Re: Sweet Success
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:01:24 -0400 "Reuben D. Budiardja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> insightfully noted: >On Friday 22 August 2003 03:17 pm, Cliff Wells wrote: > >> As an aside, I am a bit curious: if you are running, say Evolution >> under WindowMaker (with perhaps a WindowMaker-style theme to make it >> look pretty), do you *really* see any performance gain? > >In my experience, Yes. I run KMail, Mozilla, Konqueror all kind of KDE stuff, > >tried Evolution but don't use it regularly. I use FVWM. In my cases, running >it in FVWM is faster and snappier, *after* it has started. >What I mean it, for example like KMail, first time running it in FVWM, it's >probably as slow as loading it in KDE (or sometime a tad slower), since most >"KDE init stuff" is not yet initialized, but after it run, switching virtual >desktops, raising/lowering window, is definitely faster. Especially if you >run on "slow machine", it's more apparent. > >A friend of mine used to run KDE on Pentium II 300 Mhz 128 MB RAM. Running >openoffice, Kmail, Galeon (with some tabs) can something make the machine >like crawling, especially when lowering or raising windows. I switched her to > >FVWM (with FVWM-Themes), and the machine is really snappy right now (plus she > >can run more stuff). === Give ratpoison a try.. VEY small footprint and miserly on resource use, saving most of it for apps. Mike -- "The man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life" --Muhammad Ali -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:17:34PM -0700, Cliff Wells wrote: [...] > My concern is that people > will advocate Linux as having a faster desktop and then when people try > it (defaulting to GNOME, probably) they find this claim to seem false, > they will doubt other claims made by advocates (security, stability, > etc). I see your point. On the other hand, there's also folks have older machines lying around (which might not be able to run the latest MS offering anymore) whom they might want to use to try Linux and I find it important to make clear that *yes*, you *can* run Linux on those boxes, even with a GUI. Of course, it will have to be made clear, that they can't expect the same feature set. [...] > In short, compare "typical" configurations, but make people aware that > there are alternatives that can affect performance. That's fair enough. [...] > I don't disagree. I simply take the position that claiming XFCE is > faster than Windows is pointless Depends on what the person asking for the comparison wants. That's why it's important to try and find out what people are doing with their machines before advocating anything... > We may just have to disagree on this. I don't know anybody running > anything besides KDE/GNOME (mailing list denizens aside. I'm referring > to people I actually know). Most distros make these the default and I > expect most people new to Linux will encounter these first (and perhaps > exclusively). Unfortunately, IMO, yes. The defaults are the first thing I ditch... ...but that's me... ;-) Cheerio, Thomas -- ==> RH List Archive: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=redhat-list&r=1&w=2 <== - Thomas Ribbrockhttp://www.ribbrock.org "You have to live on the edge of reality - to make your dreams come true!" -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Friday 22 August 2003 03:17 pm, Cliff Wells wrote: > As an aside, I am a bit curious: if you are running, say Evolution > under WindowMaker (with perhaps a WindowMaker-style theme to make it > look pretty), do you *really* see any performance gain? In my experience, Yes. I run KMail, Mozilla, Konqueror all kind of KDE stuff, tried Evolution but don't use it regularly. I use FVWM. In my cases, running it in FVWM is faster and snappier, *after* it has started. What I mean it, for example like KMail, first time running it in FVWM, it's probably as slow as loading it in KDE (or sometime a tad slower), since most "KDE init stuff" is not yet initialized, but after it run, switching virtual desktops, raising/lowering window, is definitely faster. Especially if you run on "slow machine", it's more apparent. A friend of mine used to run KDE on Pentium II 300 Mhz 128 MB RAM. Running openoffice, Kmail, Galeon (with some tabs) can something make the machine like crawling, especially when lowering or raising windows. I switched her to FVWM (with FVWM-Themes), and the machine is really snappy right now (plus she can run more stuff). RDB -- Reuben D. Budiardja Department of Physics and Astronomy The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN - /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign against HTML \ / email and proprietary format X attachments. / \ - Have you been used by Microsoft today? Choose your life. Choose freedom. Choose LINUX. - -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 23:59, T. Ribbrock wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:46:32AM -0700, Cliff Wells wrote: > > On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 00:44, T. Ribbrock wrote: > > > I disagree. I still run Linux machines with GUI on 64MB and 48MB and > > > the only Windows that could match the performance on those machines is > > > Win95 and lower (even a fresh Win98 install started swapping wildly > > > rather soon on those boxes). Linux gives me the choice to use a lean > > > GUI that only provides the features I need. > > > > Yes, but you've also removed yourself from the mainstream Linux destop. > > While choice is certainly an important aspect of Linux, it's also a bit > > misleading to compare something that most users will never see with > > Windows. > > Quite the contrary. It is misleading *not* to mention this option, as > Linux clearly is superiour to Windows in this regard. People cannot > decide to use this option if they don't know about it. I agree that the fact that Linux actually has options is an important aspect that people should be aware of. However the fact that alternate window managers and desktops remain marginalized cannot be disregarded either. The simple fact is that most people claim to want options but then use what's in the mainstream anyway. My concern is that people will advocate Linux as having a faster desktop and then when people try it (defaulting to GNOME, probably) they find this claim to seem false, they will doubt other claims made by advocates (security, stability, etc). In short, when comparing Linux and Windows, I feel it's best to stick to the typical installation. Otherwise we can also toss in my home desktop which at the moment is running kernel 2.6.0-pre2, GNOME 2.3 and most of the rawhide repository. It isn't too stable . If we start tossing "out of mainstream" configurations into the mix then I suppose we can call Linux less stable than Windows as well. In short, compare "typical" configurations, but make people aware that there are alternatives that can affect performance. > > If we're going to talk GUI's on Linux we should stick with > > GNOME and KDE for the sake of comparison. The people who know how to > > install alternate desktops aren't the people interested in comparisons: > > they already know. > > Again, I strongly disagree. It's vital to mention this to the ordinary > user as well, as it is an important advantage over Windows. I don't disagree. I simply take the position that claiming XFCE is faster than Windows is pointless > [...] > > > IMO, if you want the same, bloated GUI feature set as you > > > have in Windows, > > > > And this is indeed what your average user (especially those coming from > > Windows) wants. > > Not true. I've met Windows user (among them my wife), who were *quite* > happy to have a lean GUI like e.g. Window Maker and *preferred* them to > the bloated GUIs, despite the (short) learning curve at the beginning. > They just didn't know it was possible before that. All the more reason to > make them aware of this possibility. We may just have to disagree on this. I don't know anybody running anything besides KDE/GNOME (mailing list denizens aside. I'm referring to people I actually know). Most distros make these the default and I expect most people new to Linux will encounter these first (and perhaps exclusively). As an aside, I am a bit curious: if you are running, say Evolution under WindowMaker (with perhaps a WindowMaker-style theme to make it look pretty), do you *really* see any performance gain? Regards, -- Cliff Wells, Software Engineer Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net) (503) 978-6726 (800) 735-0555 -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
At 8/21/2003 12:22 -0400, you wrote: For the love of God, AragonX, you are going to end up in a mailfilter soon if you leave 250-300 lines of old messages in your posts. Many people, out of the thousands on this list, still pay for their Internet access by the minute, and it is grossly disrespectful and inconsiderate not to semi-reasonably trim your posts. Go to the end of your message, hit Shift-Control-End to select all the rest, then touch Delete. Four keystrokes total, 30KB of text saved. -- Rodolfo J. Paiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
At 8/21/2003 08:43 -0400, you wrote: >> It's for wise people like you to evaluate these facts. > > It's wise for you to practice healthy advocacy. No, he's right. It's wise for people like you to evaluate these facts. This is out of context; the "practice healthy advocacy" comment was in relation to some of the other arguments presented, and mostly to the _way_ they were presented. While his evaluation of the facts may or may not be correct, he has certainly done so. Do not mix the two. -- Rodolfo J. Paiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
Hi Aragon: For whatever reason, I'm just now receiving your posts from Wednesday. Normally I'd file them away, considering the age of the thread, but I feel your comments dictate a response. > He did not say that it MS Windows could not do such things. He said it > wasn't on par with Linux. Perhaps you need to read posts a little more > closely before you start trying to tear them appart. I was simply trying to provide a balanced tone to the conversation. This person was laying a "Linux rulez" slant to the thread, and that's not an appropriate manner with which to spread Linux advocacy. Note that I'm a Linux Engineer with an RHCE. My livelihood depends on Linux. I'm not about to go badmouthing it, but I'd like folks to realize that every OS has it's place (just not necessarily in MY office). ;-) > MS Windows in it's current form can NEVER be as secure as Linux. Holes > will remain hidden in the source for only a few to know about. Then you > have to pray that Microsoft gets around to patching them before they > become an issue. I agree wholeheartedly. This is something I preach on a daily basis. > You are forgetting one very important point. Only a fool installs > programs that he doesn't need. So you're suggesting that everyone who installs Linux is an expert administrator? How many Linux newbies do you know that choose "custom" install, know all the 3rd party packages, and install a firewall in front of their Linux system? I'll let you chew on that one for a bit. > If you only install the tools that you need for your machine to do it's > job, most of the security updates will not apply to you. Eight of the last > ten security patches for Redhat 9 did not apply to me because I did not > have those packages installed. That leaves the SSH and unzip patches. The > SSH patch really wasn't much for me to worry about. See above. > No, he's right. It's wise for people like you to evaluate these facts. I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion. I can only assume you're a fanboy yourself, although I hate to stereotype. I "evaluate the facts" on a daily basis. It's my job. It's also my job to provide clients with the right tool for the right job. More often than not, it's Linux/BSD. Regardless, mindless "fanboy-isms" play no part in serious advocacy. I suggest you check this out: http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Advocacy.html -- Jason Dixon, RHCE DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
