> For the uninitiated, Network World magazine ran an article in the November > 9th edition titled, "Linux Cynics". Essentially, it's the same age-old > pissing match that pits a few enthusiasts (like Red Hat's Paul McNamara) > against hand-wringing sys admins and product managers for third-party apps > (Cliff Reeves of Lotus). McNamara: "We think this model [OSS] delivers > better technology." Reeves: "We're not willing to make a business > commitment to Linux yet because a lot of the information about it is > hype." > > Being an extreme Linux newbie, I can't exactly wax the virtues of Linux > over NT. I can't give empirical evidence of Linux being more robust or > failsafe or whatnot. Further, I don't have the stringent development > experience to argue intelligently over the benefits of the OSS model > (although I have read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"). > > MS products are my career cash cow right now. I'm a SQL Server DBA and > make a very comfortable living doing so. In all respects, I should have > the MS logo emblazoned on my chest and Gate's home telephone number on > speed dial. I should be poo-pooing all of you "geeks" that perpetually > tinker with your OS kernel and code a new driver when you buy a new DVD > player and can't watch "Twister" on your Linux box. I should hold the > Linux community in contempt, but I don't. I don't because I'm sick and > tired of Blue Screens. I'm pissed of having to down a server servicing > hundreds of users just to restart the MAPI spool (believe me, it was > stuck). The list goes on... > > I've began investigating Linux only after the piece of shit consulting > company I worked for wouldn't send me to Oracle training (you can't swing > a dead cat in this town without hitting an Oracle shop; SQL Server is > still in relative infancy). Many of the Oracle companies are running it > on some flavor of Unix. When I heard that Oracle was making a port to > Linux, I knew that I had the chance to move into the market I always > wanted with a double whammy: Oracle AND Unix-compatible skills. While > I'm on this journey of discovery, I'll set up my own web, mail and news > server to boot. > > One of the main criticism the article presented was the lack of concrete > technical support. It even went as far as quoting someone as, "No > business in this country is going to wait for 17-year-old beatnik to > answer its newsgroup post and fix its problem." Although I'm new to > Linux, I'm certainly not new to the IS industry. If you think that you > are getting a better "deal" by a company having a tech support line, > you're lost. I've been on both sides of that phone call, and let me tell > you: it means nothing. Great. Someone is holding your hand via a > support center 1,200 miles away. Chances are, they haven't the slightest > clue what is wrong either. Have you ever been on a WONDERFUL support > call? I doubt it. Most of the time, their tech support databases are > nothing better than what you would be able to cull from Dejanews. > Further, any real problem is going to be escalated to a senior techie or > maybe onto the development or QA group. By that time, it's been DAYS. > There's no guarantee that the problem is going to be resolved. Ever get > someone asking you to check the BIOS version you're running? An obvious > ploy to get you off the phone and out their hair for a half hour. > > Somehow, people have cultivated this idea that because a single company > (or entity) develops a product that they will be attentive to the user's > needs. When has MS ever really shown this kind of thoughtfulness? > Analysts have said time and time again that no other company in this > industry has been able to use their users as a test market....and it's > true. Bruce Pendergast, the author of "Windows Architecture I & II" has > stated numerous times that the 35+ million lines of kernel code that > constitute Windows hasn't (and won't be) changed. Further, there's only > so far you will be able to push that jalopy. The possibilities of any > versions past Windows 2000 are grim at best. > > I'm not necessarily buying into the conspiracy theory just yet, but I'm > hedging my bets just the same. > > Luke Schollmeyer
