On Tuesday, 28 בMarch 2006 18:26, Yonah Russ wrote:
> I didn't say that it is harder to support - but the method which the
> army uses to provide technical/network support would not be effective.
This is the only valid claim in your mail :-(
> You, in general, can not give your average 18year old in Israel a week
> long course in Linux and expect him to be capable of maintaining a
> base full of Linux stations.
Yes you can if you expect them to have the same level of (in)competency.
Examples: kickstart installs from existing images. Backups (an icon
tied to a fixed backup script). Updates from a central server (another
icon running 'apt-get dist-upgrade' or 'yum update' or...)
It's all easier than windows.
> Additionally, the overbearing control of the domain is not present in
> Linux and although I'm sure there must be some software which allows
> you to control the settings of users and groups across a huge linux
> network, it is probably not free.
This was a joke, wasn't it? Server operation and control is one of
the strongest points in Linux/Unix. For a starter solution you
can use NIS+NFS (for /home). It's pretty easy to support 100'ds of
workstations that way. Of course you can go up to LDAP and/or AFS
if you need a real complex setup.
> ... In which case, it is safe to assume that there is a much
> greater number of companies who are willing to provide windows support
> and training in Israel as opposed to Linux. As such, chances are that
> the Windows support will always be cheaper and always win in a
> Michraz.
This seems obvious until we factor in some easy to forget costs:
- The license fees...
- This applies also to the support companies themselves. Someone
pays for *their* copies of MS software -- guess who?
- Someone also pays for their training support infrastructure --
all the "certifications" (MCSE, "Microsoft University", etc).
Note: Of course you *may* choose to have the same costs in Linux.
You *can* license distros with per-seat licenses, you *can* buy
certifications etc.
On the other hand, you may choose not to do this stupidity, since
you have the freedom (as a big customer) to set your terms.
Also, since Linux is free software, it's far easier and cheaper to
implement internal army training for simple subjects.
> I personally think Microsoft is aweful but the IDF lives on MS-Office.
> As much as I am capable of using Open Office for my daily needs- it
> isn't a realistic replacement for the army.
> It is slow, big, ugly, the powerpoint is useless, and there is no
> outlook.
While most documents in the army are simple (a notepad will do), some
documents have totally different characteristics. If you think about
technical docs, operation plans, etc. You'll see that these docs should
be sometime maintained for 5-10 years.
Ask yourself -- who is going to maintain them through the never stopping,
incompatible, document-format changes in MS software? One issue is the
costs (yes I know windows support is cheap when you don't count migration
costs in ;-) However, some documents *must not* change their formatting
at all.
So let's put the horse in its place (before the carriage) -- The first
thing to determine is the document *format* and not the software.
For further elaboration you may want to read the reasoning behind
the Massachusetts decision to go for Open-Document-Format.
Just a few "small" gains in addition:
- Openoffice runs on Linux/Windows/Macs/Solaris -- Since we don't
suggest to totally abolish Windows use (yet), it's good to have the
same software across all platforms.
- Since all free office suits are migrating to this format, you may let
the mass of newbies use the lightweight abiword for daily use.
You'll still get the same file format for interoperation with OOo.
(ah, btw abiword has a Windows version as well)
> Maybe evolution is better now a days (I have no reason to use
> anything like outlook for personal use).
Are you missing mail clients? I suggest looking in any free software
archive (e.g: freshmeat.net) under the MUA category. Or if you are lazy
just look at the relevant menu items in any decent Linux distro. There
are so many to choose from.
Of course *some* of them works in Windows as well. Of course most of
them handle mail far better and easier than old Outlook (have you used
Kmail + Kaddressbook + Korganizer = Kontact lately ?)
> Linux is definately getting
> better for desktops but it's not there yet. :(
I must agree. It's not "there". It's better located.
(this isn't to say there aren't Linux deficiencies, but to suggest
they are minor, comparing to Windows problems).
> Also- in order to apply for a michraz for the MOD you have to meet
> some pretty big criteria.
> ie. be a chevra ba'am, have a machzor of over $x/year, have more than
> y employees-which also probably rules out a bunch of the Linux support
> companies.
Have you noticed that all these big companies are currently
selling Linux services as well?
While with Windows a fix to a real problem is available only from MS.
In Linux, any reputable provider can fix your problems if your vendor
is not responsive enough. So you can buy RedHat (or Suse, or...) support
not only from RedHat, but from IBM, HP and their likes as well.
Just like you said, more competitors lowers the price (unless the client
is stupid and does not pressure the suppliers).
--
Oron Peled Voice/Fax: +972-4-8228492
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.actcom.co.il/~oron
ICQ UIN: 16527398
"Complaining that [Linux] doesn't work well with Windows is like ...
oh, say, evaluating an early automobile and complaining that there's no
place to hitch up a horse."
Daniel Dvorkin, July 28, 2003
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
