Linux-Advocacy Digest #566, Volume #29 Tue, 10 Oct 00 03:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: The Power of the Future! (Mike Byrns)
Re: SE is simply unstable!!! (Gardiner Family)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 06:34:44 GMT
In article <39db6596$0$24568$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8recd9$lr9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've just set up two dual-processor Redhat GNU/Linux 7
> > computers both
> > booting with RAID1 for high reliability.
> > I am also making use of the newly
> > GPLed MySQL on both computers.
> >
> > One computer provides NAT and IPChains firewalling services.
> > Both also provide an Apache/PHP development environment.
Not to mention a platform that can immediately and legally be
migrated to a productions server environment.
> > To set this all up has cost $0 for the software.
To be fair, you also have to include costs of installation
(figure time at $50/hour to $100/hour). Setup time is around
10 hours for someone who knows what they're doing ($100/hour),
and about 40 hours for a full-timer who's "playing around" ($50/hour).
If a salaried employee is doing it as voluntary uncompensated
overtime, figure $30/hour, but credit $50/hour for training and
development since he can easily be upgraded to UNIX later).
> > Knowing that Microsoft
> > provides a lower total cost of ownership ;-)
Remember, TCO includes set-up, application installation time,
configuration time, custom application development time, and
operation and maintenance time.
You spent $30 on software (a good distribution like RH 6.2 or Mandrake
7.1 is worth the extra $40-80).
Figure $1000 for installation, since the entire bundle takes about
20 minutes of actual configuration time.
> > I'd be interested to know what it
> > would cost to move these computers to a full Microsoft solution.
> >
> > It appears I would need this software:
> >
> > 1) 2xNT4 or Window 2000 Server licenses to
> > provide RAID1 on both computers.
Actually, you can get RAID on the workstations, but some of the
application software (back-office) required for Mail servers,
newsgroup servers, ASP enabled servers, and SQL-Server with
a huge number of users would be a but expensive.
You should estimate about 8 hours per server for installation. This
would include the complimentary applications, but no custom
applications, third party applications, or BackOffice installation
configuration, and users configuration.
> > 2) 4xCPU licences for MS-SQL.
You would also need Client access licenses. The web server would be
free, but supporting mail accounts via the web would increase your
license count. providing mail, news, and database access via web
browser interface would add a bit more cost. In addition to the client
access licenses, you'd also have the labor of installing the new users
using the GUI interface. If this is a remote client, you'll need to add
in transit time, transit costs, and possibly per-dium expenses.
> > 3) 1xMS Proxy Server(?)
This one isn't that bad. Of course, you need a separate box, you need
dual ethernet access, and you need an additional license. You also need
to add a few more hours of labor. About 10 more should do it. This
include setting up the appropriate IP addresses, DHCP configurations,
and masquerading.
> > 4) 1xOffice 2000 Premium for Mail client, Frontpage, etc.
Not equivalent. With Linux you'd have the equivalent of Back Office,
since Linux functions as both a mail server and news server as well
as a mail and news client.
> Actually, you need only two copies of Windows 2000
> professional - this will
> provide you with the RAID and NAT functionality plus IIS for web
> development.
Except that he has configured a firewall, proxy, and NAT, which would
indicate that he's connected to the web as a server. Equivalent
functionality would create a legal obligation for Windows 2000 server.
Is there a version of Win2K that eliminates the need to manage and audit
Client Access Licenses or Seat Licenses? The Help-desk edition or
something like that?
> You could run apache on this if you wanted to.
Actually, if you're running Windows 2000, you'll get better performance
out of IIS. Of course, this will raise your development costs since you
can't use PHP or mod_perl to create "quick and dirty application
servers" in an hour or two, and you don't have the equivelant of the
CPAN library of "ready-to-run application services kits".
On the flip side, you will have VBscript and ASP, which means that you
can whip up a trivial database style applications in a few weeks
($5,000).
If you can find VB guys who really understand the do's and dont's of
server programming (about $200/hour), and understand MTS and MSMQ
really well, you can probably get to a high capacity capability
in a staff-month or two ($40,000-$100,000).
> You could run server if you wanted increased functionality.
And if you wanted to stay legal. Of course, some of the Windows 2000
server applications will simply refuse to run unless they detect a real
server version of Windows 2000.
