Linux-Advocacy Digest #609, Volume #29 Wed, 11 Oct 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("John Hill")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 01:51:38 +0100
Drestin Black wrote in message <39e47283$0$58794$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>sigh... so much wind and so much of it inaccurate (some of it simple error
>and most of it outright misleading statements, dated statemnts or just
plain
>lies (cause I know you know better)) but I'll eat some time and go for
it...
>problem is everyone in this forum already knows hwo to spot the BS but...
>hell, I'll bite...
Yeah - you were spotted years ago...
>
>"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ruda4$elo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>
>As if you couldn't with NT/W2K? So, please, don't mention it.
>
>
>>
>> > > 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).
>
>Interesting figures - wonder what you'll do to these figure a little later
>on...
>
>>
>>
>> > > 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.
>
>Believe me I know and most linux adopters know this even better than I! Oh
>baby!
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>Thta's it eh? 20 minutes and you are fully configured and ready to go.
>that's it - 20 minutes andyou are enterprise ready. ALl patches applied,
all
>the NICs configured with all IPs. DNS setup, shares in place, security
>configured, user accounts setup. A breeze!! And, lesse, $1000 for 20
>minutes... hmm, $500 an hour - thre goes that $50-$100 you tried to sneak
>past up above (but your lies get worse later, we know we know).
>
>So - I say to you. BS. 20 minutes to configure ANY OS? BS.
>
>>
>> > > 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.
>
>How does RAID and the servers you mention plus "huge number of users" fit
>all in the same sentence? I'd reply but can't even figure out what you are
>saying... never mind, moving along, nothing to see here...
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>Oh, I see, so 20 minutes to configure linux but you're figuring 8 hours for
>Windows. Ahha... yea, like ANYONE will believe THAT crap. Oh, and the 8
>doesn't include user configuration. I guess linux must accelerate the
>physical typing process. Just the virtue of typing on a linux server
>improves your typing skills dramatically eh? Damn, that's one amazing OS.
>
>>
>> > > 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.
>
>No, it would not.
>
>>providing mail, news, and database access via web
>> browser interface would add a bit more cost.
>
>No, it would not.
>
>>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.
>
>No, the GUI interface reduces the time/cost. And doing it remotely doesn't
>add any penalty at all. have you even ever used Windows? Do you have a
>remote clue?
>
>>
>> > > 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.
>
>Of course you won't need a seperate server. Of course you won't even want
to
>use Proxy Server, you could use the free and included NAT functionality or
>use ISA for a price but you would not need a seperate box. Configuration
for
>NAT takes about 15 minutes. Configuration for ISA takes longer but no
longer
>than configuring the same number of policies for any given firewall setup.
>in fact, I find if this is a race, using the wizards get you up and running
>in about an hour, tops. And you've got a statefull firewall, with http
>caching (including reverse caching) - gee, don't have that with linux... of
>course, you managed to get that done during the 20 minutes you spent
>configuring linux, I forgot... silly me...
>
>>
>> > > 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.
>
>Oh, so Back Office is a mail and news server, that's it eh? Amazing! I
guess
>I must be imagining the presence of all the is other software on my 6 CDs -
>must just be fluff, that's it... yea... sure... OOooh, and a WHOLE mail
>and news client too! wow! GUI versions too? DAMN that linux is impressive!
>(oh yea, we have those included free too...)
>
>>
>> > 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.
>
>No, it wouldn't. Why proxy if you are using NAT? No matter, ISA lets you
use
>both side by side, if you so desire. NAT is free with W2K. And all of those
>functions could easily exist side by side on the same single W2K 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?
>
>Why would this even be a question? Are you asking if there is a version of
>W2K that's unlimited users?
>
>>
>> > 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".
>
>You're right about that, apache snorts on NT/W2K. How you figure ASP can't
>deliver like PHP or mod_perl is a delusion.
>
>>
>> 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).
>
>$5,000? Few weeks? I want to do your jobs! DAMN, my guys crank out
"trivial"
>database applications in a day. What drugs are your programmers on? Have
you
>even seen let alone used ASP/VBScript?
>
>> 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).
