Virgil wrote:
Someone emailed me with this diatribe. Can someone point to me that the
below statement is not true?
Thanks,
Hi Virgil,
Do you need links to actual research? I don't have it immediately
available, but I'm sure I could dig it up for you. Although Linux
cannot perform the duties of a Windows Active Directory (yet), the cost
and performance are extremely attractive to anyone who doesn't have a
limitless IT budget.
Windows->Windows has the advantage of being able to use Active
Directory, but the reality is that AD is very under-deployed. MS is
somewhat concerned about this lack of adoption and is actually
attempting to force deployment of AD with its new Win2K3 server.
Most existing Windows networks fall into the categories of 1.) already
have an NT Domain that works and have no need to screw it up, or 2.)
don't see the need to dive into such a huge undertaking that has little
perceived return. Maybe Linux replacing many NT Servers, but many
administrators are starting to see the value in supplementing NT boxes
with Linux+Samba boxes.
So what I'm getting at is that the only irreplaceable feature in a
Windows->Windows scenario is Active Directory, which is not even very
widely used outside of large corporate enterprise networks (and ask
those admins how they feel about AD).
Samba on Linux/UNIX on the other hand, can provide all of the benefits
of an NT Domain system for the cost of hardware and very few tech labor
hours, with the return of better performance and zero cost for client
access licenses. Samba is over 10 years old, and has backing by huge
corporations like IBM and HP -- not quite a "fly-by-night" operation.
Samba (or Linux for that matter) may not have quite as slick/polished of
a UI as Windows (not necessarily my opinion), but with less than a day's
work, one can have an NT Style Domain system complete with an LDAP
backend. Samba has also been shown multiple times to meet or surpass
the performance of NT4 and 2000 servers (especially under heavy load).
The person that mailed you clearly has no idea what they are talking
about. If windows is not being threatened by Linux, how would he
explain the MILLIONS of downloads of RedHat 9 in the first week alone --
i.e. downloads by paying subscribers. Millions of people were willing
to pay for an operating system that would be freely downloadable in one
week's time. Hmmm...
Nobody is claiming that Linux is overtaking MS, but the evidence that
Linux is gaining mass favor is overwhelming. If this yahoo doesn't
think it's true, he's quite simply ignoring reality and religiously in
favor of Microsoft at the expense of looking like a fool.
Kinda reminiscent of the Iraqi information minister... spooky!
Chris
You're going to have a tough time showing that Linux is actually either
taking away marketshare from current Windows-based server installations
(because obviously clients are most likely going to be Windows in a business
environment (again, for obvious reasons), and Windows Server and Client
provide an end-to-end solution which cannot be matched with a Linux server
and Windows clients) or taking away from future Windows marketshare.
_______________________________________________
LUAU mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://videl.ics.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/luau
