On 2/5/07, Rick Schummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not that choosing a car is anything like choosing an > operating system, but I am sure you recognize the similarities of the > situation.
All the cars run the same gasoline. All the Linuxes run the same kernel. Most cars have a similar UI: dashboard, steering wheel, etc. All the same software runs on all of the Linux distros, and much of it runs on Windows and OSX, too. It's a choice of what kind of trim you like, what your brand affiliation is, and which dealer has the best service. > Users should not have to hunt down the an OS from literally dozens of choices. "Drivers should not have to pick from literally dozens of car brands." > Most are not qualified to make this choice. Most are not qualified to make the choice of cars. They refer to experts, reviews, Consumer Reports, what their friends recommend. > It costs money and is simply a mine field waiting for you to make the > wrong choice. Welcome to the free market. > The issue is compatibility. I need software to run my business. Lets look at > your case > and Ted's case as it has been documented on this list. You literally need two > operating systems and > two machines to run your businesses. In my opinion, that is nuts. I know > *why* you are doing it, and > I know you would like to be down to one. Please don't speak for me.I don't want to be down to one. That would be a monopoly and a monotony. I have nine machines running in the office. I support clients running WIndows 2000, XP, 2003, Ubuntu, CentOS, OS X, Fedora and RedHat. Diversity is *NOT* a bad thing. I drive a Subaru. She drives a Toyota. The kid has a Nissan. We can all still get along. > But most (95% is a safe guess) > businesses are not going to do this for all their employees. Not cost > effective. That's a false assertion. "Most" businesses have several OSes running in house. Many businesses are supporting Windows 2000 and XP and 2003 and PocketPC (every one's different!) and Blackberries and incompatible laptops from a couple manufacturers. "Some" run OS X and Linux, too. > So now the company firmly chooses Linux over the Windows platform. Few do this. Most choose to recognize there is a benefit in running a heterogenous environment. That doesn't mean some extreme anyone-can-do-anything situation, but a more realistic view that different people can run the OS they prefer and the apps they prefer without bringing the enterprise crashing down. > I can ask a dozen different consultants and get 20 different answers. > Software package A runs great > on Fedora and not on others. Package B needs Ubuntu or any other distro, but > is not supported by > Fedora. This really isn't the case. Very, very few apps run differently on one than another. Apps written to use the KDE environment run on a GNOME desktop and vice versa. Who's feeding you this FUD? Some (very few) vendors specify platforms on which they will support their apps. Many standardize on RedHat or SuSE. One on Unbreakable Linux (ha!). A skilled technician should be able to support a customer's need to run any app on whichever OS they need. Same could be said for an MCSE and Windows. > Worse yet, I try to deploy my Linux solution at a large company and I find > out because the > source is open and their IT department decided to "tweak" it, my app is > broken. Slim possibility, > but it can happen. You've never had a client delete all the .SCT files because those were virus-carrying VB Script scrap files, eh? All of my clients get FoxPro source, but run EXEs. Why would you think this would be different in Linux? > Billions of dollars will be wasted. So, in other words, nothing changes. If you don't think that *BILLIONS* of dollars will be wasted rolling out Vista to customers who have absolutely no need for 99% of the features, you're not living in the same world I am. > This is why I predict we will literally see a freeze in the marketplace. Yeah, Whil says it's pretty cold on his side of Lake Michigan... > IT departments will choose to stay exactly where they are. And since MS isn't going to be selling or supporting their legacy OSes any more, how are they going to do that? > Bad because it will stifle innovation in their business, and is a short term > fix to a > long term problem because hardware will breakdown and OS patches will be cut > off at some point > (another problem I think is out of control). Worse yet, vertical market > product creators have to > start to decide who they will abandon and this is just not good for any > business who counts on their > software. Sounds like SNAFU to me. So, while your "IT" is freezing on what they have, what happens with the smart little companies that are pushing ahead with innovative Ruby-on-Rails, LAMP-based, SOA, buzzterm-of-the-day applications that eat your customer's lunches? > I prefer a solid standard I can recommend to my clients so everyone wins. Sounds like you ought to become an RHCE! > With Windows I have fewer choices Like "take it or leave it?" > I am not saying choice is bad. rof,l! Not "bad" just not for you, eh? -- Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
