Les,
I'd have to agree with Chuck on this one -- let me give just a short
example to illustrate it:
In 1999, when I first started looking for a way to change my General
Education Online project to a dynamic site (database backend, dynamic
pages, the whole nine yards), I looked at 2 solutions - one was using Cold
Fusion + IIS + Access + NT, the other was PHP + Apache + MySQL + Linux.
The very first thing I looked at was cost -- going with cold fusion + iis +
access + NT (Cold-Fusion itself is about $1,300 -- iis, NT, and access were
covered by the existing site license) would have been cost-prohibitive for
a group who had a total of $1,050 of funding to last a full fiscal year --
especially with a fully capable linux server in place.
The linux server on the other hand, has cost us a total of $800 ($650 to
buy the box originally, and about another $250 in upgrades).
Until I graduated, GEO was located on a linux server (Celeron 400, 128 MB
ram, 26.4 GB of drive space) at the University of West Florida which was
doing all kinds of things--even with the load we were putting on it (and
believe me it's taken a beating)--the cpu never went below 80% idle.
Could I have developed something and ran it off of an NT server? Probably.
Could I have afforded to do so? No, since GEO (www.findaschool.org) is
entirely linux based, upon graduation another group started hosting the
site off of their servers for free--you can't beat that.
Michael
At 10:15 PM 06/08/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>* Les Bell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>
>> In my opinion - and I realize it's just an opinion - in a world where a
>> large proportion of Linux boxes are used to provide network infrastructure
>> for a mixture of client platforms, issues of interoperability are
>> important. If that means that a Linux admin has to know a smattering of
>> Windows networking configuration, or that nslookup exists and is useful on
>> most platforms, while dig doesn't, well - that's just dealing with the
>> reality of what's out there on desktops.
>
>In my opinion anyone who can pass LPIC2 (if there is not even a single
>Windoze question on it) will be able to handle a Windows client better
>than 80% of the MCSE's in the field today and I have reason to know.
>
>> The correct attitude should not be one of operating system zealotry ("Test
>> Linux... sink windoze!"), but of professional competence: Linux servers
>> often exist to provide services to Windows clients, and that may mean
>> knowing enough about the client to ensure the service is being delivered to
>> the end user.
>
>Les... you are talking to a guy that had the "pleasure" of building the
>largest NT and Exchange network in the world (the US Veterans Health
>Administration). Along the way (for fun) I scattered Linux boxen doing
>little jobs behind the scenes in my wake. I am not an MCSE and I never
>have been but I started doing Microsoft networking back in the lmhosts
>days (the 80's) and came up through all the piece of shit Mickeysoft NT
>Beta's and then fought my way through Microsoft Mail and the Exchange betas
>and on and on and on. In 1998 working with Microsoft crap gave me what we
>thought (at the time) was a heart attack. The stress of dealing with 50
field
>engineers (supposed MCSE experts) a week who couldn't locate either side of
>their hind quarters with both hands looking for them was a bit too much when
>combined with crappy WINS architecture and gd shitty Exchange code that
couldn't
>scale beyond 214 servers in the GAL (Global Address List). Of those field
>"engineers" we sent at least a third of them packing every week during the
>two years that project lasted and they were all MCSE's. So do I have the
right
>to say we ought to test Linux and sink Windoze? Hell yes I do and I mean
>every damn word of it. Call me a nut but this is a jihad for me. My web
>site is fully anti-Microsoft and everything I do is 100% designed to
>stick it in their eye! To hell with 'em and the horse they rode in on!
>If Bill Gates had his way (and he might) the US government would throw
>out the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenue
>would be renamed Mickey$oft way. We have people here in the states who
>are being told by big business what they can and cannot say and write
>and what they can and cannot look at and read. You can bet that none of
>that came from the Linux or Open Source communities... it's coming from
>the closed source vendors and developers who are trying to protect their
>incomes through legal and political strategems rather than through
>competition and the creation of quality. RMS has it right when he talks
>about freedom and if we (the rest of us on the fringes of this community)
>would quit screwing around and half stepping in our commitment to what we
>believe we'd be making more progress.
>
>Now if somebody who happens to have passed our tests also knows how to
>do something with Windoze fine... but I can see no reason that we ought
>to be testing them on it. This is the LINUX PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTE, not
>the Mickey$oft professional institute. What we tell the world is that if
>someone is an LPIC2 they can do the things we say they can on Linux! Not
>Microsoft. If an employer wants someone who can do both then let 'em
>hire someone who can do both, but the proof of that skill should come from
>elsewhere, not from us.
>
>> My vote says: nslookup is still a part of BIND, still a part of Linux and
>> has a useful cross-platform utility that dig lacks. A competent admin
>> really ought to know it.
>
>Frankly the only cross-platform utility I know of was developed on the
>Linux/OSS/free software side of the fence. Mickey$oft's crap doesn't
>interoperate with anything that doesn't go out of its way on its own to
>make it so. Besides what the hell do you worry about nslookup for when
>you're talking about Samba? Sounds like a WINS thing-a-ma-jig to me!
>NetBIOS name resolution is a far cry from DNS.
>
>> Best,
>
>Same.
>
>--
>csm
>"...software engineers, as Percy Bysshe Shelley said of poets, are the
>unacknowledged legislators of our time. acknowledge this reality and try
>to shape it..." - stille/lessig
>
>Attachment Converted: "d:\mike\eudora\attach\Re Preliminary DNS Objectives2"
>
--
This message was sent from the lpi-examdev mailing list.
Send `unsubscribe lpi-examdev' in the subject to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to leave the list.
