As such, how long are you now locked into windows? It tooke me weeks to get my first server up and running, and to be honest, that's largely because I was talking out of my ass when I suggested it to management. You're right, I could have backed out and went Windows, and it would have taken literally weeks less time. However, now, I am comfortable with Linux is a way I never would have been before.
I have to say, if I was in your shoes, I would have continued with Linux, and then purchased JUST an email package. Better to run OSS for 90% of your network than for none of it. Also, my thinking wasn't about saving money, particularly not in the short term. I figured that if I saved money on the OS, and most of the software, I could spend it on consulting. I certainly don't feel guilty for that. I suppose we all make the choices when it's our own networks, but one thing I did find is that although I initially went with Linux because it was (maybe) less expensive (I don't want it to be, I try to get money out the door to various groups (Samba is probably the main one, but I've given to Gentoo, and Red Hat too.) I actually found that I have advantages over Legacy Windows solutions. For example. My Linux network has a journaled filesystem. Yours legacy Windows network doesn't. I can add it to older production environments too, you will never have that advantage. My Linux network has a network recycle bin. You legacy Windows network doesn't. Again, even on old production systems, I can retroactively add it when it became available. Rather than needing end users to learn FTP commands to transfer files back and forth between a Solaris server, I can NFS mount the directory they would have FTPed to on the Linux box, and from there, I can share the directory through Samba. They can just drag and drop the files now. The Legacy environment didn't allow them that ability. As features become available, I will be able to retroactively add them into my servers. You will be forced to pay for a new OS, and then spend the time redoing all your work to get the new OS installed. In the end, linux took me probably weeks longer than Windows would have. However, the result has more features, and flexibility that we would have had if we had continued with the legacy solution. Kev. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shawn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 1:15 AM Subject: (clug-talk) Not running Linux yet.... 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