>> Another great difference and advantage that Linux box can have over >> MS Products are flexibility, stability, and SECURITY (among >> others) that MS cannot meet at par with Linux. > > Not to defend Microsoft products, but Windows *can* be flexible (sorta), > *can* be stable (at times), and *can* be secure. Just like a Linux box, > this also requires a qualified Systems Administrator who practices sound > security and patching. He did not say that it MS Windows could not do such things. He said it wasn't on par with Linux. Perhaps you need to read posts a little more closely before you start trying to tear them appart. MS Windows in it's current form can NEVER be as secure as Linux. Holes will remain hidden in the source for only a few to know about. Then you have to pray that Microsoft gets around to patching them before they become an issue. >> How many times in a year that you need to patch your MS Boxes with >> Bill-provided patch upgrades so that even your most latest Win2K >> would not be exploited by worms? > > Actually, I've been rather embarrassed at the volume of errata that Red > Hat has released over the last couple of years. Is this a bad thing? > Only if the administrator hasn't maintained the system properly. The > one thing that folks... the ones who argue that [Red Hat] Linux has as > many security holes as Windows... forget is that Linux is a distribution > containing a LOT of 3rd party software. Windows just can't compare. If > you were to compare the errata releases for the Linux kernel and GNU > utilities to Windows patches, I guarantee you they'd pale in > comparison. So... you're both right. ;-) You are forgetting one very important point. Only a fool installs programs that he doesn't need. If you only install the tools that you need for your machine to do it's job, most of the security updates will not apply to you. Eight of the last ten security patches for Redhat 9 did not apply to me because I did not have those packages installed. That leaves the SSH and unzip patches. The SSH patch really wasn't much for me to worry about. >> It's for wise people like you to evaluate these facts. > > It's wise for you to practice healthy advocacy. No, he's right. It's wise for people like you to evaluate these facts. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
way big, they send it on CD (which I prefer anyway). I review the > documentation, and then decide whether or not to install the PTF. > > -- Tom > > > > > > > "Eduardo A. dela Rosa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 08/20/2003 07:38 PM > Please respond to redhat-list > > > To: RedHat List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: > Subject:Re: Sweet Success > > > Dear Tom, > > A simple response: > > "Maintenance, training, and upgrades", needless to say, are factors > both present whether you've got Linux box or MS Products. Got the > picture? Nope? It's the CO$T of Ownership having MS Products that > counts. > > Another great difference and advantage that Linux box can have over > MS Products are flexibility, stability, and SECURITY (among > others) that MS cannot meet at par with Linux. > > How many times in a year that you need to patch your MS Boxes with > Bill-provided patch upgrades so that even your most latest Win2K > would not be exploited by worms? > > It's for wise people like you to evaluate these facts. > > Cheers! > > > On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 21:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Let me say upfront that I like Linux in general, and RedHat in > particular. >> And (heresy!) I like MS products. >> >> 2 questions: >> -- what about the architectural/accounting package? >> -- who will maintain the OS and other various software updates? >> >> As far as dependability - when properly configured and used as intended, >> MS Servers are _very_ reliable. Cases in point: >> >> -- 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. >> >> -- 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. >> >> -- I have another WinNT Server, used as the Backup PDC, as the system >> console to our iSeries, and as an FTP server. Similar downtime as our >> other servers. >> >> The only time we've had trouble with any Windows box is because of lame >> users who install the latest worm or virus. Linux is less prone to that >> problem for now, but will not remain so as Linux desktops become more >> prevalent. And unmaintained Linux servers have a big ol' target on > them, >> which will only get bigger over time. >> >> 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. >> >> Maintenance, training and upgrades: these are some of the "hidden costs" >> that the Linux community is too often mum about - and some that you and >> the admin should have already discussed... >> >> >> Tom Hightower >> Solutions, Inc >> http://www.simas.com >> >> >> >> >> >> Stephen Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> 08/20/2003 01:49 AM >> Please respond to redhat-list >> >> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> cc: >> Subject:Sweet Success >> >> >> I just want to relate the happiness I have over the successful >> installation of yet another RedHat server for a small business customer >> of mine; >> >> They were in need of a low-cost, dependable server machine to be used as >> a file server and a printer server - a machine on which they could load >> a high-end architectural/accounting package; originally they were faced >> with spending upwards of $6000 (for a MS type box, of course); my total >> "drop in" cost for the box ended up being $2200 - loaded with RH9 + >> updates, Samba, MySQL, using SENDMAIL/FETCHMAIL/PROCMAIL + SpamAssassin, >> F-Prot and ClamAV - as well as being the gateway for an 802.11b 2.4ghz >> network in our area. Actual software load and configuration was one >> evening here at home - about 2 hours total; drop in on site with client >> machine configurations was one day. Done deal.
Re: Sweet Success
Believe it or not, I and Linux got the rap for that bad RAM. That customer still talks about that crash. lol. Still a good customer. I have gotten word-of-mouth business but not nearly enough. I must be doing something wrong :/ > For me, in a town as small as this - talk goes far. Reputation sells > more than biz cards or advertisements do. I've not really had to do much > advertising at all since I moved to this country - mostly because the > first few jobs I did no one else around town could do - so that started > the ball rolling. Clients/customers that meet me on the street generally > don't have much computer stuff to talk about - and never a whinge or a > whine; that helps. As with another server I stuck in place last year, I > didn't get much out of doing maint. on the box, but the business owners > ranted and raved over their server to their mates - more biz came. I've > been asked by some local companies that do computer tech support about > either unix or linux stuff - because they don't have the skillset to > deal with it - so it gets thrown at me. Two local ISP's have linux boxes > that they really don't understand - so when upgrade time came, I was > there to furnish hardware and skills. I sell alot of computers - > workstations - based solely on prior customers spreading the word. > > In many ways, having something so dependable does put a dent in "repeat" > work - in a Microsoft kinda way - but I don't mind having good karma and > a good reputation and new business. It allows me the freedom of social > movement around town as well - no one's got a "bad word" on me or bad > feelings on me - so wherever I go, I get good feelings and great > welcomes. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:46:32AM -0700, Cliff Wells wrote: > On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 00:44, T. Ribbrock wrote: > > I disagree. I still run Linux machines with GUI on 64MB and 48MB and > > the only Windows that could match the performance on those machines is > > Win95 and lower (even a fresh Win98 install started swapping wildly > > rather soon on those boxes). Linux gives me the choice to use a lean > > GUI that only provides the features I need. > > Yes, but you've also removed yourself from the mainstream Linux destop. > While choice is certainly an important aspect of Linux, it's also a bit > misleading to compare something that most users will never see with > Windows. Quite the contrary. It is misleading *not* to mention this option, as Linux clearly is superiour to Windows in this regard. People cannot decide to use this option if they don't know about it. > If we're going to talk GUI's on Linux we should stick with > GNOME and KDE for the sake of comparison. The people who know how to > install alternate desktops aren't the people interested in comparisons: > they already know. Again, I strongly disagree. It's vital to mention this to the ordinary user as well, as it is an important advantage over Windows. [...] > > IMO, if you want the same, bloated GUI feature set as you > > have in Windows, > > And this is indeed what your average user (especially those coming from > Windows) wants. Not true. I've met Windows user (among them my wife), who were *quite* happy to have a lean GUI like e.g. Window Maker and *preferred* them to the bloated GUIs, despite the (short) learning curve at the beginning. They just didn't know it was possible before that. All the more reason to make them aware of this possibility. Cheerio, Thomas -- ==> RH List Archive: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=redhat-list&r=1&w=2 <== - Thomas Ribbrockhttp://www.ribbrock.org "You have to live on the edge of reality - to make your dreams come true!" -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
Bret Hughes staggered into view and mumbled: > I could have sworn I got two today that were > not flagged by mailscanner and look legit. Who knows? A rather interesting thing about these viruses is that they all seem to have a header that says X-Mailscanner: Found to be clean I suspect this is just another attemp to make it look real even though it's a virus. The really bad thing is that it is really hard, once you know this header is there and it is faked, to actually see this or any other header in messages when viewing them with MS outlook related products. The sad thing is that some unsuspecting Outlook user may actually think this is a real "returned mail failed delivery" message and may actually open the attachment to get details and fry his/her computer or network. I can't believe how absolutely real these messages look accept, of course, for the X-Mailscanner header, which I had seen before in a file that was reported later to have contained a virus. Wow! I'm just glad I wasn't using Outlook/Outlook Express to view those messages. (Or Windows for that matter.) Lorenzo Prince happy Shrike user ;) -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
At 8/21/2003 14:24 -0500, you wrote: See, a good example of how an OS migration should be done in an organization where it makes sense - and where it may actually save money over a 5-year span. Thank you! -- Rodolfo J. Paiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See, a good example of how an OS migration should be done in an organization where it makes sense - and where it may actually save money over a 5-year span. Thanks! Tom Hightower Solutions, Inc http://www.simas.com Tom, please do not top-post responses. Bottom post seems to be most accepted, followed by in-thread posting (which I personally like). It is very hard to read. Regards, Ed. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
Bret Hughes wrote: PS what is the deal with the SO.Big or whatever I have never received over 2 or 3 of these in a single day and today fprot has found over 25! Sobig.F is a variant of the sobig virus which uses a multi-threaded smtp engine. Instead of spreading itself one message at a time to addresses in your address book/mailboxes, it delivers messages in parallel. Since an SMTP conversation usually has a lot of dead time, this vastly increases the number of messages sent out by the virus. It's slamming mail servers all over pretty damn hard. From my own mail systems: http://phantom.dragonsdawn.net/~gordon/sobig.f.outbreak/ We're seeing upwards of 1000 connections *per minute*, most of which are either the virus, or a mail server on the internet informing us that its found a virus in a message with one of our return addresses. There was a big dip this morning, and we believe that this corresponds with several major ISP's going offline. I'm told that Qwest shut their mail systems *off* last night, and my own Comcast cable connection was down this morning. Their support told me that their whole network was offline. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
See, a good example of how an OS migration should be done in an organization where it makes sense - and where it may actually save money over a 5-year span. Thanks! Tom Hightower Solutions, Inc http://www.simas.com "Rodolfo J. Paiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/21/2003 11:58 AM Please respond to redhat-list To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Re: Sweet Success We are following this sequence, for example: (1) Move all network servers (dhcp/dns/ftp/http...), file/print service, and firewalls to Linux. (2) Move all 25 users from MS Office to Sun StarOffice 6.1 when it becomes available. (3) After #1 and #2 are complete, begin a pilot deployment of Linux on the desktop for a small group (say, the sales department). -- Rodolfo J. Paiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
True - maybe that's part of the reason that I'm so fond of green-screen
dumb terminals. There isn't much to those things for users to mess with.
