[H-GEN] Windows to *nix

[Robert Brockway]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, David Jericho wrote:

>
> Robert Brockway wrote:
>
> Hi Rob, I was going to leave this thread alone, but you are a noble 
> warrior, so to the death we must battle!

Hehe - not me :)  Long ago I gave up long discussions on topics like this. 
I post once, maybe twice (like this) and that's about it :)

> Not really, but I'll reply anyway :)

:)

>> Apparently I don't.  What features does MS-Exchange[1] have that are
>> lacking in the alternatives?
>
> A unified client server interface, and a web interface that offers the 
> functionality of the client without needing the client. A method by 
> which third parties can extend and enhance the product with extra plug 
> ins and modules.

Honestly, that all seems pretty standard to me.

> The Office suite, Outlook, Sharepoint, and my countless other tools all 
> integrate seamlessly into it. There is no OSS tool I have ever found 
> that is as capable.

Fair enough.  I'm an advocate of encouraging the use of well publicised 
APIs to encourage cross-app integration.

> The thing I keep having to remind people, is stop chasing false 
> economies. The effort involved with building a machine without X in 
> certain environments, does not weigh up when compared to the extra cost 
> of purchasing a slightly bigger disk.

I'm not sure if you meant X as in X-Window here or X in an arbirary app. I 
am assuming the latter.

There are plenty of reasons a sysadmin does not want to install unneeded 
apps.  Security, accidental starting of apps (can't start it if it isn't 
present), unnecessary system updates.  Disk isn't the issue, it's all the 
other stuff.

I build systems from the bottom up not the top down - the install is 
quicker (time saved) and little time is wasted in adding those additonal 
apps.  This approach has been a win for me from many angles (security, 
system management for example).

> I'm sure there are Microsoft programmers (in fact, I know a few 
> personally) who take great offense at the common assumption that they do 
> not take some pride in the quality and efficiency of their code.

I'm sure there are.  Many times I've defended the original design of 
MS-Windows NT.  It was very elegant (with strong influences of VMS).  I 
blame the marketting department, not the programmers for putting pressure 
on to increase performance at the cost of stability.  There are plenty of 
examples - moving vid drivers from ring 1 to ring 0, incorporating some 
application level components down in ring 0, etc.

>> Can MS-Windows be run in a production environment without any GUI?  I
>> did not think this was possible.  I would be most interested to hear if
>> it can be done.  If it cannot be done then Anthony's assertion is correct.
>
> I think you misunderstand. Anthony suggested that the only way to do 
> things was via the GUI. This is not true.

I just reread Anthony's statement.  I still think Anthony was making a 
reference to the inability to remove the GUI.  In any case, it is clear we 
were talking about different things.

> Hence, resources. But many of these other benefits come back to time 
> once again. Having the source is of no use if I must spend a month 
> figuring out how the application works.

But see, it seems to me from statements like this that you are inherent 
assuming an OSS app will take longer to setup or learn.  This is not true 
in my experience.  Too many closed and open source apps exist for any 
claims to be made which cover all of these apps.

> I'm sure you remember well, my rampant and almost fanatical support of OSS

Yes I do :)

> previously. In 10 years of doing this professionally, I'm now jaded. OSS as
> advertised by advocates is a crock. I feel ripped off.

I think the same is true whenever spindoctors speak (and only some 
advocates are spindoctors IMHO).  There are people who paint overly rosy 
pictures of OSS as there are for closed source and just about everything 
else we humans get involved in.

I always try to paint a more reasonable picture.  Thus I won't say OSS is 
great or fantastic - what I will say is that OSS works for me (and a lot 
of others) and then I'll go into reasons why that is the case.  I always 
make a point of mentioning on-going problems supporting certain 
propriatory standards.

Anyway, I'm off to sleep.  I don't promise to post again as I try to keep 
the "long discussion" posts to a minimum these days.  Too much to do and 
not enough time.

Cheers,

Rob

-- 
Robert Brockway B.Sc.        Phone:          +1-905-821-2327
Senior Technical Consultant  Urgent Support: +1-416-669-3073
OpenTrend Solutions Ltd      Email:          support at opentrend.net
                              Web:            www.opentrend.net