> You do not need to have CPU
> licenses for SQL server, why not individual CALs - it'd be cheaper.
Not when you're using cookies and retained result sets. On a T1 fed
web site, you're talking the potential for 3,000-5,000 concurrent
sessions multiplexed through the back-end. Again, how much is
Microsoft's "Flat Rate for unlimited users for all server
applications" package?
> And probably only one SQL server accessible from both
> machines - why do you need two seperate instances?
Probably right about this one. You really only need SQL Server on
the back-end. Just because MySQL is so easy and cheap to install on
both front-end and back-end (reducing time spent on trivial queries)
doesn't mean that you have to do it that way.
> Office 2000 premium might be overkill - depends on
> your real needs.
Well, if we're talking equivelant functionality, you'd neet both
Office 2000 premium and BackOffice 2000. Since Linux provides both
Client AND Server functionality on the same box. You'd also need to
provide some mechanism for accessing e-mail via a web browser
interface since you may need to provide access from client site, home,
and laptop.
> Outlook Express is a mail/news client included free with W2K.
That works for the client, and even provides limited group-ware
capability.
> Frontpage is available seperately much cheaper than the jump to
> Premium.
> Premium is worth it only if you intend to use the
> rest of the full O2K suite.
> Yes - you'll actually have to spend
>$0 on a legit MS solution. yep...
Oh Drestin, now you're being silly :-).
But then again, so is $0 for a Linux solution.
Remember, with Linux, the software is free, but the service
(testing, distribution, flooring, installation, service, support,
custom applications) is where the money is.
What makes the comparison really interesting is to get "fixed price
contract" bids on both systems, without telling each about the other.
The Linux solution comes in at about 1/4 the price of the Win2K
solution, partly because there is less uncertainty and more
intellectual capital available.
The Windows 2000 solution is more expensive and subject to more risk
management contingincies. Many companies are saying "our software
appears to work with Windows 2000, but we reserve the right to add
gazillions of hours if something wierd pops up".
> > Now there will be advantages/disadvantages to both configurations.
> > But is the software cost differential and loss of freedom
> > really worth it?
Again, the bigger issue in a TCO is the cost of installation, support,
engancements, and crisis intervention.
> > Who really believes MS provides a lower TCO?
>
> But, see that "T" in TCO?
> It's not "CO" which is what your describing here.
Keep in mind TCO stands for TOTAL Cost of OWNERSHIP, from the minute
you plug in the first CD-ROM and turn on the power, to the day you
pay some salvage savage operator to haul your system off as toxic waste
(or donate it to an NGO who will ship it to a third world country).
> Sure, it cost $0 "CO" for the open sores(tm) version versus
Actually, even this isn't accurate. The cost of support contracts
can range from $1500 for 10 incidents to $1500/month/system depending
on the size, configuration, response time, and depth of investigation
expected.
A better guage for side by side comparisons would be quotes offered
by various web hosting services. Typically, equivalent functionality
for NT costs about 3 times the price of Linux. The TCO for Windows 2000
should drop, possibly to twice the price of Linux. You need more
memory, more hard drive, and you still need some someone.
>$0 "CO" for the
> MS solution but you asked about "TCO" - TOTAL cost of ownership.
Of course, this is the really bad news for Microsoft.
> Ahhhhh...
> see, after you've got these stacks of
> CDs sitting there and it comes time to
> actually install, configure and use these
> items does the "T" portion kick in.
YEAHHH :-)
> Try sharing those star office files with anyone,
Really quite easy actually. Since Star Office is able to save
documents in industry standard formats such as RTF, Word 6.0,
WordPerfect 6.0, HTML, SGML, and XML, nearly anyone with Office,
WordPerfect, Applix, or even EZ could view it.
True, there might be some graphics that EZ would have trouble with,
but these could be tranlated to OpenGL, PCL, EPS, other open standards.
The vector graphics can also be translated to GIF or JPEG.
> what's the performance of that MySQL database?
Wrong question to ask. For concentrated updates and distributed
queries, MySQL is one of the fastest RDBSs on the market. Which
is really nice when you need something screeming fast to service
web queries. If the updates can be centrally managed, MySQL is also
very fast.
If you want to do distributed updates, Progres or one of the commercial
databases such as DB2, Sybase, or Oracle 8i work very nicely.
> Need replication? Transactions?