Tom Hightower
Solutions, Inc
http://www.simas.com
Rick Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
08/21/2003 12:21 PM
Please respond to redhat-list
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: Sweet Success
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 08:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From an admin point
> of view, I want a box out there that my users can't change. When they
If they have console access, and there is any media access, there is no
way to prevent them from making changes. True of any OS. Someone will
change something at some time. Plan on it.
- rick
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
I normally do trim posts to remove parts that irrelevent to my reply. I'm
embarrassed that I did not in my earlier posting.
Tom Hightower
Solutions, Inc
http://www.simas.com
"Rodolfo J. Paiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
08/21/2003 11:58 AM
Please respond to redhat-list
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: Sweet Success
Cheers,
P.S. Tom, you make good arguments although I disagree. But kindly trim
your
posts, would you? Quoting entire other messages and multiple sigs clogs
everyone's bandwidth (and "everyone" is several thousand people here).
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 13:21, Rick Warner wrote: > On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 08:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > From an admin point > > of view, I want a box out there that my users can't change. When they > > make a change and it screws up the computer, it costs my company money for > > me to fix it (whether I fix it myself, or hire someone else to do it for > > me). Some would fire the user, but guess what - it costs money to replace > > them, too.(2) > > > > If they have console access, and there is any media access, there is no > way to prevent them from making changes. True of any OS. Someone will > change something at some time. Plan on it. > > - rick They're going to screw it up, if they can. "Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool" Best bet, and cheap, Grab Norton Ghost, or something like it, make an image of the machine as you want it. If they truly foul it up. Insert boot disk, and copy image from network. You get a new machine in about 10 minutes. -- Michael Gargiullo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Warp Drive Networks -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 00:44, T. Ribbrock wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 03:41:42PM -0700, Cliff Wells wrote: > [...] > > > 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. > > > > Sort of true. For a desktop, I think Linux is a bit hungrier than > > Windows. > [...] > > I disagree. I still run Linux machines with GUI on 64MB and 48MB and > the only Windows that could match the performance on those machines is > Win95 and lower (even a fresh Win98 install started swapping wildly > rather soon on those boxes). Linux gives me the choice to use a lean > GUI that only provides the features I need. Yes, but you've also removed yourself from the mainstream Linux destop. While choice is certainly an important aspect of Linux, it's also a bit misleading to compare something that most users will never see with Windows. If we're going to talk GUI's on Linux we should stick with GNOME and KDE for the sake of comparison. The people who know how to install alternate desktops aren't the people interested in comparisons: they already know. > Windows does not give me > that option and hence forces me to use bigger hardware for a desktop > machine. IMO, if you want the same, bloated GUI feature set as you > have in Windows, And this is indeed what your average user (especially those coming from Windows) wants. Regards, -- Cliff Wells, Software Engineer Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net) (503) 978-6726 (800) 735-0555 -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 08:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From an admin point > of view, I want a box out there that my users can't change. When they > make a change and it screws up the computer, it costs my company money for > me to fix it (whether I fix it myself, or hire someone else to do it for > me). Some would fire the user, but guess what - it costs money to replace > them, too.(2) > If they have console access, and there is any media access, there is no way to prevent them from making changes. True of any OS. Someone will change something at some time. Plan on it. - rick -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
At 8/21/2003 10:19 -0500, you wrote: Allow me to summarize the whole point of all my posts on this matter: While it may well be initially less expensive to install a Linux-based computer than a Windows-based computer, there are hidden costs associated with that Linux system which many adherents tend to gloss over (if they ever mention them at all). Those hidden costs need to be evaluated BEFORE the computer is installed. In a Windows-centric enterprise where there is insufficient Linux-knowledgeable resource, it makes little economic sense to do that. The same holds true in a Linux-centric enterprise; it makes little economic sense to start installing Windows-based computers if there is insufficient internal resource to properly manage them (or the willingness to acquire the necessary resources). Agreed. However, I'll add the following: a Windows-centric organization such as you describe that is interested in reducing its long-term TCO _will_ benefit from investing the time and resources necessary to migrate some or all of its IT operations to Linux (or simply away from MS in some cases). We are following this sequence, for example: (1) Move all network servers (dhcp/dns/ftp/http...), file/print service, and firewalls to Linux. Down to three boxes (one firewall, one network services, one file/print services and intranet) from earlier seven, down to one admin from two. Projected TCO reduction in two-year period: $55,000. Additional costs likely: none (the one admin is Linux-capable, obviously). (2) Move all 25 users from MS Office to Sun StarOffice 6.1 when it becomes available. Functionality loss expected: none. License cost savings over two years: almost $11,000. Additional costs expected: around $2,000 in reduced productivity as users go through the learning curve and are taught (or fumble through) how to do their jobs. (3) After #1 and #2 are complete, begin a pilot deployment of Linux on the desktop for a small group (say, the sales department). We estimate that this will not save us any money at all (indeed, as you say, it will cost money), but we will invest in acquiring the Linux knowledge and resources required to then roll out Linux to all users. When we do roll out to all users, we expect to save significant sums on OS purchase and maintenance, security-related incidents, and many other areas. If you know Windows, then of course it's more expensive to start learning Linux and vice versa. But I believe that if you knew nothing at all, then it would be cheaper to start on Linux right from the start; and I also believe that if you are willing to invest in the learning curve and don't expect something for nothing, then you will also find it cheaper to migrate (slowly) from Windows to Linux. Cheers, P.S. Tom, you make good arguments although I disagree. But kindly trim your posts, would you? Quoting entire other messages and multiple sigs clogs everyone's bandwidth (and "everyone" is several thousand people here). -- Rodolfo J. Paiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
Not to be flippant, but isn't it a shame that some consultants would
recommend a solution which is of more benefit to themselves than to their
customer? As for me, I wasn't comfortable making any sort of Linux
recommendation (pro or con) until I actually tried it out, though many
asked. So, I've downloaded various distros and tried them out. From my
customers' perspective, Linux is _almost_ there as a desktop. Most of my
customers are too small to worry about the server side of things
(peer-to-peer networks, for the most part), and use their desktops mostly
as word processors, internet portals, or gateways to other systems. Some
have specialized applications that they would _never_ want to part with,
or it would exorbitantly expensive to re-write the app for a Linux
environment.
The last part of your post makes perfect sense - the more people "out
there" that have experience with Linux, the less expensive it is to train
them. The more Linux consultants that are available, the less expensive
they become (in general) as resources in the management mix. Result: a
lowering of Linux TCO.
Tom Hightower
Solutions, Inc
http://www.simas.com
Sean Estabrooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
08/21/2003 11:11 AM
Please respond to redhat-list
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: Sweet Success
>
> While it may well be initially less expensive to install a Linux-based
> computer than a Windows-based computer, there are hidden costs
associated
> with that Linux system which many adherents tend to gloss over (if they
> ever mention them at all). Those hidden costs need to be evaluated
BEFORE
> the computer is installed. In a Windows-centric enterprise where there
is
> insufficient Linux-knowledgeable resource, it makes little economic
sense
> to do that. The same holds true in a Linux-centric enterprise; it
makes
> little economic sense to start installing Windows-based computers if
there
> is insufficient internal resource to properly manage them (or the
> willingness to acquire the necessary resources).
>
>
Tom,
In my experience the TCO argument you've articulated is used mostly as
FUD by people with a vested interest in the status quo. I've seen
vendor after vendor try to keep Linux competition out of larger
enterprises with these arguments. I've yet to see _any_ case where
a Linux solution had _significant_ extra operational costs.
While there is some basis for these well known arguments their
applicability is surly diminishing as Linux becomes more mainstream.
