-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 To weigh in here with my experiences in both broadcast and more general IT work- you can _get away with_ Windows without a lot of technical knowledge. That's the whole mindset of Windows and the MS culture - you make products that are easy/simple to use at the expense of things like proper realtime operation or utterly rock-solid reliability. So no, to get _an equivalent quality of service_ from Windows boxes compared to Linux boxes takes a lot more technical expertise. I always like to look at sound desks as an example- Midas digital desks run Linux internally. It's an almost unmodified stock 2.6 kernel with patches for hard realtime support but nothing much else changed. DiGiCo and some other vendors run Windows Embedded to get the required reliability, and it bears almost no resemblance to Windows on any level. And even at that level, many people I know who run DiGiCos prefer to have a hot spare on hand if budget will allow. Linux is extremely versatile; Windows is not. That's where the ease of use comes from. Engineering is all about tradeoffs. At Insanity we ran 100% Windows when I first arrived. And you what? It was awful, broken the vast majority of the time, unstable the rest of the time, and a pain in the ass to administrate- and that was with the entire college IT department on hand, providing us with software support and so on. We now run 90% Linux (Windows desktops and playout still; judged too risky a migration to do given we've just been granted and are about to go live with a FM license which is a big deal and we can't be retraining presenters to a new playout system right now), and it's rock solid, stable as anything. I've not touched any of the Linux boxes for months. We can properly monitor them, I can easily and securely remote in to fix things if anything does go wrong, and we can build redundancy into boxes very easily (we have two encoder machines for internet playout, both of which will pick themselves up from pretty much any mishaps- same goes for our file servers, mail server, web server, and so on). We have no IT support from the college but we've got a constant pool of Linux talent around, being a university station. If it works, then sure, why break it? If there's problems, then fix them. I'm glad we transitioned (even if it wasn't complete- but I was in yesterday fixing the Windows parts _again_ and I suspect I'll be in again tomorrow fixing the Windows parts... again), and in time I'm sure it'll be a complete transition to replace the old Windows components. Quality and consistency of output and content is one important factor- but if your on-air content is 10% of the time spent with presenters apologizing for the fact that the playout system just did something very strange and that they weren't quite ready for their next link but here we are anyway ramble ramble ramble, as ours is from time to time, it's all for naught. Reliability is king, and Linux is the undisputed champion of reliability. Just my view on things, anyway. Cheers, James Harrison On 11/10/2011 05:21, James Laurence wrote: > Alas, you have both missed the point I was trying to make. > > If a broadcasting outfit is running perfectly happily and efficiently and trouble-free on a Windows platform, and is able to be maintained by capable staff who have only an elementary knowledge of Windows, then why change to Linux? > > I also consider that you have overstated the Windows deficiencies and understated the drawbacks associated with implementing a Linux-based solution. I am familiar with both platforms and simply can't buy your proposition that Windows "takes just as much technical competence as running Linux does, if not more". Just not true in the numerous cases I have witnessed. > > It is in my view also quite fallacious to assert that if there is no such [Linux] person available to a broadcasting outfit, then "they probably don't have a *truly competent* Windows Person available, either". On what logic do you base that? > > Regardless of the advantages of Linux from an IT guru's point-of-view, there is absolutely no point in "either learning it [Linux] or finding someone that does", if (a) the budget simply can't stretch for it, and (b) things are already going along perfectly with a Windows platform. > > Windows remains the preferred platform for a vast majority of non-IT users around the globe, because (a) you don't have to have an IT-proficient expert to run it, and (b) managers and non-IT personnel can manage Windows without too much difficulty. And, if the outfit's happy with that, why change? Change for change's sake makes no sense to me. > > In the end, what actually matters is not the computer-platform at all but the quality and consistency of the audio you put out which listeners will judge the station on. > > James L. > > > > > Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:42:35 -0400 > > From: j...@baylink.com > > To: rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org > > Subject: Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "David R. Wilson" <da...@wwns.com> > > > > > If you don't have the expertise for Linux I would suggest either > > > learning it or finding someone that does. It will save you time (uptime > > > that is) and will give someone time to get other tasks done. If you > > > have the budget to dedicate people full time to keeping Windows boxes up > > > for on the air servers, go right ahead. I don't mind, however I can't > > > find enough time available to waste mine doing such support. > > > > Well put, David. > > > > > On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 19:22 +1300, James Laurence wrote: > > > > > > Not all radio-stations have a Linux person at their disposal who can > > > > build, customise, maintain, and troubleshoot, a broadcasting > > > > automation solution based on Rivendell/Linux. What say the > > > > radio-station is in a relatively small locality where there is > simply > > > > no such person available or willing to become part of the equation? > > > > Well, if that's the case, then they probably don't have a *truly competent* > > Windows Person available, either. > > > > In my last position, I managed a refresh of our entire office PC fleet. We > > replaced them with surplused IBM ThinkCentre P4s. It took me *three weeks* to > > build, finalize and test our sysprep installation image. > > > > Deploying new machines took about 32 minutes from request to plug-in, and over > > the following 18 months (until I was laid off), we had *one* virus-type problem; > > Antivirus 2009 or the like. We pulled the box down; backed up the user data, > > reimaged, and had the seat back on line the same afternoon. > > > > It was, of course, a manager. > > > > The job was a call center; all 499 seats and all but 2 of our servers ran Linux > > of one flavor or another, and, module hardware failures and sloppy SQL queries, > > I didn't touch them much at all. > > > > You *can* run a reliable network with Windows machines, but it takes just as much > > technical competence as running Linux does, if not more. > > > > Cheers, > > -- jra > > -- > > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com > > Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 > > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII > > St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 > > _______________________________________________ > > Rivendell-dev mailing list > > Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org > > http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Rivendell-dev mailing list > Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org > http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk6T0HsACgkQmJV2s0zjsDgiaQCcCwENz17U5L1BgKgvF2cSMBkg 7YIAnignkLsX/69+L7HE6ypSx4Im6no5 =nCbA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________ Rivendell-dev mailing list Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