>
>Wow - I guess us Windows guys surely get paid way way way more than linux
>ones eh? According to you the more skilled you are (because according to
you
>unix programmers are better than windows programmers) the less money you
>make (in the unix version of the world). Hell, in the perfect open
sores(tm)
>world all the very best programmers should not only work for free and give
>away their work for free, they should provide all the intimate details and
>source code and support everyone who asks 24/7 for free. Why would anyone
>working hard want any compensation other than the occasional pat on teh
back
>(but much more frequently the squabbling and bickering of developement
>forums and the constant bombardment via email of newbie questions and those
>that never RTFM!). Guess us $100,000/month programmers are just plain
stupid
>in comparison.
>>
>> > 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.
>
>Wow! Amazing - server applications that actually require they run on a
>server version! IMAGINE THAT! Oh, and a REAL server version! (not those
fake
>server versions, no sir!). You'd rather see exchange 2000 running on
Windows
>98? (then again, SQL 2000 does run on most anything including CE but that's
>another story).
>
>>
>> > 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.
>
>both are snipped out of context. and I would have thought you'd have
>recognized how I come to $0 - given the answers to the question posed. I
>don't pretend it costs nothing to use MS software. Please.
>
>>
>> Remember, with Linux, the software is free, but the service
>> (testing, distribution, flooring, installation, service, support,
>> custom applications) is where the money is.
>you betcha baby - especially that installation, service, support and custom
>applications section - OH BUDDY! you wanna see a runaway unix quote...
watch
>that section on support after installation... and check how many times the
>stock application isn't good enough and how quick their guys are ready to
>write that custom application (untested and unproven, JUST for YOU)
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>What? Linux programmers and installers all work for free? Or just much
>cheaper? When it comes to labor, without exception, I've found that you
>definatly get what you pay for. ANYONE telling you otherwise is seriously
>deluded! And I mean this most sincerely. I've been in this shit for 20
years
>and I'm telling you it's true.
>
>>
>> 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".
>
>Man, I've NEVER heard of such crap! And tell me what unix quote doesn't
>include the right to add hours for "configuration to purpose" ahhahaa
>
>>
>> > > 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).
>
>that happens a lot in the unix world? I've never heard of it ...
>
>>
>> > 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.
>
>$1500/month ... sigh... is this calculated in the exact opposite way you
>measure linux users and growth in your .sig?
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>or maybe it's cost you charge what the market will bear - ever heard of
that
>basic concept? No one is willing to pay much for linux - that's what it's
>worth to them, "not much" (ask Dell, they know this REALLY well). People
>pay more for W2K because they are willing to and it's worth it to them. Go
>ask those hosting companies about their splits and demographics for those
>splits. Joe blow's 20 page site is on linux/apache, no question.
Businessman
>Bob's 500 page e-commerce site is on IIS/W2K. But, we know that netcraft
>will dutifully count the 50 joe blows and 2 businessman bob's site and show
>the 25-to-1 "superiority" of Apache right? ahhahaha, how much longer do you
>think that that illusion will last? Ask netcraft about their subscription
>drop-off rate to their paid services. They e-mail you asking for your
return
>business - how pathetic is that. We buy their reports cause we pretty much
>need to - but they are losing value and credibility ... you don't think
they
>changed a part of their survey methodology cause they decided to be "nice"
>to MS do you? (note to conspiracy buffs; I'm sure MS must have paid them
>off, check into it). Perhaps it's because people have stopped paying for
>information that conflicts with other sites of larger stature... any, I
>digress...
>>
>> >$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.
>
>I disagree.
>
>>
>> > 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.
>
>Not from my experience...
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>Remind us of that during another slashdot slowdown. Tell me again why MySQL
>fails to even appear in any standardized benchmarking list? And, it's only
>fast if you are willing to give up features. We'll note that as we cover
>essential features below you'll stop mentioning MySQL...
>
>>
>> If you want to do distributed updates, Progres or one of the commercial
>> databases such as DB2, Sybase, or Oracle 8i work very nicely.
>
>mySQL?
>
>>
>> > Need replication? Transactions?
>> > full SQL-92 support?
>>
>> DB2, Sybase, Oracle 8i.
>
>MySQL?
>
>>
>> > stored procedures worth a damn?
>>
>> See above. Sybase and DB2 have great stored procedures.
>
>MySQL?
>
>>
>> No, they aren't free. But then neither is SQLServer.
>Oh, but MySQL is free - oh, but it can't do anything necessary to run a
>proper site, especially not enterprise level e-commerce sites. But, i'm
sure
>joe blows trading card database will run nicely...
