On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Adam Thornton wrote: > On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 10:59, Lionel Dyck wrote: > > Has anyone quantified the manpower required to administer a samba file > > server compared to a windows server? > > > > More manpower? Less? Comparable? > > Well, *I* find it's a lot less, but then I really much prefer CLIs and > OSes that aren't constantly barfing BSODs at me. > > I don't know what there are in terms of studies, but there's almost > certainly something out there saying "A reasonable load for Unix > sysadmins is X machines; for Windows, Y machines"; that ought to be > pretty close to an apples-to-apples comparison.
I was going to comment that Samba is a tiny bit of software in comparison with Windows. Then, I thought, perhaps not. Even when you add in the software you need in order to run Samba, there's still not much there. -- Cheers John. Join the "Linux Support by Small Businesses" list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb
