In a message dated: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 11:05:10 EDT
Greg Kettmann said:
>Their DNS server always slow and their mail servers are often down.
So don't use their DNS servers or Mail servers, run your own.
>Question 1 - I've a friend trying to dual boot Linux (multiple flavors)
>and M$ NT Server. He can't get this going. Are others doing this?
>That is, is it possible? I've done a lot of dual boot with Windows
>95/98 but wanted to verify that Windows NT Server was doable. Thanks.
There's an NT/Linux HOWTO on your dist CD and available at Linuxdoc.org.
>level. All that upper level managment junk like ROI (Return on
>Investment), TCO (Total Cost of Ownership), MTBF (Mean Time Between
>Failure), etc. I've read every article on the subject but am having
>trouble finding hard numbers, particularly on MTBF or reliability. My
>favorite source of good articles is OSOPINION. Does anyone have any
>suggestions on where I might get more information?
ROI would need to be defined by what they are investing.
What are they investing in? Hardware, training, etc?
If only hardware, then the ROI is that of what ever hw they purchase.
If training, then the ROI is measured by how more/less productive
their people are *after* the training.
TCO would also be dependant upon what they are planning on spending and what
they plan on spending money on.
- If they re-use existing hardware, the hw costs are: $0
- If they download Linux off the net and
install themselves, their OS sw costs are: $0
- If they have people already trained in Unix, their
training costs are: $0
Therefore, it's completely possible/feasible for their TCO to be $0
On the other hand,
- If they buy over-priced hardware from some $8,000/system
name brand vendor "because they feel they must",
hardware costs go up, let's say:
- If they pay for each installation of Linux $150/system
on each system, sw costs go up:
(they decided to buy the most expensive
of RH's distributions.)
- If they have no one trained in Unix/Linux $5000/person
training costs go up
So, TCO is completely dependent upon factors which will differ between each
and every company, and IMO, can not be "boiled down" to provide an "average".
This is a meaningless statistic.
MTBF is another meaningless statistic. Just thinking about the words
makes it blatantly apparent that it doesn't apply to an OS. Mean Time Between
Failure is a statistic which applies to hardware, not software, especially OSes
(well, maybe M$, since it does crash on an average of once a day).
MTBF would be completely dependant upon what the system is doing, what
applications the system is running, the load on those systems, and the quality/
age of the hardware.
About the only meaningful statistic which could be approximated to MTBF would
be total uptime, which for any Unix, will be quite a bit longer than NT.
--
Seeya,
Paul
----
I'm in shape, my shape just happens to be pear!
If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
