Rick,
The whole point of my previous post was to question the TCO of a Linux
solution, not to say that Microsoft is any better or that Linux is any
worse...
True, MS Servers need to be patched from time to time - as do any other
server offerings. These days MS Servers can download and install their
own patches, with little admin intervention (I said "can" - I didn't say
"should"); nothing new there. I was writing self-updating shareware more
than 20 years ago. I personally have steered clear of IIS, opting instead
for other web server software, and recommend that my customers use
alternatives as well. Not having to deal with the issues involving IIS
and Microsoft's FTP and Exchange servers has saved me untold amounts of
time and money, even though we do use MS Server OSes.
As for my downtime: aside from upgrading the web server software, an hour
or two tops. Include the web server software upgrade - 8 hours at most.
My other servers - a couple of hours at most. Over 5 years. To borrow a
phrase from Ron Popeil, system administration should not be a "set it and
forget it" enterprise; regular monitoring and patch installation is a fact
of IT life. Ignoring recommended patches - whether from Redhat,
Microsoft, IBM, or whomever - will bite you in the CPU one day. My
concern is with _who_ will do the OS maintenance; if we have a
knowledgeable person on-staff who can handle it along with their other
duties, no problem. If we need to outsource that maintenance.... more TCO
to be factored in.
Never once has it been suggested that I "recompile the Windows OS" to get
maximum performance from my computer; many's the time I've read
"re-compile the kernel" in response to a question about Linux performance.
I read stories where someone has seen a performance increase after
replacing Windows with Linux, I personally have yet to see it. Anecdotally
(ie, with no benchmarks) my Dell Latitude is about half as speedy running
in Linux as it in Windows. To get the same performance from Linux, would
I need to get a faster computer? Something else to factor into the TCO.
You're implication about the size of our servers is spot on - we use
little boxes for little jobs, big iron for big jobs. All covered during
system analysis and requirements planning. It may be worth mentioning that
we're not a Microsoft-only shop; we make use of whatever hardware/software
makes sense for us, our customers, and the application at the time. I've
no doubt that Linux will one day be in that mix.
However hardened the OS may be, history has shown that Linux is not immune
to attack - nor is any other OS that we can mention. Those who think
otherwise are delusional at best. Clever hackers abound, and go after
whatever they can get their grimy packets into. Some OSes are more
"secure" than others. But if you get enough hackers going at an OS,
they'll find a way in. For me, and probably 90%+ of the admins out there,
it's far easier to recover from a security breech in a MS-based system (or
network) than a Linux-based one. Why? Because it's what we know - and
therefore is likely to be the least costly alternative. It would be
_very_ expensive for me to try and figure which of the Linux config files
_might_ be corrupted after an intrusion, and only slightly less expensive
for me to hire a Linux expert (such as yourself) to clean up the mess. The
Linux software may be "free", but the services certainly are not. From
$60 or so per hour for one-man shops to $185/hour or more for IBM Global
Services, the costs add up and should be factored into any decision
vis-a-vis platform dependence.
I did qualify the PID program with "if you qualify". Many are able to
qualify, but don't for whatever reason(s). For small shops, it can be
very tough to qualify for the MSDN (Microsoft Developer Network). An
alternative, but still restricted, is the MS Action Pack Subscription
($299 to $399), aimed mainly at IT developers or consultants who will sell
MS products, or solutions based on MS products (a custom Access database
app might qualify). If you're in the IT business, work with customers who
use MS products, and don't participate in this program - you're either
wasting money or using borrowed software.
True enough - customers still need to purchase their own copy of the
software. That software also needs to be factored into TCO considerations
as well. And as we all know, MS software is not cheap. Even
Windows-based shareware can be expensive. In Linux, I use OpenOffice,
Evolution, and various other "freeware". Upgrading those to take
advantage of new features is oft-times kludgy, requiring crossed-fingers
and upgrades to other packages, ad infinitum. The Linux-based office
suites are adequate for my needs, but anyone who considers themselves an
MS Office "power-user" will likely be sorely disappointed in the Linux
alternatives.
At one time we could boast that Linux could perform well on low-end
hardware but such is no longer the case. Linux Likes RAM! As does any
other OS out there.
I stand by my statement about viruses and worms - as Linux desktops become
more prevalent, so will the Linux-based malware. Why desktops? Because
that's what the "uninformed" (1) will be using and abusing; the same type
of problems we see on Windows desktops will be seen on Linux desktops.
-- Tom Hightower
(1) "uninformed" - those who don't know any better than to download or
install something they shouldn't. (Insert your favorite slam here).
Rick Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
08/20/2003 12:28 PM
Please respond to redhat-list
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 06:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -- who will maintain the OS and other various software updates?
Same could be asked of MS products. Case in point: in 2000 there were
over 50 IIS patches; since IIS has been the entry point of some of the
nastiest worms (remember the Code Red family? ) someone needs to sit on
top of an IIS server and check daily for patches/fixes, IMHO.
> -- I have a Windows NT Server which has been processing our HTTP, SMTP
and
> POP3 for more than 5 years. Total downtime is measured in hours, all of
> it in upgrading the web server software (not MS) and MS patches. We
don't
> use it for anything other that what I spec'ed it for - a server.
Hours can be a great deal of downtime. How many hours? In my last job
I had a multi-server web site (3 boxes spanned the period of the life
of the site). The servers ran RH Linux. The site ran for 2+ years
without even a minute of downtime. Patches were added without a need
for reboot. The first downtime we experienced was due to the
requirement of the colocation facility for us to move to another site.
After the move we had over a year without any downtime before I was laid
off.
> -- I have a Windows NT Server, used for user network authentication and
> print server. It's been in place for more than 5 years, less downtime
> than the web server. Again, it's used as intended and for nothing else.
Yawn! A whole box for that little work? I hope it is not much of a
box.
> The only time we've had trouble with any Windows box is because of lame
> users who install the latest worm or virus.
And the reason that virii/worms is so prevalent is .... time's up ... MS
has made almost 0 effort over the years to protect against such things.
They have actively encouraged the proliferation, IMO, by being so
nonchalant about the issue and shipping OS's with known multiple
vulnerabilities open by default. BG is making noises now about
'trust-worthy' computing, but it has been only a couple of years since
he publically stated that MS would not provide technological solutions
to the problem because it was a social issue and should be addressed
by society as such. Outlook and IE are nothing but virus propogators;
those who use them will get infected unless they do daily updates, and
then there is still a risk.
> Linux is less prone to that
> problem for now, but will not remain so as Linux desktops become more
> prevalent.
And they will maintain less prone since there is more protection in the
OS against the proliferation of such things.
> As for cost: did you (or the admin) consider Microsoft's Partner In
> Development program? It runs about US$1000/year, and gets you the
latest
> Windows Server software, workstation software (XP these days), Office
> software, etc. With licenses for multiple installs of the non-Server
> software. Not a bad way to go, if you qualify.
And the purposes and limitations of that program are .... to be used by
those developing for MS platforms. Not to be used for installing at
customer sites. Good for evaluating/testing in-house, but your
customers still need to pay the bill to Belmont.
- rick warner
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
