The installation running on Windows in the top 40 market was a similar situation. Competency on Windows and Linux was not a problem. The Windows box typically had to be defragged and rebooted every 3 weeks or so to have any stability. That was a given (and tested many times) situation. The Linux audio servers were rebooted generally only due to a very infrequent power outage (several months between outages).
Due to not having to change the configuration terribly often, the Windows based software would have the support crew from the factory consulted when any significant changes were being made. As I mentioned in an earlier note, many programs were removed to reduce the probability of trouble. There were updates done every few months with some research done before anything was changed to see if the updates were relevant to these machines. All in all I would guess the Windows boxes generally took 10 times the effort to keep them stable, possibly more in relation to the other servers. If you have people available 24-7-365 to fix such problems and a good backup plan for an audio source (and your really good at fixing computer problems) your in good shape. Dave On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 09:03 -0400, Rob Landry wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, James Laurence wrote: > > > 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? > > Don't. If it works and everybody's happy, end of story. > > I have a client running [name of Windows-based automation system deleted]; > they have a lot of problems with it. The servers require frequent reboots; > strange, inexplicable glitches occasionally surface, causing a variety of > embarrassments on the air. And the system is so complicated that no one > can make any configuration changes without calling the factory. But most > of the time it works, and they are making money with it. Will I advise > them to change to another system? I will not. They are used to this one > with all its faults, and their AM is a news-talk station with a > bewildering array of programs and features from various networks, most of > them satellite-delivered and many of the features pre-recorded. > Re-inventing that in the context of a different system would cost a lot of > man-hours, and the expense just isn't justifiable. > > But if I were building that station from scratch, whould I use [name of > Windows-based automation system deleted]? No way. They've spent close to > $100,000 on it, money that could have been spent more profitably > elsewhere. I'd use Rivendell. > > > 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. > > In my experience, Windows-based radio automation systems (whis is, after > all, what we are talking about) require no less technical competence than > Rivendell. > > > 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. > > Windows is the preferred platform more or less by default, much as English > is the international language of business. That does not concern me; I am > in business to create solutions for my clients, and if non-Windows > solutions are less expensive to build than Windows-based solutions, at > least as reliable, and require less ongoing attention (alas for me, who > could use the extra income), why go with Windows? > > > Rob > _______________________________________________ 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
