleep deprivation is setting in.

by oz_media Jan 7, 2005

Get some sleep man! This joker has had the same stupid comment all day now in more than one post.

by house Jan 7, 2005

...that it was the wording in the title. I wasn't expecting that when I read it for the first time. I thought that it would actually be insightful; it caught me off guard. :)

by oz_media Jan 6, 2005

I did indeed mean to say Thanks Apotheon,
your comments were bang on.

Getting a little paranoid about double meanings on TR? :D

It was straight up kudos.

by oz_media Jan 6, 2005

I have a friend staying with me for a bit that plays guitar in a band I promote in Europe.

He saw your title over my shoulder and said HEY, I THOUGH YOU PULLED THAT PICTURE!!

I used to have a picture of him (the real OZ) playing a solo on his HAMER (guitar) on a website. The problem was there was another musician in the background, unnoticed, that we hadn't been given press clearance from so I pulled it of fhis site, and then requested it from several fan sites that also scooped it up, THAT was a hassle!

So when Oz saw your title, he thought I was sharing a picture of him with his HAMER ! LOL :D

Now you know why I am so careful about names and bands here, they are the worst bunch of prima donna's you could ever have the horror of managing. But real fun bunch all the same!

by house Jan 7, 2005

This so called 'oz' isn't involved in that Warjunk band, is he? After giving them a second chance... I like it. I was thrown off by some of the "opera" vocals at first. I realized though, that it is not really progressive metal. It sounded like that crap at first.

For some strange reason, I started with a strat body, and now I feel really uncomfortable handling any other models/shapes. I guess that everyone has their favourites. What model of Hamer is it?

by dafe2 Jan 7, 2005

He's got some fetish with the a.ss.

I think he had a starring role in Deliverance myself. Squeal like a pig Marcus?

by house Jan 7, 2005

...in the "what should I teach" thread. He may be an idiot, but he made me laugh a couple of times. :)

by dafe2 Jan 7, 2005

if nothing else ;-)

by apotheon Jan 7, 2005

I just wanted to make sure I wasn't jumping to conclusions. In any case, you're quite welcome, and I appreciate the, err, appreciation. Truly.

Besides, just 'cause I'm paranoid don't mean they ain't out ta git me.

by oz_media Jan 8, 2005

No, Oz lives in St. Albans, UK, nice countryside just outside London.

Warjunk is a Vancouver band, they were interested in me finding them a deal in Europe but a couple of the guys are preety settled, women and children, in Vancouver so they didn't want to relocate. But they are a happy local bar band, a few BC, Washington tours etc.

They really are a cool band to see live, I think they have some clips on their site.

Graham (the vocalist), works as a bartender at a Pub/Hotel I frequent and stay at when in Vancouver, just a big circle of friends helping out friends. A friend/copywriter hangs out there, mining and exploration guys etc., so it's convenient for business and booze. They pour one hell of a pint of Gunness or Boddingtons too!

by oz_media Jan 8, 2005

And we giggle at the wrestling midgets and bearded lady in a freak show too.

Or even the high performance computers used to generate CGI for the movie industry.

Right?

Your whole argument is based on the faulty premise that because Linux isn't widely used in the business environment it isn't useful to know.

Well unfortunately there are a myriad of specialized places using Linux and even Unix you know that OS that was around before Microsoft?

Even MS has seen the light and brought the rights to modify and sell their own Unix which is one section of the market that they currently do not service. But if you are in a small business without the need for a server of any kind and less than 10 computers then Windows whatever will work perfectly for you without too many problems other then the built in ones of course.

Just do not venture out of this environment and you'll be right.

Col

by apotheon Jan 8, 2005

The only places Linux isn't a huge presence, for small CISC systems, is in mainstream desktop systems and desktop direct-support servers. Linux is huge for Web services, for niche workstation markets (such as great big chunks of engineering and programming industries), for massively parallel supercomputers, and many other markets. Linux basically [b]owns[/b] the firewall market, absolutely dominating that category of products. I wouldn't say that Linux isn't widely used in the business environment, just that it isn't terribly visible to the corporate rank and file.

By the way, that's "CG for the movie industry", not "CGI for the movie industry". CG == Computer Graphics. CGI == Common Gateway Interface.

I was doing a little job down at movie world recently they call it "Hollywood on the Gold Coast" which is fairly silly as it isn't anywhere near the Gold Coast unless you use something like an F 16 but there they where referring to the stuff as "Computer Generated Images" but it could just be the people there as I really do not work on that side of things generally although a bit of code punching from time to time doesn't go astray and it pays well to boot.

Col

by dafe2 Jan 8, 2005

Are you tired today?

It is true that Linux is used for specialized tasks & now on tier one Servers.(HP, DELL & IBM).

Personally I use them at the Firewall only.

I like to think I'm using High End Servers @ 45K a piece in my Server Farms which run WIN2K or 2K3.

I finally understood what you where getting at after reading it three times, but couldn't resist replying. After saying I wouldn't bother posting to this 'discussion' again :-)

Sorry about that it's just that I see so many units running Linux/Unix these days even one of the local ISP's has changed all their hardware and OS over to Linux from W2K.

I got the job of installing everything and instead of doing things the way that the management wanted which was just to replace everything and then go on line I kept both systems running just to work out any bugs in the new units. Instead of getting paid I walked away with several of the IBM Blade Servers all the small Dual Processor units and as many Hot Swappable SCSI's as I could carry.

I wasn't popular when I got home but they do make for some really nice test beds to play with new software and test new OS's and patches from MS. I always have two installations of every OS on each unit so if something doesn't work it is just a matter of changing the HDD and rebooting then cloning to the corrupted drive. It makes life so much easier this way. But the wife was very unhappy and is asking some awkward questions like what do I need 35 computers for.

When they where fairly isolated in the lab there was no problem but now that they have spread out a bit life is getting harder but when I offered to knock out a wall and use the next room as an extended lab "She Who Must Be Obeyed" shut up as she seems to want to keep the master bedroom.

Col :D

by apotheon Jan 8, 2005

That was probably it.

by tony hopkinson Jan 8, 2005

They probably got it wrong, a recruiter emailed me to see if I was familiar with the database language Sequel. Course, given the overall IQ of recruiters, I could be doing them a dis-service.