Regards,
Sean
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
> > While it may well be initially less expensive to install a Linux-based > computer than a Windows-based computer, there are hidden costs associated > with that Linux system which many adherents tend to gloss over (if they > ever mention them at all). Those hidden costs need to be evaluated BEFORE > the computer is installed. In a Windows-centric enterprise where there is > insufficient Linux-knowledgeable resource, it makes little economic sense > to do that. The same holds true in a Linux-centric enterprise; it makes > little economic sense to start installing Windows-based computers if there > is insufficient internal resource to properly manage them (or the > willingness to acquire the necessary resources). > > Tom, In my experience the TCO argument you've articulated is used mostly as FUD by people with a vested interest in the status quo. I've seen vendor after vendor try to keep Linux competition out of larger enterprises with these arguments. I've yet to see _any_ case where a Linux solution had _significant_ extra operational costs. While there is some basis for these well known arguments their applicability is surly diminishing as Linux becomes more mainstream. Regards, Sean -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
Apparently I'm not doing very well at explaining that there's more to TCO than the face value of the desktop products. Let's continue to assume that I prefer Windows to anything else (1): If : -- you work in a Windows-centric organization, and -- your skill set is Windows-centric, and -- the skill set of your internal resource pool is Window-centric Then: -- it will likely cost your organization MORE to move an alternative OS. You're right - maintenance, training and upgrades are requirements of any OS and each carries a price tag. If they're considering a change to another OS a sys admin must determine whether those associated costs are justifiable and reasonable, given the pool of resources that they can draw upon. Flexibility can be good thing, or it can be a bad thing, depending on the situation. From a geek point of view, I don't mind getting in and tinkering with internals, just to see what happens. From an admin point of view, I want a box out there that my users can't change. When they make a change and it screws up the computer, it costs my company money for me to fix it (whether I fix it myself, or hire someone else to do it for me). Some would fire the user, but guess what - it costs money to replace them, too.(2) Stability - goes without saying. Security - absolutely. If that is the admin's number one question, then neither Linux (today) nor Windows may be the answer. A better alternative for them may be the iSeries which has had object level security for years, tied in with incremental security levels, at the OS level (maybe at the microcode level, I'm not sure). It all depends on the resource available, and whether the admin can justify the associated costs. Patches - I don't how many I've installed for any of my systems. A LOT. I check for them in all my OS environments regularly (Windows, Linux, and iSeries). In Windows, I run the Windows Update daily. In Linux, I run 'up2date' and Red Carpet daily. In iSeries, I order the latest cume PTF quarterly if it includes patches for the software on my system (it almost always does) (3). Allow me to summarize the whole point of all my posts on this matter: While it may well be initially less expensive to install a Linux-based computer than a Windows-based computer, there are hidden costs associated with that Linux system which many adherents tend to gloss over (if they ever mention them at all). Those hidden costs need to be evaluated BEFORE the computer is installed. In a Windows-centric enterprise where there is insufficient Linux-knowledgeable resource, it makes little economic sense to do that. The same holds true in a Linux-centric enterprise; it makes little economic sense to start installing Windows-based computers if there is insufficient internal resource to properly manage them (or the willingness to acquire the necessary resources). Tom Hightower Solutions, Inc http://www.simas.com (1) Not true. Personally, I think that IBM's iSeries line is hands-down the best server system on the planet. But that's a topic for another mailing list, unless we choose to discuss how it can run multiple copies of Linux simultaneously, along with Windows Server, AIX, and OS/400. (2) For users who roam where they shouldn't - I have some really scary "You deleted the OS! Press enter to reload from Backup" screens that I can run in their login script. They only have to see those bad boys once to get the idea. (3) Actually, I have a scheduled job that orders it for me. If the patch is way big, they send it on CD (which I prefer anyway). I review the documentation, and then decide whether or not to install the PTF. -- Tom "Eduardo A. dela Rosa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/20/2003 07:38 PM Please respond to redhat-list To: RedHat List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: Subject:Re: Sweet Success Dear Tom, A simple response: "Maintenance, training, and upgrades", needless to say, are factors both present whether you've got Linux box or MS Products. Got the picture? Nope? It's the CO$T of Ownership having MS Products that counts. Another great difference and advantage that Linux box can have over MS Products are flexibility, stability, and SECURITY (among others) that MS cannot meet at par with Linux. How many times in a year that you need to patch your MS Boxes with Bill-provided patch upgrades so that even your most latest Win2K would not be exploited by worms? It's for wise people like you to evaluate these facts. Cheers! On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 21:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Let me say upfront that I like Linux in general, and RedHat in particular. > And (heresy!) I like MS products. > > 2 questions: > -- what about the architectural/accounting package? > --
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 03:41:42PM -0700, Cliff Wells wrote: [...] > > 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. > > Sort of true. For a desktop, I think Linux is a bit hungrier than > Windows. [...] I disagree. I still run Linux machines with GUI on 64MB and 48MB and the only Windows that could match the performance on those machines is Win95 and lower (even a fresh Win98 install started swapping wildly rather soon on those boxes). Linux gives me the choice to use a lean GUI that only provides the features I need. Windows does not give me that option and hence forces me to use bigger hardware for a desktop machine. IMO, if you want the same, bloated GUI feature set as you have in Windows, then yes, you might end up with higher memory use than Windows, as you have to use the likes of GNOME or KDE. On the other hand, if you need less options from a GUI, Linux (or in fact *any* *nix) gives you a lot more options than Windows does. Cheerio, Thomas -- ==> RH List Archive: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=redhat-list&r=1&w=2 <== - Thomas Ribbrockhttp://www.ribbrock.org "You have to live on the edge of reality - to make your dreams come true!" -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
At 8/20/2003 16:17 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. I disagree. I run financial models for a living, and do all of our customer correspondence (roughly 200 customers with frequent contact) via heavily-scripted mail merges. I most certainly consider myself a power user, and my demands on my office software are very heavy. I have been running Sun StarOffice 6.0 since it came out, and have had: * no tasks I could not perform * no crashes * a few tasks for which MS Office was significantly better * a few tasks for which StarOffice was significantly better * three patches to download * no security holes * quite speedy performance * excellent read/write of MS Office files (95/97/2000/XP) * native file sizes averaging 40% smaller than xls/doc/ppt * cost savings of nearly 80% ($75 vs $370) I am quite eagerly awaiting Sun StarOffice 6.1. Having tested and run SO-6.0 for maybe more than a year (don't recall exactly), when 6.1 comes out I will upgrade all 25 Windows machines in our offices to SO-6.1. The total savings in licenses alone will be over $7000, and I don't expect to need any outside support at all. Plus, those users who prefer Linux will now be able to run their preferred OS (saving me another $200 in OS license costs) with no file format incompatibility. While the gratis ($0 cost) office suites may have their rough edges, I think that's something you should expect from a project that large and that complex which is staffed only by volunteers. Shell out a little cash though (and I do mean a little), and the situation changes drastically. I buy subscriptions from Red Hat, and I buy StarOffice licenses from Sun. I am now able to buy new hardware more frequently, lower support costs, manage all machines centrally, increase security, lower risks of hacking (not eliminate, lower), and still save money on direct costs. Sorely disappointed in not moving to Sun StarOffice on Red Hat sooner, maybe... -- Rodolfo J. Paiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 21:18, Ed Greshko wrote: > On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 10:16, Bret Hughes wrote: > > > And to top it off I get messages from other mailserver telling me that > > the mail I sent has been found to contain a virus. Of course it is > > someone else spoofing the sender but it still irritates me. > > I've seen those too. The ones I got appear to be crafted to entice me > to open an attachment. They say something along the lines of..."Your > mail is returned due to a virus. See attached for details". > Yes, I get those too. In fact, After looking I can't find the two that I was referring to. Either I deleted them or they were all the same virus stuff you mention. I could have sworn I got two today that were not flagged by mailscanner and look legit. Who knows? Bret -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 22:16, Bret Hughes wrote: > PS what is the deal with the SO.Big or whatever I have never received > over 2 or 3 of these in a single day and today fprot has found over 25! Be thankful you're not on any of the OpenBSD lists. The worm has the nasty side-effect of grabbing an infecting user's addressbook and passing on the worm as an attachment. Unfortunately, the worst part is that it spoofs the address(es?) of one of those found in the addressbook. In this case, some Windows/Outlook user got hit and the worm spoofed itself as misc/[EMAIL PROTECTED] You can imagine the mess... every AV gateway in existence is bouncing these infected mails back to the mailing lists. *sigh* -- Jason Dixon, RHCE DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 10:16, Bret Hughes wrote: > And to top it off I get messages from other mailserver telling me that > the mail I sent has been found to contain a virus. Of course it is > someone else spoofing the sender but it still irritates me. I've seen those too. The ones I got appear to be crafted to entice me to open an attachment. They say something along the lines of..."Your mail is returned due to a virus. See attached for details". -- http://www.shorewall.net Shorewall, for all your firewall needs -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 18:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Such was not my intent. My apologies to all whom I offended. > Nah It is I who should apologize. Your post was really pretty well presented even if I don't agree with every premise in your argument. Too many things going on today and my (linux based) virus scanner working overtime due to all the outlook crap running around the net. FWIW I do run a custom kernel on my laptop since I wanted to use the winmodem and use Win4Lin for autocad and office apps when I have to exchange docs with folks outside the organization. Bret PS what is the deal with the SO.Big or whatever I have never received over 2 or 3 of these in a single day and today fprot has found over 25! And to top it off I get messages from other mailserver telling me that the mail I sent has been found to contain a virus. Of course it is someone else spoofing the sender but it still irritates me. