> myth. It's not a myth, it's just common sence. If I have a network with Windows 2000 only, I only need to worry about vulnerabilities on a Windows System. If I have a network with Mac, Wintel, Lintel, and a Commodore 64, then I spend my whole day worrying about various bug issues. Further, I need to have hardware for different platforms (You brought MAC into the mix). Plus roaming users will complain that on Windows, their profiles don't roam on to the Linux boxes. Plus, the applications a user might use are simply different. IE is different than Konq. Open Office is different than MS Office. etc.
> or how about: the right tool for the right job. This is fair, but realize that it comes with a price. More complex administration is a price. > the only people who benefit from homogenous networks are lazy and > under-educated sys admins and your vendor. if this is an issue for you then > i'd suggest your vendor can suck it up (what do you owe them?) and that your > sys admins should start working like they mean it or go back to driving taxis > or whatever it was they were doing before the dot com craze. Or understaffed, or under funded/budgetted departments. Given the choice of using a homogenous network with a second employee, or a hetrogenous network where there is only me, I'll go with the homogenous. I like holidays, thanks.
