All we have is time. When NT3.5 first came out, people had a good time laughing at it. See where is NT at today?
By the way, I successfully implemented Linux back-office servers in small offices. These small businesses will eventually grow and Linux will grow with them. One day, some of these companies will be medium to large sized and guess what, they will have Linux in them. -- Lyndon Tiu On Wednesday 13 November 2002 08:40 pm, Jared Still wrote: > You're looking at this from your own perspective. > > Try looking at it from your manager's perspective, or the > angle that the CFO may put on it. > > Like it or not, Windows runs a lot of enterprise software. Most > execs trust it. They may consider MS a necessary evil, but they > trust it. > > They may also trust linux to a point. We're an engineering company, > we have *lots* of linux. We love linux. > > But I don't see a lot of companies running the enterprise accounting > and manufacturing software on it. None in fact, that I'm aware of. > > A large company can afford pilots and studies to determine the reliability > and support of linux without running their most mission critical apps on > it. > > We can't. This is a small company, a few hundred employees, and an IT > staff of 25 for everything. That includes the managers. > > So, Linux is not an option for this system. > > Jared > > On Wednesday 13 November 2002 06:48, Lyndon Tiu wrote: > > You're right .. but when will it become ready? MS always said their NT3.5 > > is enterprise eady, they said NT4.0 is enterprise ready, W2K is > > enterprise ready, .Net is enterprise ready. It's all in the marketing. If > > enough people like me say Linux is ready, then it becomes ready. > > Readiness is relative. > > > > I'd say it's ready enough. > > > > Maybe not SAP specifically. > > > > But if you havn't heard, Oracle software runs on Linux fine with a lot of > > support available for it already today - Dell, RedHat, Oracle & IBM all > > support Linux. > > > > -- > > Lyndon Tiu > > > > On Wednesday 13 November 2002 05:39 am, Jared Still wrote: > > > Lyndon, > > > > > > I like linux. I've been using it for 10 years now. > > > > > > It still isn't ready to run my production SAP systems though. > > > > > > I don't mean that it's not capable of doing so, it's very capable. > > > > > > There is not the history of support and stability that is needed > > > to trust my enterprise data to it. My Oracle dev server? No > > > problem, I love it. > > > > > > Will I put my butt on the line for bleeding edge technology? > > > > > > No way. SAP runs our business, pure and simple. If it's down, > > > we are not selling product, we are not producing product. > > > > > > I'm not ready to trust linux that far yet. > > > > > > Jared > > > > > > On Monday 11 November 2002 19:34, Lyndon Tiu wrote: > > > > Seriously now. > > > > > > > > I know you are trying to evaluate Solaris and Windows, but ... > > > > > > > > Linux is the way to go. Sun's are expensive machines. > > > > > > > > NT/2K are cheap(er) but locks you into an expensive software upgrade > > > > cycle. > > > > > > > > Linux costs very little and runs on cheap hardware. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Lyndon Tiu > > > > > > > > On Monday 11 November 2002 06:58 pm, Stephen Lee wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > Now that that's out of the way, what I am trying to do is find > > > > > objective material comparing the use of MS Windows 2000 > > > > > Server on Intel HW to Solaris on Sun HW. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > My personal bias against Windows is based mostly on three things. > > > > > > > > > > 1. Incompatibility with everything else. Microsoft makes its > > > > > products as incompatible as it can get away with so that once you > > > > > start going down the Microsoft path, you become more and more > > > > > locked into that path. > > > > > > > > > > 2. It is a single-user operating system. Microsoft has done a > > > > > pretty good job of making it look otherwise by tacking on some > > > > > multi-user extensions; but it is, in fact, NOT a multi-user OS. > > > > > Just try creating a general user so that user can install, upgrade, > > > > > and maintain their application without having administrator > > > > > privilege. It ain't gonna happen. And that brings up the main > > > > > problem with this arrangement: Every user that must support an > > > > > application on the box must have administrator privilege. This, of > > > > > course, presents a completely insecure environment. > > > > > > > > > > 3. In its "normal" form, there is an amazing lack of the kind of > > > > > support and scripting utilities the are normal on Unix. True, if > > > > > one wants to spend the time, many of the utilities can be set up on > > > > > NT; but that involves additional setup and maintenance time -- > > > > > which your NT admins might not be inclined to do if the bureaucracy > > > > > of your organization requires that they do it. If your scripting > > > > > abilities are substantial, then you, no doubt, automate many things > > > > > with scripts. If you have built these scripts with a non-standard > > > > > environment, then you have built your house on shifting sand. (By > > > > > the way, this is why I do not fully support Linux.) > > > > > > > > > > I must agree that I do like the Dell Poweredge stuff. I was using > > > > > it years ago, and the value is certainly compelling. It's too bad > > > > > that Sun did the same thing with Solaris on Intel that IBM did to > > > > > OS/2 (got very stuck up about it and over-priced the crap out of > > > > > everything until it was too late). But the Sun hardware (and IBM > > > > > too) ain't all that shabby either. And my past experience -- when > > > > > I was a sys admin work -- with Sun customer support was very > > > > > positive. IBM .... eh, so-so ... maybe. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps another thing to consider: If you have ever tried to > > > > > upgrade the OS on a NT box supporting third-party applications, I > > > > > suspect you discovered that it can be an excrutiatingly painful > > > > > experience ... If you even succeeded at all. -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Lyndon Tiu INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
