On 11/25/05, Danny Sauer <piclist@dannysauer.com> wrote: > > Right now, I'm contracting for Intel. I test and configure Linux > systems in a clustered environment, building the systems that > performance numbers are generated from. Those performance numbers > aren't just used internally, and we're not developing on Linux because > no one uses it - we have a market for Linux clusters. Before this, I > worked at another place as senior systems administrator, and we used > exclusively Linux servers with Windows and Mac workstations. At > another branch there were some Windows servers, though. In my 5 year > tenure there, we experienced absolutely 0 downtime due to Linux, > though we did have some hardware failures and power problems which > would've affected any system. The Windows guy had few problems, too, > but he had to spend more time tending to the systems than I did. > > Linux is more than capable of working well in corporate environments. > A good admin is required, though a good admin is *also* required for > any other system to be as stable. > So it comes down to the good admins. Since there are more Windows shop and therefore there may be more problems. If it is 50%/50% for Linux and Windows, then there may be similar problems with inadeqaute admins. > > And a Dell Windows computer is cheaper than a Dell Linux computer if > > you want the support. > > Of course, the time lost waiting for Dell support in either case costs > more than simply hiring a qualified sysadmin. I know a lot of systems > people, but I don't know any who have to call some PC support line. > Those support things - esp. in Dell's case - are only useful for home > users who don't know what they're doing. > I personally do not like Dell notebooks but I think their desktops are decent. Their support of the lousy notebooks are actually quite good. They replaced my failed harddisk within two days. The notebook Dell 600M I bought in US had this harddisk problem just three month after purchasing. Then it died after another 6 months when I returned to Singapore. Anyway after servicing, it is still alive now. > > Do not get me wrong. I like Linux and I like open source. However I > > do think that the free alternative is not that cheap after all in > > the coporate setup. > > Changing from anything to anything else typically costs money, and > that's often wasted money if the present setup does what is needed. > If someone's running a Windows farm and has competent admins, they > will obviously incur some initial costs in finding new people with > skills in a new system and in transition time. But that doesn't mean > that Windows is cheaper than something free - it just means that > change costs money. > The problem is that business Linux is not free at all. The more difficult task is to educate average Joe user to use Linux desktop and that is tough. Here a good admin does not really help too much. > Almost all of those TCO studies out there have a bias. For every > MS-funded study showing Windows to be cheaper there's another one that > shows Linux to be cheaper, etc. Personally, I've run both at > different times for different reasons. I've managed to do more for > less money with Linux, though. As far as I can tell, the only people > who disagree with that sentiment either 1) have not used both systems > or 2) didn't know what they were doing with one or the other ("unix is > hard" people or "Windows is stupid" people). > Very good point. Personally I do like to see Linux to be an viable alternative for Windows. I think it will be one day but not now. > > That's a result of poor user interface design. Lots of people think > that they can just "web enable" things without giving thought to UI. > It's my opnion that all CS students should have to take at least one > course on UI design / screen ergonomics / etc before being granted a > degree. Unfortunately, they aren't, and lots of web developers carry > on with bad habits and poor decisions because they either don't > understand who they're designing for or they don't know how people > will use their app. It's sad, really, because properly-done web > services can be quite nice to use. > > --Danny I think the Web are simply not ready yet for web service. I hope they solve the spam things before going to web service. I do not agree that the slowness of our web-based ERP system is caused by UI issues. The original UI is text based running on IBM 5250 terminal emulator. The interface sucks and we need to remember all commands. However it is very fast. The new interface (using Internet Explorer) is nice but it is much slower. It is just the network can not cope with the web-based system. Regards, Xiaofan -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist