[TriLUG] microsoft ad

[Matthew Lavigne]

As one that does both of these in a test environment, where setting up 
consistently is more important then almost anything other then the 
testing, and we set up quite a few of both boxes each week, I will say 
the following:

Linux is can be configured (through kickstarts and scripting) to set 
itself up and configure with zero interaction.  This is based on using a 
kickstart, and then scripting in the postinstall to catch the system 
prior to the normal redhat firstboot, and then redirecting to script the 
remainder of any production software that needs to be installed or 
configured.  Reboots required == 1, user interaction required= boot the 
system and select the installation type (test type).  End result, a 
completely configured system the next time that it is powered on.  
Number of Configs or CDs required == 1

Windows can be and is set up about the same.  CD required == 1 per 
system type, because the unattended installer has to have custom paths 
for each separate system.  Number of reboots required == 3 minimum (1 in 
the OS install, reboot and then one following patch installation).  User 
interaction required is to login and execute the patch installer and 
verify that applications are installed.  End result is a system that is 
completely configured the next time that it is powered on.  Windows does 
not have the same install flexibility that the Linux kickstart does such 
as allowing multiple different config types and that is the primary 
weakness.

Time on the installers,

Linux about 10 minutes
Windows about 35 minutes

This is one the same system on a Gig network, so it is the 
OS/Installer/Media (windows installs via CD not network).  But as Will 
commented earlier, there are a multitude of ways to configure linux to 
install and windows has quite a few similar options. 


In closing I think that Magnus' point is that depending on the skillset 
and the tools that the person installing/configuring has invested the 
time in perfecting either windows or linux can be mass rolled out, and 
configured relatively quickly.  The issue as I see it is that the end 
user on the desktop is more likely to be able to keep a window box 
running then a linux box (assuming standard exposure levels and not geek 
exposure levels)

Matthew


Jim Ray wrote:
> i define "there" as taking less time to set up for operation for the 
> customer and, therefore, costing less money due to less labor.
>
> using my own production rate, i can load a linux desktop will all 
> patches and applications in an hour.  it takes at least twice as long 
> to do so with winders.
>
> using the production rate of two different experts who have loaded 
> servers for me, they take longer to get a server functional in linux 
> than it takes me in winders.
>
> so, from a cost point of view, desktops in linux are ready to go.  the 
> server side will probably come along in the near future.  it has come 
> a long way yet still has a ways to go.
>
> now, when the law of large numbers kicks in (ie a thousand desktop 
> PCs), the extra server labor amortized by the number of desktops makes 
> it a no brainer.  for the small business environment, though, extra 
> server labor is a bad thing.
>
> seeya,
>
> jim
>
> ps i hope all is well at yonderway :-)
>
> Magnus wrote:
>
>> On 3/4/06, Jim Ray <jim at neuse.net> wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> key word is yet.  desktops are there.  when the server side comes
>>> around, microsoft had better look out...
>>>   
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually I think you have it backwards.
>>
>> Server side has been "there" for some time with Linux.
>>
>> Desktop is more painful for non-geeks.  Heck, desktop is painful for 
>> *geeks*
>> but geeks seem to be masochistic when it comes to Linux desktops.
>>  
>>