From: "Toby Corkindale" <toby@dryft.net>
On 30/09/13 17:51, Peter Nunn wrote:
From his perspective, it?s about redundancy. He can throw out one lot of IT people, replace them with another lot, and they will still be able to support the system.
He can?t find a Linux shop just by walking up the street or finding the first IT company in the Yellow Pages.
Also worth noting that with Linux, you tend to get a huge variance in the way things are set up, depending on the sysadmins who created it. If you bring in a new Linux shop, they may well take quite a while to figure out how everything works, and then want to change it.
I do not think that is true. Of course, you have few flavours but it boils down (for most) to Red Hat vs. Debian based distributions. It is probably even more consistent over years - compared to the move from Windows XP to Vista to Windows 7 to Windows 8. Installs, setups and upgrades will be look very similar whoever it is doing it, as long they do not try to be deliberately "exotic". Customisation will need some understanding - but the same challenge will be there for every Windows admin too. I moved between jobs and never found that too hard to understand setups done by others. The bigger challenge was dealing with "messy setups" (means no policies at all - so I do it differently on every second machine). (Maybe that just offends the German in me;-) Well, that happens under Windows as well, and it is actually needs more effort to have computers that look the same. Regards Peter
Petros <Petros.Listig@fdrive.com.au> writes:
Also worth noting that with Linux, you tend to get a huge variance in the way things are set up, depending on the sysadmins who created it. If you bring in a new Linux shop, they may well take quite a while to figure out how everything works, and then want to change it.
I do not think that is true.
I'm a sysadmin. I routinely inherit systems. It's definitely true. Simple things are usually consistent, but Toby's right that it can take a while (weeks/months) to understand all the... quirks and pecadillos of the previous maintainer. I tend to dismiss that as incompetence, but it could be style differences.
It is probably even more consistent over years - compared to the move from Windows XP to Vista to Windows 7 to Windows 8.
I can't comment on Windows systems administration.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:19:22 Petros wrote:
It is probably even more consistent over years - compared to the move from Windows XP to Vista to Windows 7 to Windows 8.
What move from XP? Last time I checked some of my clients still used it because it apparently worked better for them than newer versions.
Well, that happens under Windows as well, and it is actually needs more effort to have computers that look the same.
Is there a Windows equivalent to dpkg or rpm yet? If not then it's going to be difficult to try and get disparate systems in sync. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Hello Russell, On Thu, 2013-10-03 at 14:59 +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:19:22 Petros wrote:
It is probably even more consistent over years - compared to the move from Windows XP to Vista to Windows 7 to Windows 8.
What move from XP? Last time I checked some of my clients still used it because it apparently worked better for them than newer versions.
Well, that happens under Windows as well, and it is actually needs more effort to have computers that look the same.
Is there a Windows equivalent to dpkg or rpm yet? If not then it's going to be difficult to try and get disparate systems in sync.
There is Windows InstallShield, but it is typical Microsoft incompetence, and all too often much software does its own thing and steps around it. It would be worse than Slackware using tarballs. Regards, Mark Trickett
participants (4)
-
Mark Trickett -
Petros -
Russell Coker -
trentbuck＠gmail.com