Though I've read this article elsewhere a few days ago, I'm glad you brought it up for discussion.
My primary motivation for running Linux on our company's servers is the need for complete control. Though I may never poke into kernel source to fix a bug that bugs us, I want that freedom to do so. My secondary motivation is that I want to be able to build software solutions that are based on common, open standards without making a compromise to a proprietary framework. My tertiary motivation is that I _like_ getting my hands dirty and knowing how stuff operates underneath the layers of abstraction. I may not traverse all those layers every time I modify an open software solution, but I want to be able to see them, at least once, for debugging and extensibility purposes. My beef with closed solutions is that understanding of those layers of abstraction is replaced by faith in a closed black box. I'd like to know what others think. Why do you run free|open source software on your servers, from a network administrator's perspective? It would shed some interesting light on Micro$oft's argument that Linux has a higher TCO. Thanks, John Hebert --- Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Analysts: Microsoft feels tug of Linux __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