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote: > > > They were in need of a low-cost, dependable server machine to be used as > > a file server and a printer server - a machine on which they could load > > a high-end architectural/accounting package; > > Question: We tried last year to use samba as a print server for a bunch of > Win2K client machines on a domain. We could get Samba to authenticate to > the WinNT domain, no prob, but we couldn't get the print server to see any > of the special features of the printers. For instance, we have a couple of > HP laser printers with duplexers. We were able to get the linux box to be > the print server, but couldn't see the duplexer on the printer. > > Were you able to get this kind of functionality? And if so, how? > What did you use LPRNG or CUPS? CUPS (Common Unix Printing System) should be able to do that. Didier --- PhD student Singapore Synchrotron Light Source (SSLS) 5 Research Link, Singapore 117603 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://ssls.nus.edu.sg > Thanks! > > Ben > > > -- > redhat-list mailing list > unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list > -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 17:44, Jason Dixon wrote: > Actually, I've been rather embarrassed at the volume of errata that Red > Hat has released over the last couple of years. Is this a bad thing? > Only if the administrator hasn't maintained the system properly. A good chunk of these errata have come from the fact that people are understanding more about exploits and more people are scanning through the source code of all the various packages looking for problems before they become exploits. The cumulative effect is a system that will be more secure in the future. One of the advantages of having many eyes auditing the source. - rick -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 20:38, Eduardo A. dela Rosa wrote: > > "Maintenance, training, and upgrades", needless to say, are factors > both present whether you've got Linux box or MS Products. Got the > picture? Nope? It's the CO$T of Ownership having MS Products that > counts. Eduardo, I'm glad you don't speak for all Linux users. The moment you used $ to represent the letter S, I stopped taking you seriously. Let's grow up and advocate Linux properly. > Another great difference and advantage that Linux box can have over > MS Products are flexibility, stability, and SECURITY (among > others) that MS cannot meet at par with Linux. Not to defend Microsoft products, but Windows *can* be flexible (sorta), *can* be stable (at times), and *can* be secure. Just like a Linux box, this also requires a qualified Systems Administrator who practices sound security and patching. > How many times in a year that you need to patch your MS Boxes with > Bill-provided patch upgrades so that even your most latest Win2K > would not be exploited by worms? Actually, I've been rather embarrassed at the volume of errata that Red Hat has released over the last couple of years. Is this a bad thing? Only if the administrator hasn't maintained the system properly. The one thing that folks... the ones who argue that [Red Hat] Linux has as many security holes as Windows... forget is that Linux is a distribution containing a LOT of 3rd party software. Windows just can't compare. If you were to compare the errata releases for the Linux kernel and GNU utilities to Windows patches, I guarantee you they'd pale in comparison. So... you're both right. ;-) > It's for wise people like you to evaluate these facts. It's wise for you to practice healthy advocacy. -- Jason Dixon, RHCE DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
Dear Tom, A simple response: "Maintenance, training, and upgrades", needless to say, are factors both present whether you've got Linux box or MS Products. Got the picture? Nope? It's the CO$T of Ownership having MS Products that counts. Another great difference and advantage that Linux box can have over MS Products are flexibility, stability, and SECURITY (among others) that MS cannot meet at par with Linux. How many times in a year that you need to patch your MS Boxes with Bill-provided patch upgrades so that even your most latest Win2K would not be exploited by worms? It's for wise people like you to evaluate these facts. Cheers! On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 21:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Let me say upfront that I like Linux in general, and RedHat in particular. > And (heresy!) I like MS products. > > 2 questions: > -- what about the architectural/accounting package? > -- who will maintain the OS and other various software updates? > > As far as dependability - when properly configured and used as intended, > MS Servers are _very_ reliable. Cases in point: > > -- 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. > > -- 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. > > -- I have another WinNT Server, used as the Backup PDC, as the system > console to our iSeries, and as an FTP server. Similar downtime as our > other servers. > > The only time we've had trouble with any Windows box is because of lame > users who install the latest worm or virus. Linux is less prone to that > problem for now, but will not remain so as Linux desktops become more > prevalent. And unmaintained Linux servers have a big ol' target on them, > which will only get bigger over time. > > 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. > > Maintenance, training and upgrades: these are some of the "hidden costs" > that the Linux community is too often mum about - and some that you and > the admin should have already discussed... > > > Tom Hightower > Solutions, Inc > http://www.simas.com > > > > > > Stephen Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 08/20/2003 01:49 AM > Please respond to redhat-list > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: > Subject:Sweet Success > > > I just want to relate the happiness I have over the successful > installation of yet another RedHat server for a small business customer > of mine; > > They were in need of a low-cost, dependable server machine to be used as > a file server and a printer server - a machine on which they could load > a high-end architectural/accounting package; originally they were faced > with spending upwards of $6000 (for a MS type box, of course); my total > "drop in" cost for the box ended up being $2200 - loaded with RH9 + > updates, Samba, MySQL, using SENDMAIL/FETCHMAIL/PROCMAIL + SpamAssassin, > F-Prot and ClamAV - as well as being the gateway for an 802.11b 2.4ghz > network in our area. Actual software load and configuration was one > evening here at home - about 2 hours total; drop in on site with client > machine configurations was one day. Done deal. No dramas, no sweat, no > problems. Even had time to show the admin how to use VNC to access the > server desktop; script was setup to backup to CDRW once per week. EZ as > pie. > > Had this have been a Windows box I would have spent three days with it - > for one thing or another - I'm used to that crap, and the monstrous size > of the patches/updates/fixes. > > So, for anyone with any doubts, it's really easy - it's really simple. > Plus, the customer was more than happy to know that they have IMAP/POP > functionality, a proxy (privoxy) and a firewall - without license fees > and BS associated. They even have a nice big round RH sticker on the > front door now...(couldn't say "No" to the admin - was her idea). > > -- > Wed Aug 20 16:35:01 EST 2003 > 1
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 19:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Such was not my intent. My apologies to all whom I offended. You pissed me off too, but only with your top-posting. P.S. Just kidding. ;-) -- Jason Dixon, RHCE DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
Such was not my intent. My apologies to all whom I offended. Tom Hightower Solutions, Inc http://www.simas.com Bret Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/20/2003 06:21 PM Please respond to redhat-list To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Re: Sweet Success Sorry but that compile bit pissed me off. Bret -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 19:21, Bret Hughes wrote: > On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 16:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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 kidding right? I think this a a feature not a bug. You don't > think that a bunch of the registry tweaking windows geeks out there > would kill for the chance to customize the kernel? Fact is since you > can't get the source code you can't recompile. Honestly, the ability to recompile for performance gains is grossly overrated. You're talking single-digit percentage points, at best. The big advantage to having the kernel source is being able to patch in stuff for bleeding-edge technologies (and drivers, of course). Not to mention the ability to submit patches. I can't overstate this... the typical Linux user/hacker *can* make a difference. I'm a code idiot, which is to say I don't know much about C/C++ programming. But that hasn't stopped me from analyzing compilation errors and submitting two successful patches to various projects (pptp-client, mysql/ssl). Having the source extends control back to the end-user, where it belongs. > Several of your other arguments are quite valid in my opinion. Of > course you need to include the cost of administration in determining the > TCO of any solution, but to imply that Windows software installation and > setup is always easier than in linux, is absurd. There are always > outside variables and it sounds like you know as much about Linux as I > know about windows, a fair amount but not as much as you need to to > claim significant administration skills. I have spent untold hours > learning and customizing linux and I get so pissed until I do another > windows installation and remember what a pain it can be to install the > software get the correct drivers for any specialized hardware, install > the software, tweak settings blah blah blah. The cycle has to happen on > any platform. An old adage- "[Linux] makes easy things hard, and hard things possible". I do some fairly funky stuff for some of my clients... particularly with wireless stuff. Start layering security into multiple OSI layers? With Windows... fuhgettaboutit. Try running PPTP inside IPsec inside WEP. It ain't happening. Microsoft has managed to obfuscate their API's so badly that stuff just doesn't abstract like it should. There's a great interview with Scott Mann (http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/qna/0,289202,sid39_gci912973,00.html) detailing some of the differences between Linux and Windows security. Here's a great quote from Scott, detailing why he felt Windows administrators have such a hard time making the transition to the Linux/UNIX way of troubleshooting: "People who've had a lot of Windows experience and no Unix experience have to overcome the Windows way of doing things. That can be tough. With Windows, you don't have [the] luxury of getting into code and seeing what's wrong. That's nearly impossible in most cases. So, most Windows administrators are used to contacting Microsoft support immediately when there's a problem. Typically, they don't go to news groups, and so on, and try to track down problems that way. That's completely counter to the Linux culture. The Linux culture is about doing all the research first and then, when you can't figure something out, you go and dig around. Another big hurdle for Windows administrators is coming to grips with the fact that the windowing system in a Linux environment is an afterthought. It wasn't part of the original design. It's a completely separate package. The real way to learn how to manage and maintain your Linux environment from a security or administrative perspective is learning about the operating system itself. Most Windows people don't want to do that. They want to leap to 'How do I do this?' and 'How do I do that?' That impatience usually leads to lots and lots of mistakes." Good stuff. -- Jason Dixon, RHCE DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
Or as impartial as I should be On balance, I much prefer IBMs iSeries
over everything else (Linux and Windows included). It already has the
security that will be coming in Linux, and that Microsoft can only dream
about. Lock it as sec level 50 and you've got one tight box...
But try and convince a CFO that spending (at least) $30K for an entry
level system (OS and Developer tools included) could actually wind up
saving them money... And no GUI to speak of...
Tom Hightower
Solutions, Inc
http://www.simas.com
"Cliff Wells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
08/20/2003 05:41 PM
Please respond to redhat-list
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: Sweet Success
I get the distinct feeling that while you are trying to be neutral your
admitted lack of Linux knowledge prevents you from being as impartial as
you think you are.
