"David A. Bandel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
No, your conclusion is based on emotion, not fact. When I first looked
at M$ (I was already a UNIX admin on SunOS4 and Ultrix), I couldn't
figure out much of anything from the GUI.
<<
I don't think it's emotion, David; something like 95% of PC hardware out
there is running Windows, and like it or not, an awful lot of people
attending Linux courses and attempting LPI certification will be employed
in enterprises where Windows is the de-facto standard. We've all seen
managers who don't understand the technicalities and who, in the case of
interoperability issues, will can a Linux pilot project even though Windows
is the source of the problem, and most of us have had to dig into Windows
internals like the registry to get to the root of the problem. You yourself
demonstrate this: you know an awful lot about Windows TCP/IP and Winsock
non-compliance with RFC's - isn't that more than you ever wanted to know? I
know I've spent days ferreting through the MS knowledge base for registry
settings that affect TCP/IP - and I wish to God *I'd* never had to.
>>
I've set up Samba without looking
at a single Windoze box. If the customer tells me "it works" on one
machine, the rest of the machines are his (his MCSE's) problem.
<<
Again, fine if you're a consultant or contractor whose job is *just* to get
the Samba server set up. But what if you are an employee - you're network
administrator, you've been given a Samba server and some Linux training to
go with it, and it looks OK but some users can't get to the shares on it?
You have a network that doesn't work, Linux on the server and Windows on
the clients, and a boss who doesn't care where the problem is, but it's
*your* job to get it sorted?
>>
No, teach them how to turn on password encryption in Samba
<<
OK, not a great example, I grant - but suppose you had a LAN of Windows 95
machines and a Samba server working with unencrypted passwords, everything
sweet, and then a new Windows box comes in. You *could* switch to encrypted
passwords and reconfigure everything - but is it worth it in a small
business, etc.? The point is, the issue is driven by the need for Windows
compatibility, and required the Linux administrator to be aware of changes
Microsoft makes to their products. And as you say, despite the MS line,
registry hacks are necessary.
>>
At least in Linux you have a choice of powerful tools.
<<
Correctamento. No argument there.
>>
Why would you, as a Linux admin, run commands on a Windoze box? Guess I
still don't understand this.
<<
I can give you one example, straight away: I set up a Linux server for an
ISP last week. It's the only Linux server there; it runs headless; it's
surrounded by Windows NT and OS/2 servers (don't ask!), and the staff
generally run Windows on their desktops. I hope it will be the first of
many, but in the meantime, they'll use the tools and techniques they're
most comfortable with until they're fully up to speed. Eventually, they'll
be Linux everywhere, and doing things they way *I* would like them done,
but for the time being. . .
The most obvious reason is that everything looks copacetic on the Linux
server, and all the clients - where the problem manifests - are Windows.
For example, in the next fortnight or so, I'll be putting in a Linux server
at my kids' school. Same deal. Chances are, if someone says, "Is the DNS
up?", I'll be closest to a Windows machine, and I'll use the tools on it
for at least a quick check. For more serious work, I'll "dig" a little
deeper, obviously. <g>
Remember, many people going for LPI certification will be working in mixed
environments (statistically, that's a near certainty) and administering a
Linux box may only be part of their jobs. If we want Linux to grow and
prosper, we've got to recognise that.
For the record, I would *love* to be able to ignore the Microsoft world
completely. I've had some extremely costly dealings with Microsoft over the
years; have been a vocal critic; was quoted in Infoworld's "Cringley"
column on the topic of Windows Me a few weeks ago; and even supplied
evidence to the DOJ for their case. But there are enterprises out there who
are a natural target for Linux education and certification, but who
currently have a major investment in Windows on both desktops and servers.
If we go in, boots and all, with a "Windoze sucks, you should have Linux
everywhere" attitude, the war will be over before the first battle. Softly,
softly, catchee-monkey; you catch more flies with honey, etc.
A refusal to even countenance mention of tools for resolving network issues
with Windows clients to a Linux server, on the grounds that this gives
succour to "the enemy", would expose LPI to accusations of biasing the
certification process to achieve marketing objectives - something I, for
one, despise MS for doing. Surely the goal for LPI is to help employers
recruit qualified and productive admins, and *thereby* advance the
penetration of Linux in the marketplace?
Best,
--- Les [http://www.lesbell.com.au]
--
This message was sent from the lpi-examdev mailing list.
Send `unsubscribe lpi-examdev' in the subject to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to leave the list.
