[TriLUG] microsoft ad

[William Sutton]

see below...

-- 
William Sutton


On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, Allen Freeman wrote:

> 
> 
> William Sutton <william at trilug.org> wrote: Hmmm...so what you're saying is that as long as all you want is a drop in 
> place solution, Windows is cheaper.
>    
>  Actually, having read Mr. Ray's post to the list I believe it's fairly obvious that's /not/ what he's saying at all. 

It's what I read out of what he wrote...

>    
>   That may or may not be the case, but 
> I think a good analysis is required to make that determination.
>    
>  Armwaving is generally considered poor form.

Your pardon, sir.

>    
>   From a 
> quick off the top of my head thinking....I see the following:
> 
> Windows Pros:
> -----
> unpack, install plug in, off you go
> gui admin interface for people who don't necessarily want to or need to 
> know how things work
> 
>   The point isn't about gui/vs text interface, it's about the level of 
complexity and time spent on getting an app configured. Right or wrong ISS 
can be configured in minutes by someone from the accounting department. 

Maybe, maybe not.  By configured do you want it secure to or just up and 
running?

> Apache config on the other hand takes quite a bit more effort and 
knowledge to get set up. I submit to you Apache is a superior product, 
however it's configuration interface is /not/ the reason why, but that's a 
digression.

I concur.  Again, though, what is it that you want in your cost?  initial 
cost setting it up, or cost of cleaning it up once code red (et. al.) get 
done with it?  (this is also true of various PHP system vulnerabilities, 
awstats, etc)

>  
> Windows Cons:
> -----
> cost:  licensing, training, retraining, certifications, maintenance costs 
> (esp. if you sign up for Microsoft's advanced patching program)
> vulnerability to virii, worms, etc.
> 
>  The need for training isn't a windows-only phenomenon. I think it's 
quite clear that substantially more training (at least initially) would be 
required to convert an office platformed on windows over to a desktop 
linux environment.

training, followed by retraining.  You'll notice how Microsoft keep, say, 
.NET programmers on a hamster wheel.  Every year they change something, 
and if you don't retrain, you may find yourself irrelevant.  A UNIX 
programmer on the other hand may have new technologies become available 
for use (SOAP, Struts, Mono, whatever), but that doesn't make his existing 
skills less useful.  My last company had a number of Windows programmers 
(.NET, among other things) who were going to Microsoft sponsored 
retraining sessions every year at considerable cost to the company, while 
us UNIX folks kept working right along.

>  
> Linux Pros:
> -----
> free (beer || speech)
> can run on cheaper hardware
> less vulnerable to worms, not (afaik) vulnerable to virii
>    
>  What??? Linux, invulnerable to virii??? *boggle* Just because it's not 
a common target for virus coders (for obvious reasons clearly attributable 
to lack of market share) it is in no way mysteriously invulnerable to 
viral attack. 

It isn't just a lack of a market.  It's the security model.  This is also 
why you don't see much in the way of virii for OSX.  On *NIX you're more 
likely to see a buffer overflow attempt directed at getting root access 
because writing a program to delete files, send emails, whatever, is only, 
ultimately, going to have limited effect.

It's also about purpose, of course, since most easily accessible personal 
information is going to be on Windows boxen (passwds, financial info, the 
opportunity to set up spyware/adware, etc), while a *NIX provides a better 
target for other sorts of rogue activities (anonymous remailers, p2p 
stuff, what have you)


>  
> the standard for reliable web and mail servers
> 
> Linux Cons:
> -----
> takes some knowledge to get up and running
> does not have some of the fancy, slick things that Microsoft have (for 
> example, WSDLs for SOAP services)
> 
>  You forgot clean one or two-click installation of software as a 
standard feature. Apt-get's nice for geeks but it doesn't even come close 
to cutting it for Users. Also, without %100 compatibility with all 
"standard" office software, you're pretty much DOA. 

True....I did forget that.  I also mentioned office productivity software 
(I think on another part of the thread)

>  
> other thoughts on the list?
> 
>  At the end of the day Linux will continue to languish in it's current 
server niche with only one-off desktop deployments until the community at 

This was sort of my point....sort of because I don't see Linux languishing 
in the server market.  Indeed, I think it has Microsoft scared as a server 
platform.

> large comes to grips with the fact that the things we accept on a day 
to day basis as far as ease of functionality are concerned are just flat out 
unacceptable from an end-user standpoint, and then go forth and act 

I agree; Linux isn't suitable as a general purpose desktop environment for 
the average user.  Honestly, I don't think it should be aiming for that 
goal.  Leave that to Apple (who historically have been very good at making 
easy to use user interfaces) or Microsoft (who have a stranglehold on the 
desktop computer market).  I don't think it's a bad idea to have userland 
software for *NIX users so they can collaborate with other people...but I 
don't think we want Aunt Betty and Grandpa John using Linux either.  
Otherwise, I fear we will start hearing about how we've "dumbed it down."

> accordingly. Linux is in all ways a superior product to anything windows 
has to offer in my opinion, except the one that counts for business: ease 
of use.  

I think Linux is in someways superior to Windows and in others not.  Or 
OSX.  Or FreeBSD.  Or Solaris.  It just depends on what you're trying to 
do and why you're trying to do it that way.


>  In parting, I would like to request that flames be directed to my email 
address to prevent spamming the list. Good day.