Regards,
--
Cliff Wells, Software Engineer
Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net)
(503) 978-6726 (800) 735-0555
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 16:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Rick, > > 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 kidding right? I think this a a feature not a bug. You don't think that a bunch of the registry tweaking windows geeks out there would kill for the chance to customize the kernel? Fact is since you can't get the source code you can't recompile. Several of your other arguments are quite valid in my opinion. Of course you need to include the cost of administration in determining the TCO of any solution, but to imply that Windows software installation and setup is always easier than in linux, is absurd. There are always outside variables and it sounds like you know as much about Linux as I know about windows, a fair amount but not as much as you need to to claim significant administration skills. I have spent untold hours learning and customizing linux and I get so pissed until I do another windows installation and remember what a pain it can be to install the software get the correct drivers for any specialized hardware, install the software, tweak settings blah blah blah. The cycle has to happen on any platform. Use of OS wide tools like rpm make determining what might have changed trivial. The mindset of fix it rather than reinstall the software is a good thing IMHO. You get to learn why instead of just how. Sorry but that compile bit pissed me off. Bret -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 17:33, Stephen Kuhn wrote: > On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 06:30, Bret Hughes wrote: > > It will be interesting to see if this trend continues in > > the wake of all the redhat-config-* tools that make it pretty easy to > > get a box going even though it may be mis-configured and potentially > > less secure than it ought to be. Of course that is not to say I haven't > > been able to mis-configure a box from the command line. > > Even with all the GUI tools, I still find it easier, faster and more > efficient to do it all from the terminal/console - and being I'd much > rather know EVERYTHING that happens and WHY, blindly clicking on boxes > doesn't suit my style. For a GUI I prefer Webmin - a swiss-army-knife > that takes care of so much more with so much less...and then you don't > even have to be near the box in question to take care of it...ditto with > VNC... > > Plus, there is a particular "magic" of administering a box at a console > from the "end user's perspective" - especially if they're sitting next > to you whilst it's being done... > Yeah I know what you mean. I built a RH 9 box for a guy here in Tulsa and he promply sent it to BF Wisconsin where his friend runs a small ISP. He has been amazed that the various tweaks we have need to be done did not require a call to the colo guy. They are porting over a php app that has been running on windows and got kind of miffed when there was no ftp server running until I showed them winscp (Now GPL'ed and on Sourceforge btw). Another box I did for a local church that had 15 winxp boxes directly connected to the internet with no firewall (Don't ask, got real important last Monday :) We installed the box with no key board or monitor and installed webmin for local admin. $200 for a fully configurable firewall and DHCP server. Boy do they they love the log report mails. It will soon be setup to prefilter mail before getting to the workstations too. Alot of this could be done with a linksys box of some sort I suppose but having a platform that can be built on for future services really tickles the pants off a lot of folks. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 14:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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. Agreed. Uptime is overrated. Security is far more important (unless you want to see real downtime). > 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. Then hire someone who knows and fire the people who don't. End of that story. > 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. That's because you can't ;) Whenever you have something that is tuned for the general case, you can always retune it for a specific case and see a performance change. *If* the source code to the Windows kernel were available, you can be certain you'd see plenty of advice on how to recompile to optimize it for a particular task. > 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. It depends on the application. Server-wise, I suspect Linux to be faster than Windows (especially under load). For the desktop, Windows tends to be a bit snappier. Anyone who claims GNOME is faster than Windows is full of it. Partially it's because GNOME isn't mature. Partially because GNOME has features up the $%#$%. Partially because GNOME isn't integrated into the OS. This last point is an important one because it highlights a major difference between Windows and Linux: the GUI is not part of the OS. This has an impact on both performance and security. Performance-wise, GNOME on Linux is slower than Windows. Linux without GNOME is faster than Windows. Security-wise an exploit in a GNOME application or GNOME itself is unlikely to garner someone root privileges on the machine. > 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. This is really the best approach. I *prefer* Linux, and find that usually it gives the best TCO (and more importantly, flexibility, something I find sorely lacking in the Windows world). However, there is no doubt that Windows (or rather the applications only available on it) has a place. > 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. I don't think anyone would claim otherwise. However, Linux is based on a very different model than Windows that makes compromises more difficult and often something less than system-wide when they are accomplished. Further, security is apparently a real concern on Linux, whereas Microsoft has a history of downplaying its importance. Linux is a difficult target now and will continue to get more difficult (2.6 for instance has entirely new security options, some of which will probably obsolete rootkits and eradicate most buffer overflow attacks) while Windows tends to get more vulnerable with each new version. It's simply a matter of priority. Microsoft's priority has and will most likely continue to be (press-releases aside) features and ease-of-use. Or, more to the point, reasons to upgrade . Linux' priority has always been stability. Security is a big part of stability. > 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. But you don't have to make it easy for them ;) > 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
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 19:22, Martin Moss wrote: > Are you commission mate:-) ? > lol > > Marty Are you making me an offer? (grin) -- Thu Aug 21 08:30:01 EST 2003 08:30:01 up 3 days, 10:56, 1 user, load average: 0.19, 0.22, 0.16 - |____ | illawarra computer services| | /-oo /| |'-. | http://kma.0catch.com | | .\__/ || | | || | _ / `._ \|_|_.-' | stephen kuhn | | | / \__.`=._) (_ | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - linux user #:267497 linux machine #:194239 * MDK 9.1+ & RH 9 Mandrake Linux Kernel 2.4.21-11mdk Cooker for i586 - * This message was composed on a 100% Microsoft free computer * You are fighting for survival in your own sweet and gentle way. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 06:30, Bret Hughes wrote: > It will be interesting to see if this trend continues in > the wake of all the redhat-config-* tools that make it pretty easy to > get a box going even though it may be mis-configured and potentially > less secure than it ought to be. Of course that is not to say I haven't > been able to mis-configure a box from the command line. Even with all the GUI tools, I still find it easier, faster and more efficient to do it all from the terminal/console - and being I'd much rather know EVERYTHING that happens and WHY, blindly clicking on boxes doesn't suit my style. For a GUI I prefer Webmin - a swiss-army-knife that takes care of so much more with so much less...and then you don't even have to be near the box in question to take care of it...ditto with VNC... Plus, there is a particular "magic" of administering a box at a console from the "end user's perspective" - especially if they're sitting next to you whilst it's being done... -- Thu Aug 21 08:30:01 EST 2003 08:30:01 up 3 days, 10:56, 1 user, load average: 0.19, 0.22, 0.16 - |____ | illawarra computer services| | /-oo /| |'-. | http://kma.0catch.com | | .\__/ || | | || | _ / `._ \|_|_.-' | stephen kuhn | | | / \__.`=._) (_ | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - linux user #:267497 linux machine #:194239 * MDK 9.1+ & RH 9 Mandrake Linux Kernel 2.4.21-11mdk Cooker for i586 - * This message was composed on a 100% Microsoft free computer * You are fighting for survival in your own sweet and gentle way. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 06:42, AragonX wrote: > I whole heartedly agree. I'm constantly in search of new clients because > once the server is installed, there isn't anything else for me to bill > for. The last time I had any server downtime at any of my clients was 3 > years ago. And that was a new server install that had faulty RAM... > > > > On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 10:28, Rick Warner wrote: > > > >> After the move we had over a year without any downtime before I was laid > >> off. > > > > And this would be the fundamental flaw with Linux servers ;) For me, in a town as small as this - talk goes far. Reputation sells more than biz cards or advertisements do. I've not really had to do much advertising at all since I moved to this country - mostly because the first few jobs I did no one else around town could do - so that started the ball rolling. Clients/customers that meet me on the street generally don't have much computer stuff to talk about - and never a whinge or a whine; that helps. As with another server I stuck in place last year, I didn't get much out of doing maint. on the box, but the business owners ranted and raved over their server to their mates - more biz came. I've been asked by some local companies that do computer tech support about either unix or linux stuff - because they don't have the skillset to deal with it - so it gets thrown at me. Two local ISP's have linux boxes that they really don't understand - so when upgrade time came, I was there to furnish hardware and skills. I sell alot of computers - workstations - based solely on prior customers spreading the word. In many ways, having something so dependable does put a dent in "repeat" work - in a Microsoft kinda way - but I don't mind having good karma and a good reputation and new business. It allows me the freedom of social movement around town as well - no one's got a "bad word" on me or bad feelings on me - so wherever I go, I get good feelings and great welcomes. I have to thank RedHat, Mandrake, Linus T. and the whole of GNU/Linux for that... -- Thu Aug 21 08:20:01 EST 2003 08:20:01 up 3 days, 10:46, 1 user, load average: 0.11, 0.21, 0.13 - |____ | illawarra computer services| | /-oo /| |'-. | http://kma.0catch.com | | .\__/ || | | || | _ / `._ \|_|_.-' | stephen kuhn | | | / \__.`=._) (_ | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - linux user #:267497 linux machine #:194239 * MDK 9.1+ & RH 9 Mandrake Linux Kernel 2.4.21-11mdk Cooker for i586 - * This message was composed on a 100% Microsoft free computer * The probability of a drink getting spilled into a console is directly propotional to the cost of the console -- Murphy's Laws of Broadcast Engineering n8 -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 23:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Let me say upfront that I like Linux in general, and RedHat in particular. > And (heresy!) I like MS products. > > 2 questions: > -- what about the architectural/accounting package? The company that sold it to us installed it on the network without a hitch, without a flaw - it appears to be working slightly faster than what they're used to; they want to experiment with another linux box as a server again in the next month. This company has, in the past, sold rather beefy boxes w/ Windows2000 AS, Exchange, SQL, IIS - so in seeing that this box literally acted the same, their eyes got opened a bit; and they're quite happy with the entire process - no hoops had to be jumped through on their end. They're also quite happy that they can access this server via remote with no special tools - access to Webmin and VNC are more than what they could/would have expected... > -- who will maintain the OS and other various software updates? The server is scripted for backing itself up - to CDRW and to another HD (the critical data, the mail and the shared network documents); support and administration done remotely - the server is a gateway by which I can VNC to each of the client workstations if the need arises; the admin on site has access to Webmin and a desktop via VNC on the server; one physical visit per month; all antivirus packages are setup to automagically update themselves - I will personally do the OS updates either in person or via remote. Contract is for one day per month - less than the time I've spent there in the past. The admin is rather "clue-ey" and could very well take over doing the "up2date" herself - which would be even better. -- Thu Aug 21 08:10:00 EST 2003 08:10:00 up 3 days, 10:36, 1 user, load average: 0.04, 0.11, 0.06 - |____ | illawarra computer services| | /-oo /| |'-. | http://kma.0catch.com | | .