> full SQL-92 support?
DB2, Sybase, Oracle 8i.
> stored procedures worth a damn?
See above. Sybase and DB2 have great stored procedures.
No, they aren't free. But then neither is SQLServer.
> Did you want security?
Oops! Stepped on a landmine with that one. Linux has Pluggable
Authentication Modules, can also serve as the security manager for
Windows, and can be tied to RACF using the Kerberos Plug-in. Net
effect, single sign-on.
Windows 2000 comes with an non-standard version of Kerberos that is
protected by Nondisclosure agreements to prevent competitors from
discovering, exploiting, and sharing Microsoft's "extensions" (make
things just different enough to make sure that nothing else works with
it).
> Compability with everything?
Oops!! Stepped on the bouncing betty this time.
Linux is compatible from source code to infrastructure with almost
every version of UNIX ever made, OS/390, and supports languages, tools,
and utilities that can support multiple platforms including UNIX,
OpenVMS, OpenMVS, OS/390, and Tandem Non-stop.
The Windows NT versions had to be crippled due to Windows NT's inferior
memory management, cache management, and scheduling. Windows 2000 is
only marginally compatible with either Windows NT (applications must
be redisigned to exploit new features such as MTS and MSMQ), and even
less compatible with anything else.
In fact, Lotus Notes runs better under WINE than it does under Win2K.
> Support for everything?
You got me there! After all, Microsoft has nondisclosure agreements
with severe penalties, ESPECIALLY for any attempt to port to UNIX,
Linux, or other non-microsoft platforms. It's really hard to provide
features like DVD support when you have the MPAA trying to drag
developers half way across the country, at their own expense, to be
tried in a "Friendly court" (Los Angeles). And yet the MPAA didn't
even raise an eyebrow when Microsoft sold 1 million copies of an
operating system which make piracy and video editing from pirated DVD
clips as easy as cut-and-paste on a word processor.
Linux had the video editing over a year ago (MPEG), and DeCSS was
merely a decoder. But Microsoft's manipulation of the MPAA is a bit
like the tail wagging the dog.
> I argue that Windows is much easier to
> install, configure and use than Linux.
If you are saying that it's easier to configure a "typical windows
installation" than it is to install a "typical Linux configuration",
I'd agree with you.
Of course, a typical windows installation comes with almost no
applications, no development tools, no servers, no scripting languages
(which enables low-cost quick-and-easy applications), no provision for
ad-hoc applications, and not even fully functional Word Processor (the
standard installation only includes WordPad), Spreadsheet, or Graphic
art tool (paint). And groupware isn't even on the wish list
(client-only).
Linux on the other hand, comes "standard" with 13,000 applications,
including 200 development languages, 90 services, quick-and-dirty
interfaces using CGI/perl, several word processors (including 2-3
commercial versions in commercial distributions), several spreadsheets,
several graphics tools, and multiple groupware clients and servers.
To get anywhere close to the same functionality, I'd have to by
about 30 shrink wrapped boxes, at anywhere from $100 to $1000 each,
install each one manually, attend training classes to learn the
right sequence of GUI commands required to do anything useful
(and repeat them daily for hours at a time).
In most cases, I'd only have one choice to choose from (the Microsoft
Solution), and I would have no way to access the system other than
carrying the entire machine with me (big heavy laptop).
Finally, backup and recovery from a previously installed system to
the new system could take several hours to several days. And trying
to save registry settings required to move application software from a
retired system to a replacement system is too traumatic to even attempt.
Assuming that this isn't my first ever computer, and that I'm going
from same platform to same platform (Linux to Linux or NT to Win2k),
the NT migration could take anywhere from 10 hours to 4 weeks depending
on the the software being migrated. Of course, some applications come
with "use on Win2K at your own risk", and others simply don't run, but
that's only the 3rd party software, not the Microsoft applications
(which must be upgraded to the latest Win2K compatible versions).
Of course, with Linux, backward compatibility has been a prerequisite.
Generally, the biggest problems I've had in 5 years of Linux use has
been things like remembering to install both the Elf and a.out
libraries, and both glibc and libc.
> It's the "T" portion of TCO you need
> to focus on, the "CO" part is easy.
Actually, Cost of ownership also includes "what do you do when
the thing malfunctions". In the case of Windows 2000, the solutions
are standard and simple:
Stop and restart the application (fixes some race conditions).
