I know this is off topic, but I didn't know if it'd get published and I
thought some of you might find it interesting, or at least long & boring.
:-0 For those of you that missed the earlier thread, this is my response
to the article at:
http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/opinion/0608/08week.html
I generally don't get drawn into this responding to this type of article,
but something in me decided it was time to be heard.
Direct quotes from your article appear in []'s, my response and or
ramblings follow.
[...the number of Linux bigots is bigger than the number of Mac zealots.]
What about the number of "insert-your-least-favorite-OS" bigots/zealots?
You can find them in any crowd. There are also those of us that try to let
the task at hand drive what OS to use.
[Here are the high points of the Linux story. It's free -- downloadable
from 10 or so FTP sites.]
I'd say between the major distributions, their associated mirror sites and
other software that runs under Linux it's WAY more than 10 sites.
[It's an alternative to Windows.]
It's much more than an alternative to Windows 9x, in fact I'm not even
using it as the "end-user" on-the-desktop OS. (See "Ok, so what's my
story" below.)
[Perhaps Linux could use some old-fashioned Windows marketing.]
Maybe so, but then again Linux doesn't have Microsoft's advertising budget.
[Perhaps Torvalds' unusual reasoning on why the Linux logo is a penguin
will help: "When you think penguin, you should be imagining a slighly [he
left out the 't,' but we forgive him, since his native language is probably
Finnish...]
Does the logo or Linus Torvalds' native language *really* have an effect on
the actual functionality of Linux on the whole? Personally, I rather like
the penguin, but I'd still use Linux if the logo was a dead rat. No
offense to those of you out there who like dead rats. :-)
[Linux has a snowball's chance in hell of making perceptible inroads
against Windows.]
Depends on which flavor of Windows you're referring to. Why is MS adding
"unix" type services to NT server if Linux (or any flavor of unix) isn't a
threat to NT's push into the server market? It also depends on what other
applications/servers you're running in your environment. Most networks
that I've seen are a mixture of unix, Novell, Windows, you name it.
There's always room for another good OS.
[And Torvalds left UHel last year for the commercial world.]
But it's something of a mystery what he's up to and he hasn't abandoned the
Linux kernel.
Ok, so what's my story?
My foray into the Linux world began as I was in the process of moving a
commercial application from one "big iron" unix box to a new "big iron"
unix box. My knowledge & experience with any flavor of unix was limited at
that point and I wanted something to use as a learning platform, just in
case I blew something up during the learning process. Yes, having been
there not so long ago I will concede that unix has a steep learning curve.
Compared to what others know, I *maybe* have a juice glass full of
knowledge at this point - which only makes me hungry for more.
As I used Linux as a learning tool at home, I began to realize the
potential it might have for a project down the road. I work for a public
library and we were in the process of designing & building a new facility.
I thought Linux might be useful to serve some CD-ROM databases and maybe
some other services. Further down the road, I decided it might be useful
for much more than that.
I did some research on the various network operating systems (NOS) that
were available and found that:
1) Some services I wanted to provide just weren't available on some NOS'es.
2) Most of them were way too expensive, either in terms of software or
hardware or both. After trying to outfit a 76,000 sq. ft. building with
enough PC's, I wouldn't have much left over for a server.
3) Some of them had restrictive hardware requirements.
4) Having experienced rock-solid reliability both as a user and
administrator of a "big iron" unix box, I wanted that same reliability from
my smaller server. I felt Linux would give me that.
And so my experimental server project began at home. I installed Linux on
the box that would become the server. I fiddled, I read, I tested, I
tweaked. Although I was pretty sure Linux would do what I needed, there's
still that uncertainty until you actually "throw the switch" for yourself.
Knowing full well that if it didn't live up to my (and other's)
expectations, I'd have to come up with another solution. As of this
writing, my Linux server is providing the following services to over 70
PC's, with more in the near future:
several CD-ROM databases
file sharing & network print services
NT-style domain logons & scripts
distribution of configuration files for library-specific applications
application serving
(all of the above using SAMBA, a lan-manager type file/print service)
DNS resolution & DNS records for local hosts
time synchronization
web page serving
ftp transfers
"ghost" images to rebuild PC's when their software gets corrupted
All of this using a PC not a fast as PC's many people have on their desks
or in their homes, using an OS that is available for free (although I
bought a commercial distribution for about $50). The machine is a single
Pentium, 200MHz with 64Mb of RAM. The only thing that sets it apart is a
UPS and a tower containing a tape drive & several CD-ROM drives.
Currently, the machine has been running for 50 days without a complaint.
Would be longer, but the facility hasn't been open that long.
As I mentioned before, Linux is not my "on-the-desktop" OS. Why? Many of
the library applications we use are only written for Windows. Linux also
hasn't progressed to the point where it's easy enough for the average user,
*yet* - in my opinion. Again, my plan was not to use it for the desktop,
but for the server. This goes back to my "use the OS that best fits the
task at hand" philosophy. Would I go out of my way to use my preferred OS
even if another was better - maybe - but then again I think most people
might be guilty of that at times. ;-)
What does the future hold for my project? Additional services including
e-mail, POP mail and a listserv or two are in the works. I'm also
installing another Linux server to act as a gateway between two networks
and possibly a third at a remote location. After that, who knows?
If I had it all to do over again and I had enough money, would I choose
another NOS? Nope, I'd just buy a bigger & better server to put Linux on.
Not that it's even breathing heavy, but I believe in overkill on the server
end. As a server OS, I'd have to say it's great and I wouldn't hesitate to
recommend it to others.
[I admit to being a complete coward when it comes to installing
Linux......Understand, though: I have a PC, and when you get one of those
running right, you don't touch a thing.]
Maybe it's time to try an OS you don't have to be afraid of playing with?
A final word of thanks and then I'll shut up, I promise.
I am greatly indebted to Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux. To those of
you who have helped me along the way, from those on the various listservs I
subscribe to, authors of man pages, FAQs, HOWTOs, and books, vendors that
sell & develop Linux, and finally those that create, maintain & improve
code everywhere, Thank you - I couldn't have done it without you and I look
forward to more of the journey.
I hope one day to be able to give something back. Maybe this is a start.
Eric Sisler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
