Bryan J. Smith said the following on 20.06.2006 20:51: > 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). [...]
No comment but one question: what about per client licences that a Win server needs for each connected client? >> 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. [...] Off-topic and sorry to interrupt: controllers *are* decision makers. [...] >> "We don't give you the budget for Windows licences. [...] >> 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 know I'm not a native English speaker, but show me the line where I expressed myself in that way. > >> The solution then in most cases is Samba. > > *NO* The solution is _more_ than just "Samba"! Sorry Bryan, but you did not get the point of that sentence. The exception is when a good consulter replaces Windows completely... ;-) [...] > 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. Sorry to interrupt again and without disagreeing about the benefit of Samba & Linux: decisions aren't taken from a technical point of view. If it was so, then we wouldn't live in a Windows world. > >> 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. Oh, Bryan, why do you have to misinterpret everything I write? You know exactly what I meant with risks: the risks not being owner of my own data any more and having to use somebody's software (and all expensive updates) to access them. I was *not* talking about software issues.- [...] > If you've got 100% Windows clients and applications, it's _cheaper_ to > stick with Windows. It always has been. It always will be. [...] You wrote more than once! Probably is your definition of cheap not compatible to mine. Taki -- Dimitrios Bogiatzoules Product Developer LPIC-2 Linux Professional Institute GnuPG Key ID A7E4D183 http://www.lpi.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lpi-german.de
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