If that fails, reboot the machine (breaks most deadlocks).
If that fails, reinstall the applications (corrects some
dll conflicts)
If that fails, "reengineer" the system (a euphemism for reformatting
the hard drive, reinstalling everything, and restoring user data
from network storage (corrects corrupted registries).
The real gurus will also:
Check for all service packs to all components. It might be a
known bug. This is usually done before reverse engineering.
Upgrade all applications to the latest and most expensive versions.
Remove all 3rd party (non-microsoft applications) and adopt a
policy forbidding the installation of 3rd party software.
Circulate press releases of the forthcoming Microsoft Systems and
applications at every staff meeting, on every distribution list,
and on every public forum, to show that even though this version
is inferior to UNIX, the next one will be a "Better UNIX than UNIX".
(Keep in mind that Microsoft was saying that NT would be better
than SunOS 4.0 with X11R4 in full configuration).
> Remember, Linux (et. el.) is only free
> if your time is worth nothing...
True. It's even more valuable if your time is worth something.
When the server fails at 5:00 A.M., would you rather try and
catch a cab back to the city, fix the server with your boss in
a panic from 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. (your taxi took an hour to
show up, the drive took an hour, and your server had to be hard-wired
to a real monitor and keyboard, and you had to wait until 7:30 to
get permission to enter the computer room because you left your
security card at home. You can then spend the rest of the day
wondering wether your underwear are on backwards, apologize profusely
to your wife when you get home (for running around like a nut in the
dead of night). (Welcome to the world of NT).
Or:
would you rather establish your ssh connection to the server via DSL,
establish an encrypted SSL connection back to your X11 server, and fix
everything from the comfort of your bed, have the problem resolved by
5:30 A.M., and come in an hour late as a hero. (Welcome to the world
of Linux).
Of course, if you really want to be cool, you get the page, call your
Linux support provider who calls a guy in London who connects back
to your server in and has everything fixed just before lunch. Or was
that the guy in India who had it done just before leaving for dinner.
And you go back to sleep knowing that the problem will be fixed, never
to happen again, in about 30 minutes.
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 50 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:02:25 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> "Mike Byrns" <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> wrote in message
> news:kp9E5.119437$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > > "Mike Byrns" <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Rd2E5.118331$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Dolly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sam wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 15:03:43 GMT, Charlie Ebert
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Is of course Linux.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exclusively ? I think not!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >The power of Linux is of course the GNU/GPL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It may also be it's weakness.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Does everybody agree that Linux has the best desktop? NO, HELL
> NO!
> > > > > > >Is Linux still growing? YES HELL YES!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From zero it's all up from there
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >How fast is Microsoft growing on that hill top? 1%.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Microsoft kept growing at the rate it did for the last
> 5-10-15-20
> > > > > > years (pick one) it would soon be, not only the total IT
> industry,
> > > > > > but the entire economy. Obviously not sustainable
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >How fast is Linux growing? 5 - 7 % per year for almost 8 years.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From zero it's all up from there
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Does Microsoft make hardware? Hardly, NO. That Microsoft mouse
> or
> > > > > > >keyboard is subcontracted out.
> > > > > > >They don't make anything but software.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > AMD don't own a fab shop, does that make them not a threat to
> Intel ?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Really? That's weird... AMD has MADE chips for
> > > > > Intel when Intel couldnt keep up... what do you
> > > > > think the little M AMD meant? MANUFACTURED by
> > > > > AMD. I have a bunch here they made for Intel.
> > > > > It's part of what gained them access to the
> > > > > Intel x86 architecture - making a bunch for
> > > > > Intel when they were in the bind.
> > > >
> > > > Christ are you going to be one of those Kulkis, Devlins and Blacks
> that
> > > > make these wild ass statements that stretch credibility and then post
> no
> > > > evidence to back it up? When the hell was this momentus event
> supposed to
> > > > have happened? AMD did make 386 and 486 chips but they were NOT Intel
> > > > designs. BTW, I agree with you that AMD do own fabs, in Texas and
> Germany
> > > > but I, after having been a Intel and Microsoft systems engineer and
> > > > programmer for over a decade have no recollection of AMD EVER making
> chips
> > > > for Intel.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Excuse me?! I always backup my "wild ass" statements. Ask me of
> something I
> > > didn't support with evidence. Don't you DARE lump me in with Kulkis or
> > > whoever that other dude is.