\__/ || | | || | _ / `._ \|_|_.-' | stephen kuhn | | | / \__.`=._) (_ | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - linux user #:267497 linux machine #:194239 * MDK 9.1+ & RH 9 Mandrake Linux Kernel 2.4.21-11mdk Cooker for i586 - * This message was composed on a 100% Microsoft free computer * !07/11 PDP a ni deppart m'I !pleH -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 00:56, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote: > Question: We tried last year to use samba as a print server for a bunch of > Win2K client machines on a domain. We could get Samba to authenticate to > the WinNT domain, no prob, but we couldn't get the print server to see any > of the special features of the printers. For instance, we have a couple of > HP laser printers with duplexers. We were able to get the linux box to be > the print server, but couldn't see the duplexer on the printer. > > Were you able to get this kind of functionality? And if so, how? > > Thanks! > > Ben I don't seem to have a problem at all with Samba - I use Webmin to add my printers to the "box" - and usually each client machine has the drivers loaded locally; as well, with this site, they're using jetdirect cards for the printers...that's always quite easy to get flying. For what it's worth, I've had my problems installing printers locally on RH and MDK boxes...and out of frustration ended up using Webmin - and being that it worked well, at least for me, I've stuck to using it as my starting tool. Ditto with Samba/SWAT... -- Thu Aug 21 08:05:00 EST 2003 08:05:00 up 3 days, 10:31, 1 user, load average: 0.29, 0.12, 0.04 - |____ | illawarra computer services| | /-oo /| |'-. | http://kma.0catch.com | | .\__/ || | | || | _ / `._ \|_|_.-' | stephen kuhn | | | / \__.`=._) (_ | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - linux user #:267497 linux machine #:194239 * MDK 9.1+ & RH 9 Mandrake Linux Kernel 2.4.21-11mdk Cooker for i586 - * This message was composed on a 100% Microsoft free computer * Trouble always comes at the wrong time. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 14:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ignoring recommended patches - whether from Redhat, > Microsoft, IBM, or whomever - will bite you in the CPU one day. Yes, but with Linux and other *NIX OS's I can install most patches on a running system without a need to shut it down or reboot. With MS most any change meant a reboot in the past; they are getting a bit better, but still rather archaic to require most of the reboots it does. > Never once has it been suggested that I "recompile the Windows OS" to get > maximum performance from my computer; Of course it has not been recommended; you cannot! You do not get the source. Many, many things *could* be optimized in MS OS's *if* you had the source. Not an option. As it is, there are many arcane things to be done on Windows to optimize performance; slumming around in the registry and modifying values, adding keys, etc. is de rigeur in the Windows world, and much more time consuming that compiling a kernel. Try optimizing the MTU on you NT machines! Trivial command line in Linux, done on running machine; registry key addition and reboot on NT. > "re-compile the kernel" in response to a question about Linux performance. Of course. Distributions come with kernels with lots of stuff stashed in their that most folks never need. Slim it down, get better performance. If I have many similar computers, I recompile once and then distribute to many. Rather efficient. Try moving your registry key changes from machine to machine (yes, you can export parts of the tree, but if you have many changes, that is a lot of exports and imports). > 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. Depends on the use of the machine. For *any* server function I can get better performance from Linux on almost any box. For desktop, it depends on what the person runs. Still, if you chuck the popular bloatware (Gnome and KDE) for the desktop, it is a race that Linux can win in a majority of cases. Need to know the OS and the pieces. > 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. And 90%+ of Windows admins are deluding themselves into believing they have recovered from incidents. In most cases I can scan their machines and find backdoors open on obscure ports, registry keys left in place that open other vulnerabilities, etc. 90%+ of Windows admins recover from incidents using a cookbook method: install this patch, reboot, run the virus scanner, delete all infected files ... blah blah blah. They do not understand enough to know that one penetration often engenders other intrusions, and the damage can be much broader than the simple situation they believe they have under control. Yes most admins are more comfortable fixing Windows problems, but that is because they do not understand the problems and are delusionally comfortable with following a cookbook. > 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. Yes, there will be malware, but the OS will provide *much* better protection and the scope of the problem will be less than what we have seen from the never-ending parade of stuff hitting the MS world. Not allowing users to change system configs (aka registry keys) and not allowing them to open all devices and ports, like most Windows user can, protects the machine, the network, and the world from most malware. There have been multiple attempts to introduce virii and worms into the *NIX world; so far only a few have succeeded (e.g., the Morris worm from the mid 80's); the *NIX world learned and moved away from giving services and users the types of access needed to propogate these beasts. - rick -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
I whole heartedly agree. I'm constantly in search of new clients because once the server is installed, there isn't anything else for me to bill for. The last time I had any server downtime at any of my clients was 3 years ago. And that was a new server install that had faulty RAM... > On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 10:28, Rick Warner wrote: > >> After the move we had over a year without any downtime before I was laid >> off. > > And this would be the fundamental flaw with Linux servers ;) -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
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
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 14:45, Cliff Wells wrote: > > IMHO, that probably has more to do with the nature of the Linux admin > than the OS in question. Admins who choose Linux tend to have a bit of > the hacker nature whereas the average Windows admin includes the > clueless who have just enough knowledge and tenacity to acquire a > certification but not much more. I have known some really sharp and knowledgeable guys who were MSCEs but it seems that the majority of the guys I see as admins sort of learn the right box to click and enter data in but terribly limited in knowing what actually happens. And some of them make the big bucks too :( Generally I think that most folks who administer Linux boxes know a bit more about the "why to" instead of only the "how to" than the average Windows guy. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues in the wake of all the redhat-config-* tools that make it pretty easy to get a box going even though it may be mis-configured and potentially less secure than it ought to be. Of course that is not to say I haven't been able to mis-configure a box from the command line. Tools like up2date should help keep software current and I believe that the vast majority of code running under linux is more secure simply because of the fact that *nixes have been doing true multiuser and networking from the get go rather than building from a base of a single user and not network connected. I knew something must be fisshy way back when after I had to download trumpets tcp/ip stack just to get windows dialup working. I still bristle at the thought of a multi-billion dollar industry buildt around virus scanning and firewalling just because the historical MS assumption that easier is better than secure. My 2 cents. Bret -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
> On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:09, Cliff Wells wrote: > > On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 10:28, Rick Warner wrote: > > > > > After the move we had over a year without any downtime before I was laid > > > off. > > > > And this would be the fundamental flaw with Linux servers ;) > > No joke. I had an Exchange consultant tell me once that he only recommended Exchange to customers because it meant so much more work for him. -- Alan -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
Wow, I never thought about it, but it makes sense Cliff. :D On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:09, Cliff Wells wrote: > On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 10:28, Rick Warner wrote: > > > After the move we had over a year without any downtime before I was laid > > off. > > And this would be the fundamental flaw with Linux servers ;) > > -- > Cliff Wells, Software Engineer > Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net) > (503) 978-6726 (800) 735-0555 -- Vince Parsons, Independent Contractor/Consultant RHCE 807001402402771 704.839.9473 -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 12:31, Ronald W. Heiby wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 2:15:14 PM, Cliff wrote: > > In the argument over TCO, several reports have shown that the TCO for a > > single Linux server is slightly higher than a single Windows server. > > Most of those reports disregarded the fact that one Linux box easily > > replaces half a dozen Windows boxes. > > Another thing that tends to be ignored is that the number of Windows > administrators tends to scale linearly with the number of Windows > systems, while adding systems to a properly administered UNIX/Linux > system network adds a much smaller increment of work to the > administrator. IMHO, that probably has more to do with the nature of the Linux admin than the OS in question. Admins who choose Linux tend to have a bit of the hacker nature whereas the average Windows admin includes the clueless who have just enough knowledge and tenacity to acquire a certification but not much more. Also, having a helpful community (like this one) makes the Linux admin's job far easier than the in-the-dark flunky who has to call the vendor for support. Regards, -- Cliff Wells, Software Engineer Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net) (503) 978-6726 (800) 735-0555 -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 2:15:14 PM, Cliff wrote: > In the argument over TCO, several reports have shown that the TCO for a > single Linux server is slightly higher than a single Windows server. > Most of those reports disregarded the fact that one Linux box easily > replaces half a dozen Windows boxes. Another thing that tends to be ignored is that the number of Windows administrators tends to scale linearly with the number of Windows systems, while adding systems to a properly administered UNIX/Linux system network adds a much smaller increment of work to the administrator. Ron. