----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Laurence" <jameslaure...@hotmail.co.nz>
> Alas, you have both missed the point I was trying to make. > > If a broadcasting outfit is running perfectly happily and efficiently > and trouble-free on a Windows platform, and is able to be maintained > by capable staff who have only an elementary knowledge of Windows, > then why change to Linux? > > I also consider that you have overstated the Windows deficiencies and > understated the drawbacks associated with implementing a Linux-based > solution. I am familiar with both platforms and simply can't buy your > proposition that Windows "takes just as much technical competence as > running Linux does, if not more". Just not true in the numerous cases > I have witnessed. > > It is in my view also quite fallacious to assert that if there is no > such [Linux] person available to a broadcasting outfit, then "they > probably don't have a *truly competent* Windows Person available, > either". On what logic do you base that? 30 years of professional experience providing direct support to several hundred clients. The Unix boxes we touch a couple times a year. The Windows ones were what kept the lights on: they need constant attention, generally. > Regardless of the advantages of Linux from an IT guru's point-of-view, > there is absolutely no point in "either learning it [Linux] or finding > someone that does", if (a) the budget simply can't stretch for it, and > (b) things are already going along perfectly with a Windows platform. If you can find a Windows plant where "things are already going along perfectly", James, then my hat is off to you. In my experience, the only ones that come anywhere close to that description are, mirabile visu, the ones with professionally trained Windows talent. This "Windows runs better and is easy enough to use" fallacy people put forth seems to me to be willful blindness: people have simply been trained to be, in the punchline of perhaps my favorite joke, "fault-tolerant users". > Windows remains the preferred platform for a vast majority of non-IT > users around the globe, because (a) you don't have to have an > IT-proficient expert to run it, and (b) managers and non-IT personnel > can manage Windows without too much difficulty. And, if the outfit's > happy with that, why change? Change for change's sake makes no sense > to me. No one suggested "change for change's sake"; that's a strawman. We were all quite clear on the advantages we believed would be attendant in using Linux *for this specific application domain* -- switching over one's office PC's is *also* your strawman, sir. We didn't suggest that either. On-Air Playout is an *appliance* task; it really shouldn't matter a *damn* to the operators how it's getting done. And as for the engineers who have to work on it, well... > In the end, what actually matters is not the computer-platform at all > but the quality and consistency of the audio you put out which > listeners will judge the station on. In the end, what actually matters is *staying on the air, playing spots*. Anything that contributes to reducing the expense of doing that will make the bean-counters happy. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 _______________________________________________ Rivendell-dev mailing list Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