> >
> > Then start being a little more temperate. It pains me to see Windows
> folks come
> > across just as wacko as the rabid Mac and Linux fanatics. Think about
> it --
> > there's really no reason to do so. Windows is the best mix of all they
> have to
> > offer -- there's no reason to get bent when rebutting these folks. Don't
> sink
> > to their losing methods. You obviously know your stuff. Why not beat
> them with
> > facts and logic. It's not any more difficult than getting emotional and
> quite a
> > bit more satisfying at least for me!
> >
> Mike: you have to understand something. Most of my replies are the type
> "more satisfying" for you.
Many, if only in my limited experience.
> but there are a couple of pathetic morons who
> essentially chase me through this forum and intentionally act stupid (they
> can't really be that stupid and work a computer, I don't think) and
> sometimes I find I can only fight fire with fire.
Nah. You can fight fire with water, too. Be cool and show your superiority in
a well measured way. It will only help fend off the "faithfull" by showing your
technical superiority and your choice to combine it with easy of use of
Windows. Your choice to advocate the best of the 5% and 5% along with the
world's choice.
> I have my facts, I assure
> you.
I have never doubted you. You have taught me some things, Drestin!
> I only join threads where I know I've got either 1st hand experience or
> a reliable URL to back me up.
First hand will be claimed to be anecdotal. The reliable URL will shut them
up. But that's just anecdotal :-)
> It's unforunate that even when you produce
> unimpeachable evidence they idiots ignore and continue to attack.
It will die down when the Microsoft case is dismissed. Keep the... nah.. won't
say it :-) Continue advocating your choice. Because it is yours and the same
choice as 90% of the rest of the world. Don't get down on them get up on you!
> Sorry if
> that bothers you.
The hardass position does. But that's it.
> I'm not some rabid MS fanatic, I just like their products
> cause they work so well for me and my clients so it bothers me to see lies
> and FUD spread about something I like.
My position exactly!!! Keep it up but realize that to beat the opponent you
must ARGUE better not only have the best position. Many campaigns have been
lost by better opponents with lesser debate skills.
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: SE is simply unstable!!!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:05:24 +1300
I agree, unless the quality of Linux distributions increase and decent programs and
games that can be bought off the shelf are ported to Linux, I see a very dark day for
Linux. However, I may be wrong and find that programmers will grow a brain and actual
write programs that are actually commercially viable.
Matt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:46:40 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:24:43 +1300, Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>I am not really bothered if I have to pay for software. I am also sick and tired
> >>of the old argument, "Linux is free", argument, Linux, essential, is just the
> >>kernel, nothing more, nothing less. Joe bloggs does not care whether it is free
> >>or not, joe bloggs just wants his computer to work without any hassles.
> >
> > Don't be an idiot.
>
> Name calling again?
>
> > Of course Joe Bloggs cares if Linux is free (or rather gratis).
>
> Evidently he hasn't gotten the message. I don't see Linux taking over
> the desktop from Windows, despite it being free.
>
> > The perception that DOS is free or that WinTel is cheap has
> > always been one of DOS's key strengths against better
> > engineered competitors.
>
> Nope. People want applications. Windows has them and Linux doesn't,
> and I'm not talking about geek stuff.
>
> claire
>
> >[deletia]
> >
> > Besides, WinDOS is the essense of hassle.
>
> But it sells a hell of a lot of games.
>
> > That's why console gaming is a more lucrative market than PC gaming.
>
> Wrong again.
>
> Console gaming overall is cheaper for the person playing the game. No
> pc to buy or keep updated with the fastest video, disk and memory, but
> I can buy a Nintendo on Ebay for not a lot and happily be playing
> games..
>
> claire
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:08:57 GMT
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:NIsE5.50444$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Software in general, but especially OS software, is at LEAST 10 years
behind
> where it would have been if not for Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, et al, and
> their utterly evil willingness to stifle any and all competition illegally
> while investing next to nothing in improving their own products.
>
> This is not conjecture. It is not bitter spewing from a Microsoft hater.
> It is fact. It has been proven. It is reality.
Ya sure, ya betcha.
Check their SEC filings and see how much they spend on R&D. It's a lot more
than you seem to think.
Simon
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