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8 Comment: Until recently, the last PGP with full source disclosure. iQA/AwUBP0PMmG8pw+2/9pUJEQKRsACgzFljHg+ZKySPG8blTQKSgVCjSJQAoKIZ cllOMu9tu6bV1emM+MLi+LoO =7zyo -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 10:28, Rick Warner wrote: > On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 06:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > -- 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. In the argument over TCO, several reports have shown that the TCO for a single Linux server is slightly higher than a single Windows server. Most of those reports disregarded the fact that one Linux box easily replaces half a dozen Windows boxes. Regards, -- Cliff Wells, Software Engineer Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net) (503) 978-6726 (800) 735-0555 -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 10:28, Rick Warner wrote: > After the move we had over a year without any downtime before I was laid > off. And this would be the fundamental flaw with Linux servers ;) -- Cliff Wells, Software Engineer Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net) (503) 978-6726 (800) 735-0555 -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 07:56, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote: > Question: We tried last year to use samba as a print server for a bunch of > Win2K client machines on a domain. We could get Samba to authenticate to > the WinNT domain, no prob, but we couldn't get the print server to see any > of the special features of the printers. For instance, we have a couple of > HP laser printers with duplexers. We were able to get the linux box to be > the print server, but couldn't see the duplexer on the printer. > > Were you able to get this kind of functionality? And if so, how? Samba and Linux, and Win(whatever) do not see such features. Such features are only 'seen' by the printer. What you are asking is, how can one control the use of such features? There are two philosophical positions: 1) such features should be under the control of the client, so each client can choose to use, or not use, the feature, or 2) such features are for the good of the community and all users must make use of the feature. In the first case, the control of the feature is via the printer control panel on each client. Use of the feature then becomes a training issue. In the second case, control of the feature moves to the server or to the printer! If the server the location one wants to set the control, then the server needs to be set to prepend the appropriate control codes to the print stream to enable/disable the feature. How this is done is dependent on which printing system is on the server. In the worst case scenario, one must write a print filter and associate it with the queue. Not all that difficult. But IMO in the case mentioned, if one wants to enforce use of the duplexer the best fix is to set the printer to duplex all jobs. No way for anyone to subvert the intent (if the server prepends control codes to my stream, I can have control codes embedded in my stream to counter what the server does). And yes, I have done duplexer control of an HP4050TN printer through a SAMBA shared Linux print queue. Do not look at Samba for this, look at your printing system (lpd, cups, etc) docs for how to do print filters. - rick -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
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
Re: Sweet Success
Make your messages more exciting with MSN Messenger V6. Download it for FREE today! -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
Have more fun with your mobile - add polyphonic ringtones, java games, celebrity voicemails and loads more! Click here for phone fun. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
> They were in need of a low-cost, dependable server machine to be used as > a file server and a printer server - a machine on which they could load > a high-end architectural/accounting package; Question: We tried last year to use samba as a print server for a bunch of Win2K client machines on a domain. We could get Samba to authenticate to the WinNT domain, no prob, but we couldn't get the print server to see any of the special features of the printers. For instance, we have a couple of HP laser printers with duplexers. We were able to get the linux box to be the print server, but couldn't see the duplexer on the printer. Were you able to get this kind of functionality? And if so, how? Thanks! Ben -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Sweet Success
Let me say upfront that I like Linux in general, and RedHat in particular. And (heresy!) I like MS products. 2 questions: -- what about the architectural/accounting package? -- who will maintain the OS and other various software updates? As far as dependability - when properly configured and used as intended, MS Servers are _very_ reliable. Cases in point: -- 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. -- 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. -- I have another WinNT Server, used as the Backup PDC, as the system console to our iSeries, and as an FTP server. Similar downtime as our other servers. The only time we've had trouble with any Windows box is because of lame users who install the latest worm or virus. Linux is less prone to that problem for now, but will not remain so as Linux desktops become more prevalent. And unmaintained Linux servers have a big ol' target on them, which will only get bigger over time. 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. Maintenance, training and upgrades: these are some of the "hidden costs" that the Linux community is too often mum about - and some that you and the admin should have already discussed... Tom Hightower Solutions, Inc http://www.simas.com Stephen Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/20/2003 01:49 AM Please respond to redhat-list To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Sweet Success I just want to relate the happiness I have over the successful installation of yet another RedHat server for a small business customer of mine; They were in need of a low-cost, dependable server machine to be used as a file server and a printer server - a machine on which they could load a high-end architectural/accounting package; originally they were faced with spending upwards of $6000 (for a MS type box, of course); my total "drop in" cost for the box ended up being $2200 - loaded with RH9 + updates, Samba, MySQL, using SENDMAIL/FETCHMAIL/PROCMAIL + SpamAssassin, F-Prot and ClamAV - as well as being the gateway for an 802.11b 2.4ghz network in our area. Actual software load and configuration was one evening here at home - about 2 hours total; drop in on site with client machine configurations was one day. Done deal. No dramas, no sweat, no problems. Even had time to show the admin how to use VNC to access the server desktop; script was setup to backup to CDRW once per week. EZ as pie. Had this have been a Windows box I would have spent three days with it - for one thing or another - I'm used to that crap, and the monstrous size of the patches/updates/fixes. So, for anyone with any doubts, it's really easy - it's really simple. Plus, the customer was more than happy to know that they have IMAP/POP functionality, a proxy (privoxy) and a firewall - without license fees and BS associated. They even have a nice big round RH sticker on the front door now...(couldn't say "No" to the admin - was her idea). -- Wed Aug 20 16:35:01 EST 2003 16:35:01 up 2 days, 19:01, 1 user, load average: 0.29, 0.16, 0.05 - |____ | illawarra computer services| | /-oo /| |'-. | http://kma.0catch.com | | .\__/ || | | || | _ / `._ \|_|_.-' | stephen kuhn | | | / \__.`=._) (_ | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - linux user #:267497 linux machine #:194239 * MDK 9.1+ & RH 9 Mandrake Linux Kernel 2.4.21-11mdk Cooker for i586 - * This message was composed on a 100% Microsoft free computer * The Martian landed his saucer in Manhattan, and immediately upon emerging was approached by a panhandler. "Mister," said the man, "can I have a quarter?" The Martian asked, "What's a quarter?" The panhandler thought a minute, brightened, then said, "You're right! Can I have a dollar?" -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https:/
Re: Sweet Success
Are you commission mate:-) ? lol Marty - Original Message - From: "Stephen Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 7:49 AM Subject: Sweet Success > I just want to relate the happiness I have over the successful > installation of yet another RedHat server for a small business customer > of mine; > > They were in need of a low-cost, dependable server machine to be used as > a file server and a printer server - a machine on which they could load > a high-end architectural/accounting package; originally they were faced > with spending upwards of $6000 (for a MS type box, of course); my total > "drop in" cost for the box ended up being $2200 - loaded with RH9 + > updates, Samba, MySQL, using SENDMAIL/FETCHMAIL/PROCMAIL + SpamAssassin, > F-Prot and ClamAV - as well as being the gateway for an 802.11b 2.4ghz > network in our area. Actual software load and configuration was one > evening here at home - about 2 hours total; drop in on site with client > machine configurations was one day. Done deal. No dramas, no sweat, no > problems. Even had time to show the admin how to use VNC to access the > server desktop; script was setup to backup to CDRW once per week. EZ as > pie. > > Had this have been a Windows box I would have spent three days with it - > for one thing or another - I'm used to that crap, and the monstrous size > of the patches/updates/fixes. > > So, for anyone with any doubts, it's really easy - it's really simple. > Plus, the customer was more than happy to know that they have IMAP/POP > functionality, a proxy (privoxy) and a firewall - without license fees > and BS associated. They even have a nice big round RH sticker on the > front door now...(couldn't say "No" to the admin - was her idea). > > -- > Wed Aug 20 16:35:01 EST 2003 > 16:35:01 up 2 days, 19:01, 1 user, load average: 0.29, 0.16, 0.05 > - > |____ | illawarra computer services| > | /-oo /| |'-. | http://kma.0catch.com | > | .\__/ || | | || > | _ / `._ \|_|_.-' | stephen kuhn | > | | / \__.`=._) (_ | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > - > linux user #:267497 linux machine #:194239 * MDK 9.1+ & RH 9 > Mandrake Linux Kernel 2.4.21-11mdk Cooker for i586 > - > * This message was composed on a 100% Microsoft free computer * > > The Martian landed his saucer in Manhattan, and immediately upon > emerging was approached by a panhandler. "Mister," said the man, "can I > have a quarter?" > The Martian asked, "What's a quarter?" > The panhandler thought a minute, brightened, then said, "You're > right! Can I have a dollar?" > > > -- > redhat-list mailing list > unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Sweet Success
I just want to relate the happiness I have over the successful installation of yet another RedHat server for a small business customer of mine; They were in need of a low-cost, dependable server machine to be used as a file server and a printer server - a machine on which they could load a high-end architectural/accounting package; originally they were faced with spending upwards of $6000 (for a MS type box, of course); my total "drop in" cost for the box ended up being $2200 - loaded with RH9 + updates, Samba, MySQL, using SENDMAIL/FETCHMAIL/PROCMAIL + SpamAssassin, F-Prot and ClamAV - as well as being the gateway for an 802.11b 2.4ghz network in our area. Actual software load and configuration was one evening here at home - about 2 hours total; drop in on site with client machine configurations was one day. Done deal. No dramas, no sweat, no problems. Even had time to show the admin how to use VNC to access the server desktop; script was setup to backup to CDRW once per week. EZ as pie. Had this have been a Windows box I would have spent three days with it - for one thing or another - I'm used to that crap, and the monstrous size of the patches/updates/fixes. So, for anyone with any doubts, it's really easy - it's really simple. Plus, the customer was more than happy to know that they have IMAP/POP functionality, a proxy (privoxy) and a firewall - without license fees and BS associated. They even have a nice big round RH sticker on the front door now...(couldn't say "No" to the admin - was her idea). -- Wed Aug 20 16:35:01 EST 2003 16:35:01 up 2 days, 19:01, 1 user, load average: 0.29, 0.16, 0.05 - |____ | illawarra computer services| | /-oo /| |'-. | http://kma.0catch.com | | .\__/ || | | || | _ / `._ \|_|_.-' | stephen kuhn | | | / \__.`=._) (_ | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - linux user #:267497 linux machine #:194239 * MDK 9.1+ & RH 9 Mandrake Linux Kernel 2.4.21-11mdk Cooker for i586 - * This message was composed on a 100% Microsoft free computer * The Martian landed his saucer in Manhattan, and immediately upon emerging was approached by a panhandler. "Mister," said the man, "can I have a quarter?" The Martian asked, "What's a quarter?" The panhandler thought a minute, brightened, then said, "You're right! Can I have a dollar?" -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
