Quote ---- "As it is, the installs are still TOO technical for the general public"
People in the IT field are not the general public, they *should* know a lot more then the general public about technical computer subjects. It's a different language and a different way of thinking. I for one hope I never see the day that the majority of Linux techs have to use GUI or web-based configuration tools to setup there servers because they don't know how to do it otherwise. Why? Because if they *have to* then they really have no business in the IT field. I'm sure any employer would want someone who knows Linux to be in charge of the server, not just someone who can use a GUI or web front-end. It's meant to be difficult for the general public to setup servers. Why? To keep someone in the general public from running production servers. Why do Linux servers still get hit by the slapper worm? Probably because whoever is in charge of that server doesn't know what he/she is doing. ie is part of the general public. If the general public wants things easier for the desktop then that is fine but the heart of Linux will always stay command line because that is where it becomes the most efficient. That is one of the reasons it's so stable. That is where it separates the general public from the techs. Don't get me wrong though, there is nothing wrong with GUI or web front ends to configure things but those should not be what your knowledge of Linux consists of. What happens if you are put in charge of a server that isn't running linuxconf or webmin or whatever your preferred program is? Do you know how to do the things you could do in those programs by using the command line? What happens if your server goes down hard and you have to use the command line to fix it? I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but it's a subject I feel strongly about. Even in the Microsoft world it's the same thing with MCSE's. Can someone who knows what they are talking about have the title of MCSE? Sure. If someone has the title of MCSE, does that mean they know what they are talking about? Heck no. There is a difference between book knowledge and hands on experience. There is a difference between Linux knowledge and configuration tool knowledge. If you learn a configuration tool first then you will have hard time learning something exterior to that program. If you learn the way Linux works then you will be able to learn 99 percent of any Linux based service. Why? Because they are really all the same. 99 percent of them have the exact same kind of README and INSTALL file. If you compile from source then most have a configure script and Makefile. Most use a configuration file for run-time parameters with relatively the same syntax (Sendmail would be an exception to that :P). My point is, once you really learn Linux, learning something new on Linux is much easier because they use the same system for configuration, compilation, installation, run-time configuration, and documentation (Lots of ations :P) > Was reading through the thread "Linux Work" and thought the reasons why > I went with a windows server might be pertinent here... > > I needed a web, ftp, and email server, as well as routing/NAT > capability. I went the Linux path first because it's free, and I like > the concept of open source and collaboration among developers. However, > either I didn't have the patience to learn things right, or maybe I'm a > little dense (can be sometimes), but I could not understand what was > involved in getting postfix up and running. Postfix on it's own wasn't > too much of a hassle, but it wasn't enough for me to connect my mail > client to and start receiving mail. I spent my spare time over a period > of two weeks trying to figure this out, without much luck. I know that > if I had been more focused, I would have been successful. > > On the other hand, I knew I could install Win2K, IIS, and Exchange in an > afternoon. I did so and was sucessful. My email server is operational > and I'm sending/receiving email through it no problem (except of course > when I turn it off and forget to turn it back on....). > > The deciding factor here was partially my own experience with Windows > servers, and the fact that I only had to install ONE package to get my > email running. I didn't have to worry about an MTA, then a POP3 or IMAP > server, then tweak a bunch of configuration files, and THEN try to get > my mail client talking to the server and hope it was running right. One > package, and about 5 or 10 minutes of configuring the mail server. > That's the primary reason I'm on a Windows server right now. When Linux > can offer a simple install of it's server components, with a GUI > interface (or even a command line menu system) to configure the > components, then I think you'll see Linux fly. As it is, the installs > are still TOO technical for the general public - most users are lost > when faced with a command line, and so are a large number of techs > (mostly the newer/younger crowd I'd imagine - less exposure to DOS and > such). > > I believe in Linux, but don't think it's ready for the desktop yet - the > applications for it just can't compete at the same level as Windows > (typical office applications), in terms of ease of use, limited computer > skill required, and overall user experience. On the server end, I think > Linux is mostly there - if you have experienced linux professionals on > hand. If not, the learning curve isn't as steep for Windows servers > (ignoring the common material such as network theory, routing, etc.) > > I expect this is Flame material, but here's the objective thoughts of > one person straddling the divide between Open source, and Microsoft... > Sure, I'm expecting people to tell me that there ARE gui interfaces, and > that I must not know Linux very well, but the choice is easy for me... > "What's the quickest way for me to get the job done?" For me, it was > the windows route. Although I'm still going to be working with Linux > occasionally, and see if I can make it work the way I need. > > (btw, the other factor for going with Windows was that I wanted to mess > around with .NET, and MONO isn't reliable enough or complete enough > yet). > > My thoughts, not yours.... > > Shawn
