J'ai d�montr� depuis le bureau que mon firewall sous linux �tait difficilement attaquable mais on continue � payer pour un firewall-1 ... chercher l'erreur. Idem avec nagios compar� � un tivoli. Nagios rempli bien son r�le MAIS il manque tchic ou tchac (alors que tout est dans une db et qu'en 1 journ�e, on a fait sans probl�me des reports, ... en plus des �crans qui sont d�j� existant dans nagios). Pour reprendre l'exemple de nagios, on lui reproche le fait qu'il n'�crit pas dans une db oracle (... malgr� qu'on a le code source et que c'est pas mortel de faire un fichier .pc (pro*c) pour faire la modif ... mais comme ca n'arrive pas tout cuit c'est pas bon !)
Bref, un dur combat ;) @+
Alain EMPAIN wrote:
Une tr�s bonne r�plique lue dans les discussions relatives � toutes ces 'fameuses' analyses qui essayent de d�montrer scientifiquement qu'il est impossible de faire voler un 'plus lourd que l'air' (si, si, si, c'est une discussion historique qui a eu la m�me ampleur que TCO & Co ;-)
Forget the Research, ask ME!
----------------------------
Posted by: dingletec 2003-09-26 09:38:40 In reply to: Paul Towlson
[image]
These studies and articles picking apart Linux always seem to focus on
the "Enterprise"... There are far more small and medium sized businesses
for which Linux is perfect. Yet people are always swayed by these
articles.
There is a very good reason for Linux fanaticism, and for growing
resentment of Microsoft. For any IT person who struggled for years to
meet the needs of companies with small IT budgets, Linux is an outright
miracle.
We just could not afford either the cost or the lack of reliabilty in MS
server products (Append long list of Viruses, blue screens, exploits
here). We still have a few MS servers that cannot be replaced, but every
time we need a (file|print|email|web|database|etc) server I just pull a
retired buggy Windows workstation off the shelf and create a highly
stable (Linux|FreeBSD) server out of it.
Plain and simple, with everything I have done for my company using
Linux, I have spent $ZERO dollars, and very little time maintaining
them. They just work. You just get more with open source, where it would
have cost me thousands of dollars to do similar tasks using MS products.
And I could not add more machines at no cost with MS.
Oh, and I can (play with|test|research) all kinds of technology at home
as well, since it is all free. Open source creates better educated and
higher skilled IT workers, based on their personal interest and
motivation. I compare my skills and knowledge to MSCE's all the time,
and I'm pretty certain I'm not the one lacking...
I'm not bashing this author, there are things I can agree with in the
article... I just get tired of reading articles about TCO and ROI, when
those things do not apply to anyone I know. My ROI is huge, I put next
to nothing into some of these projects, and get continual and stable
service in return. TCO? I take machines that were paid for a few years
ago, combine them with the cost of 3 cd's burned with the latest version
of my favorite freely downloadable Linux Distro, and I have systems that
are used every day without reboot for longer than the total combined
uptime of our MS servers. Ok, I'm finished now. -----------------------
Je peux aussi confirmer : c'est exactement mon exp�rience sur maintenant
10 ans !
Jusque cet �t�, le serveur web du service �tait un vieux 486 abandonn�
dans un coin que j'avais recycl� alors qu'�videmment plus personne n'en
aurait voulu depuis longtemps, etc. etc. Tr�s stable, jamais le moindre probl�me, juste trop lent quand on a
voulu s'en servir pour �changer de tr�s gros fichier.
Alain
_______________________________________________________ Linux Mailing List - http://www.unixtech.be Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.unixtech.be/mailman/listinfo/linux Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC: efnet.unixtech.be:6667 - #unixtech
