Re: Is Red Hat heading down the wrong road?

[ABrady <kcsmart kc rr com>]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 09:31:05 -0700 "Chuck" <redhat clinicomp com>
imparted to us:

Thanks for replying to me Chuck. But, I wasn't the one extolling the
virtues of any form of 'Doze. My repliy, to which you replied, is at the
bottom.
 
> We just recently had 2 linux systems with uptime > 500 days until a
> power
> grid upgrade put us w/o power for an entire weeekend. (It was a sad
> day in
> the NOC)
> 
> I believe every OS has its place, but the company I am at now is as
> close to
> a non-windows company as I have seen. We have to send all new
> non-technical
> employees through a one day seminar on how to function in our company
> because almost everything is Unix based and done through Exceed for
> the very
> few Windows PC's we have. The Sales and Marketing folks need Windows
> just to
> interface with the rest of the world. Linux support for Windows
> proprietary
> docuemnts/formats/etc.. has come a long way but is still not solid
> enough
> for the non-technical users.
> 
> <BULLSHIT FILTER>
> As for your W98 system, what the hell kind of applications are you
> using? I
> can't sit at a Win98 machine for any period of time and do some
> serious work
> without something going wrong. Not once ever. I think Win2K is stable
> enough
> to use in a work envrironment, but W98 is a joke. I will bet anyone
> that if
> you sit at a W98 machine for an 8 hour workday, switching constantly
> between
> apps like Netscape, Outlook, Excel, Word, JBuilder, and the various
> other
> window necessities, something will hang/crash/lock up. If you say
> otherwise,
> I simply do not believe you. I have been in this industry for 10 years
> and
> have yet to see otherwise with Microsoft's low-end products.
> </BULLSHITFILTER>
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ABrady" <kcsmart kc rr com>
> To: <redhat-list redhat com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 7:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Is Red Hat heading down the wrong road?
> 
> 
> > On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 08:31:22 -0600 Clint Tinsley
> <cttinsley qwest net>
> > imparted to us:
> > > Don't want to start a flame but here goes...
> > >
> > > </flameon>
> > >
> > > I really don't care for folks who flame Windows and then comment
> how
> > > reliable their version of Linux is in that it has been up since
> dawn
> > > of
> > > time.  I see just as many "crashes" in Linux as Windows where
> > > applications mysteriously quit working and have to be restarted or
> > > whatever and I have seen where one has had to force a Linux box
> down
> > > (Redhat included).
> > >
> > > My main "production" computer is a Windows98 SE machine because it
> is
> > > the one that works and runs all my software and I emphasize all. 
> It
> > > rarely crashes and this computer has been continuously upgraded
> since
> > > it's incarnation as a DOS/Windows 3.1 machine, ie, DOS/Windows
> > > 3.11->Windows95->Windows98->Windows98SE, never a nuke and pave for
> any
> > > reason including power outages, and started out life about 1995
> > > (verifiable by checking the file dates).  It has also been through
> > > serveral system board and hard drive upgrades over those 6+ years
> and
> > > currently is running on an Athlon 800 and a 40 gig drive.  Also, I
> > > have
> > > a life and I don't have to spend it fixing Linux but I do spend a
> lot
> > > of
> > > time learning how to fix Linux...
> > >
> > > Don't get me wrong, I use Linux and I even Like Ximian 1.4 on
> Redhat
> > > 7.1
> > > where it is running well (haven't crashed it ... yet).  At work,
> we
> > > run
> > > all our critical web services on RH Linux - Web, DNS, Qmail,
> Squid,
> > > NTP,
> > > LDAP, MySQL but we have watchdog scripts monitoring each service
> so as
> > > to automatically restart them when they fail, for whatever reason.
> > > Our
> > > 20,000+ user with over 7,000 Windows desktops run on a Novll
> network
> > > and
> > > those servers never go down except for extended power outages and
> then
> > > I
> > > don't have to worry about rebuilding them (nuke & pave) or having
> to
> > > run
> > > even vrepair. There are reports of Novell servers getting lost,
> walled
> > > in, running for over 8 years, and when finally something happens,
> they
> > > have to pull on the end of the wire to find where the server is.
> :-)
> > > We
> > > have maybe 4 Linux desktops on the network and I have 2 of them. 
> I
> > > have
> > > 3 desktop computers occuping my office desktop for administrative
> > > purposes at the office - Win2K, Windows 98SE and a Caldera Linux
> box.
> > >  I'll leave you to speculate which one I use the most.
> > >
> > > My final point is that beating up or complaining about Windows
> does
> > > not
> > > make Linux any better.
> > >
> > > </flameoff>
> >
> > No flame.
> >
> > With linux:
> >
> > 1. I haven't HAD to reboot when installing anything except when
> > installing a new kernel or new hardware. I work with mobile 'Doze-95
> at
> > work where we have to switch them out regularly due to various
> errors on
> > hard drives or in software. They use IP addresses for radio
> > transmissions to a mainframe. Something as simple as changing an IP
> > address requires a reboot.
> >
> > 2. While I've had crashes of various programs that needed
> restarting,
> > I've only had entire system crashes due to bad hardware (lost a
> memory
> > module, had a zip drive with the 'click-of-death'). I've had some
> > programs that required me to telnet in to kill. Never have figured
> out
> > quite how to do that with 'Doze.
> >
> > 3. I have, in this room at home, a linux box, a 'Doze95 box, an NT
> > server and a MAC. They give me the greatest headaches in the
> following
> > order: NT, 95, MAC, linux. I qualify the linux "headaches" by saying
> > that it is trying to sort out configuration and stupid entries
> placed in
> > config files by some idiot from time to time.
> >
> > 4. When I want to find an upgrade to a piece of software in linux
> > (including those that don't come default with redhat installs) I can
> > generally go to a web homepage, a search engine or a mass listing
> (ala
> > freshmeat) and find what I need in minutes. With the M$ products I
> spend
> > several hours combing through obscure search engine results before
> > finding what might finally be what I'm looking for (usually is,
> > sometimes isn't). This just to get a "SECURITY" patch. I generally
> will
> > find myself doing similar things within a few days when some script
> > kiddie that can barely comprehend the book he's reading that
> instructs
> > him on how to make a worm turns out a new toy that trashes a few
> hundred
> > thousand servers and starts attacking mine. In addition, with
> redhat, I
> > get notification (and do so with many other things I install
> > separately). With M$, I have to hear it word-of-mouth or read about
> the
> > new patch someplace on a newspage. Or pay them extra just to maybe
> > remember to tell me they have a new fix for an old bug. If I fail to
> > install the M$ patch, I'm at fault for not keeping up with the daily
> > security patches they have to release. They can't be at fault for
> > releasing buggy and easy to break software (and dare to call it
> > Professional). Nor can they be blamed for the fact I may not even
> know
> > they released a patch because they never tell anybody (except those
> > paying a fortune for the privilege of being told the server software
> is
> > broke again).
> >
> > 5. I have a life. I also have a hobby. If you want easy and not have
> to
> > worry about it, get M$ and AOL and move on. If you want to protect
> > yourself, M$ is not the way that will get you there. I like
> learning. I
> > also like the ability to know that someone has been trying to get my
> > personal infromation off of my PC or over my server, and that I had
> the
> > ability to stop them before they accomplished it. Linux gives me
> these.
> > I have yet to see the NT machine prove it can come even close.
> >

-- 
Make yourself at home. Clean my kitchen.