On the server side, under ideal conditions, Linux could be a
viable alternative to other brands of server OSs for fileservers
and stuff. However I further argue below that Linux and Unix are
not the OSs of the future.
For the client workstation ease of use and penetration of
application software is the driver. Win9x and NT are the clear
winners here. Those client OSs will stay with us until another
supplier provides a viable alternative. I'm not holding my breath.
Back to servers. I realise that what I am going to say next could
be considered contraversial. But lets be realistic. Looking into
the next century neither Unix or Linux is suitable for the needs
of that century. Considerable time and training (as evidenced by
the number and variety of questions on this list) is needed to set
up and maintain a secure Unix/Linux server on a corporate site.
Growing pressure on limiting support costs, staff costs and plain
business needs for resilience will result in a demand for simple,
self installing and self-maintaining servers that require mimimum
training of staff, support and downtime. Clearly at the moment all
current OSs do not fit those requirements.
Kind Regards
Tony Wells
Phenomenal Books
"I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the
time to make it shorter" - Blaise Pascal.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
bookstuff: www.phenomenal-books.com
anyotherstuff: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Intnl tel/fax: +44 1524 845559
UK tel/fax: 01524845559
Mobile: (+44) (0) 370 963410
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
