LPI Product Developer wrote: > From what I see and hear here in Germany the main reason to set up Samba > instead of MS servers is *cash*. The keep their "beloved" Win clients > and replace the servers with something that is cheaper.
Huh? Initial cost of Windows Servers is _minimal_ compared to hardware, operating costs and Windows client software (exponentially if they use MS Office). Any company that goes Linux out of initial costs is lying to themselves. In fact, that's why I've seen a lot of Linux integrations _fail_. You can't cut costs by ignoring both client and Enterprise Configuration Management (ECM) costs. In fact, the _natural_ progression of client replacement is then Linux, possibly other solutions. Which means you should be building an enterprise auth/dir/name system that is _not_ "Windows client-only cookbook." And let's go beyond that. Let's say we have 100% Linux servers and 100% Windows client. What good is a Samba test that only tests for local UNIX/Linux authentication? Or requires you to put in a native Windows Server DCs for ADS to do network-wide object authentication and naming? I want an Enterprise Linux administrator who knows how to do network-wide object authentication and naming, and not just rely on local UNIX/Linux facilities or how to make UNIX/Linux ADS' bitch. > IMHO in most cases the answer to your question would be given by the > controlling department and not the IT department: We're beyond that. We're talking _enterprise_ solutions. We're talking decision _makers_, _not_ lower-hanging techs or departmental sysadmins. We need to be testing _enterprise_ capability. Like how to synchronize network objects across an enterprise of systems. Even if they are 100% UNIX/Linux servers and 100% Windows clients, there is still a _need_ for _enterprise_, network-wide authentication and objects. > "We don't give you the budget for Windows licences. Huh? If all you're testing on is how to do local UNIX authentication or run against a native Windows Server DC with Winbindd, what is that really "saving" you? Especially if you still have to have a native ADS infrastructure? > You have to find a cheaper solution!" I still don't get it. But one thing I do get is you're saying is that you want to certify LPIC-3 candidates who are _not_ entrusted to be knowledgeable enough to offer _enterprise_, native UNIX/Linux solutions? You just want them to know how to do "Samba"? And possibly connect them to native Windows DCs? And even then, I still don't get it. I really don't. > The solution then in most cases is Samba. *NO* The solution is _more_ than just "Samba"! > What is missing is a Samba certification so that Windows centric IT > departments can see/trust a Linux admin. And this is why most Linux integration projects I see fail. Linux is _not_ a better Windows Server than Windows Server in 9 out of 10 cases. Linux is sold for things that are _not_ appropriate. Just because it's "not Microsoft" or just because it "saves on initial costs" but doesn't even make a dent in the TCO. If the goal of LPIC-3 is to just certify people who know how to make Linux emulate Windows, then it's a joke. I'd rather hire a MCSE and buy Windows Servers -- much cheaper in the TCO sense. As much as people dismiss them, the Microsoft TCO studies are accurate -- *WHEN* you're talking about a Windows-only network with Windows-knowledge, Windows-requirements and Windows-compatibility. > IMHO the decision to use Samba is not taken because of technology > advantages The decision to use Samba, from a 100% _technical_ standpoint, _must_ be because it lets you control file access, filtering, oplocks, authentication, distribution, access, etc... _better_ than Windows Servers across an _open_ enterprise of many _open_ systems as much as closed. That is the _heart_ of an _open_ enterprise system. > and only very rarely because the management is aware of the > risks of closed source and the advantages of open source for > servers and clients (incl. open file formats). Open source has "risks" too. Just because it's "open source" doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot. In fact, Gartner pegged it best over 3 years ago. Attempting to adopt open source while still putting yourself at the mercy of vendor lock-in is futile. The vendor will continue to make it extremely difficult to inter-operate and will _never_ offer a "way out." Open, enterprise solutions. That is what LPIC-3 should be about. Not this "initial cost" non-sense. It's _not_ realistic. It sets Linux up for _failure_. Inter-operability, total cost of ownership, etc... If you've got 100% Windows clients and applications, it's _cheaper_ to stick with Windows. It always has been. It always will be. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