>
>>
>> > 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.
>
>Single sign-on - how long did it take to catch up to that? Security? SQL
>2000 as passed C2 evaluation running on networked NT4 (also passed C2
>evaluation). Hmm... no signs of linux or mySQL there. Oracle? Back at
>version 7 but not lately...
>
>>
>> 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).
>
>Gee, ONE extension using a documented vendor specific data area that HAS
>been documented publically (free). What's your beef? If applications code
>their kerberos interface properly, the extension MS makeshas NO impact
>whatsoever on their use of the kerberos system. You should read up on this
>before talking about it. It's NOT a non-standard version.
>
>>
>> > 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.
>
>um... yea... right...
>
>>
>> The Windows NT versions had to be crippled due to Windows NT's inferior
>> memory management, cache management, and scheduling.
>
>oh puhlease! stop with the lies and fud! you don't even bother to mention
>versions of what!
>
>> 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.
>
>Again, FUD and/or you don't know what you are talking about. MTS? it's been
>around since NT4. I haven't seen the app that runs under NT4 that doesn't
>run under W2K. Get real.
>
>>
>> In fact, Lotus Notes runs better under WINE than it does under Win2K.
>Notes is a pretty sad product then wouldn't you say?
>
>>
>> > 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.
>
>Oh, now MS manipulates the MPAA? Oh man, those paragraphs are too rich to
>shread in this thread. I'll just take a pass on too easy a target.
>
>>
>> > 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.
>
>it's a start...
>
>>
>> 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).
>
>no scripting language? wrong! word pad is nicely functional to get started.
>I guess if you are satisified with the bundled unsupported free
applications
>someone else has choosen for you on some CD they threw together - hey, more
>power to you. Myself, I like to pick my own applications and prefer full
>featured, supported, ones that are industry wise standards.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>Wow, I didn't know the kernel includes 13,000 applications?
>
>>
>> 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).
>
>Well, you did say "I'd" - I'm sure you would Rex, I'm sure YOU would.
>
>>
>> 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).
>
>Again, perhaps only YOU would have these problems. I know I don't nor do
any
>of the millions of other windows users.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>I'd admit that moving an installed windows system to a new computer is a
>major pain. Been there, done that. I guess you have to decide if the trade
>off between having a central configuration database is worth the hassle
>versus
>non-centralized-any-application-goes-anywhere-and-stores-anything-anyplace-
i
>t wants-but-you-can-pick-it-up-and-just-copy-it ease.
>
>>
>> > 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).
>
>man, nothing like ulimate failures for you eh? Hey, I won't pretend like
>some of those things couldn't happen. I'm sure they could. Hell, I've had
to
>kill a process that wouldn't respond. sure. but...
>
>>
>> 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).
>
>Not any guru's I know or would employ...
>
>>
>> > 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).
>
>that's YOUR view - not mine. Why on earth would I do that when I could just
>connect with VPN or use Terminal services or use telnet to get in and fix
>things. Many times I can just use an HTML admin console to fix things.
>Sometimes it's a quick pcAnywhere or remotelyanywhere session... why would
I
>need physical access unless it was a physical problem? Oh that's right, you
>are making shit up as you go along.. I forgot...
>
>
>>
>> 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).
>
>You always work on your computer from you bed? man that is "taking your
work
>home with you" to a new degree. I perfer "working on" my wife when in bed
>instead. :)
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>Or maybe you just don't have the problem at all? You missed that scenario.
>And you assume the company would actually be so stupid that it relies on
the
>fact that you'll be home and available 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week and
>next to a connnected computer (assuming it's not the connectivity that's
>hosed, hard to telnet in if the internet connection is what's fucked... I
>don't recall pcAnywhere for Unix version x do you?). I guess they count on
>the fact that linux admins are not only poorly paid but have no social life
>so are available to telnet from their beds at all hours of any day...
>
>>
>> And you go back to sleep knowing that the problem will be fixed, never
>> to happen again, in about 30 minutes.
>
>not only a problem fixer but an elite programmer who can recompile the code
>with complete comprehension of the impact these changes (and the resulting
>fork) will make across the entire system from now until eternity - damn!
>
>>
>> --
>> 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)
>
>"Satisfied" How'd you know that?
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
