"Tim Smith" wrote in message
news:reply_in_group-9A92C2.12284001102008@news.supernews.com...
> In article <8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Ignoramus31561 wrote:
>> The question that is in my mind is, why exactly are Linux people paid
>> more than Windows people? In perfect economy, such a shortage would
>
> Because a large number of Linux system administrators are *also* Windows
> system administrators.
>
> In a majority of cases, a "Windows shop" is a place that runs Windows on
> the servers and the desktops. They need Windows administrators. And a
> "Linux shop" is a place that runs Linux on the servers and Windows on
> the desktops, so needs Linux administrators and Windows administrators.
> Places without Windows are a small minority, so the number of Linux
> administrators who are NOT also Windows administrators is small.
>
> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
> average for "Linux administrator" is high.


Throw in some database expertise, a good understanding of networking and
some security understanding and you can actually find someone that
understands "computers". However we tend to design systems rather than
administer them. ;-)

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
> average for "Linux administrator" is high.

Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.

Nice FUD try.

--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:48:34 -0500, RonB wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
>
> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
>
> Nice FUD try.

Wrong.....

Can you say partitions, logical volume manger etc...

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Please Visit www.linsux.org

RonB writes:

> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
>
> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and
> administering

No they haven't. Are you mad?

> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
>
> Nice FUD try.

There is also the point that they can do the windows boxes too....

--
"Maybe you can buy a Saturday Night Special and blow your POS brains out."
-- Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 06:22:12 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> RonB writes:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
>>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
>>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
>>
>> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and
>> administering
>
> No they haven't. Are you mad?

No, informed. What kind of shops are you talking about. A bicycle store?

>> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
>>
>> Nice FUD try.
>
> There is also the point that they can do the windows boxes too....

No kidding. Almost every decent sized IT organization has a mix of
Windows, UNIX and Linux. To pretend otherwise is just dishonest.

--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"

On 2008-10-02, RonB wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
>
> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
>

Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:

for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
done

Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
(though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
unattended).

Try this on windows. Good luck.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

RonB wrote:

> No, informed. What kind of shops are you talking about. A bicycle store?

What Queeg doesn't actually know, he makes up and posts as fact.
--
Regards,
[tv]

Owner/Proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

You are deeply attached to your friends and acquaintances.

RonB wrote:

> Almost every decent sized IT organization has a mix of
> Windows, UNIX and Linux. To pretend otherwise is just dishonest.

We have a number of Windows machines in our entirely Unix / Linux business.
They're used to test software that we sometimes have to build for that
platform, to test security threats to /our/ code through compromised
Windows machines, and because we like the shade of blue that's so often
seen on their monitors...

C.

"Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
news:Ip6dnYIMbpXg0nnVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> On 2008-10-02, RonB wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
>>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
>>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
>>
>> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
>> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
>>
>
> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
>
> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
> done
>
> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
> unattended).
>
> Try this on windows. Good luck.

Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
automatically download and update.
All your comment shows is how poor your understanding of windows is.
You are probably hunter in disguise as he knows nothing that is true as far
as windows is concerned.

BTW there is a scripting language you could use to do windows but why when
there are management packages that do the job better?
With them you can roll the changes back if you discover any unwanted effects
later all without going near the machines.

I guess its the difference between someone that knows how to design and
manage a few hundred machines and some cowboy that manages four or five
machines.. one needs to know how to do things the proper way, the other can
struggle along and get away with it. It is why some people get paid lots,
its also why the opinion about windows that most people express in this
group is such cr@p, they just don't have a clue and never will have as they
are too scared to actually even learn the basics about windows admin.

After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
this bit o' wisdom:

> "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
>>
>> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
>>
>> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
>> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
>> done
>>
>> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
>> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
>> unattended).
>>
>> Try this on windows. Good luck.
>
> Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
> You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
> automatically download and update.

How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?

> I guess its the difference between someone that knows how to design and
> manage a few hundred machines and some cowboy that manages four or five
> machines.. one needs to know how to do things the proper way, the other can
> struggle along and get away with it. It is why some people get paid lots,
> its also why the opinion about windows that most people express in this
> group is such cr@p, they just don't have a clue and never will have as they
> are too scared to actually even learn the basics about windows admin.
^^^^^^

guffaw

--
When I think about myself,
I almost laugh myself to death, ...
I laugh until I start to crying,
When I think about my folks. -- Maya Angelou

"Moshe Goldfarb." writes:

>> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
>> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
>>
>> Nice FUD try.
>
> Wrong.....
>
> Can you say partitions, logical volume manger etc...

A Unix admin that can handle Solaris, AIX, and HPUX can easily handle Linux.

"Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
news:2%1Fk.41060$XT1.6024@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
> After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
>>>
>>> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
>>>
>>> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
>>> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
>>> done
>>>
>>> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
>>> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
>>> unattended).
>>>
>>> Try this on windows. Good luck.
>>
>> Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
>> You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
>> automatically download and update.
>
> How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?

That is the difference between knowing about something and chucking out cr@p
statements like some in this group.

>> I guess its the difference between someone that knows how to design and
>> manage a few hundred machines and some cowboy that manages four or five
>> machines.. one needs to know how to do things the proper way, the other
>> can
>> struggle along and get away with it. It is why some people get paid lots,
>> its also why the opinion about windows that most people express in this
>> group is such cr@p, they just don't have a clue and never will have as
>> they
>> are too scared to actually even learn the basics about windows admin.
> ^^^^^^
>
> guffaw

I take it you can only find spell chucker errors to argue about?

"Maxwell Lol" wrote in message
news:87fxnfmdty.fsf@com.invalid...
> "Moshe Goldfarb." writes:
>
>>> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
>>> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
>>>
>>> Nice FUD try.
>>
>> Wrong.....
>>
>> Can you say partitions, logical volume manger etc...
>
> A Unix admin that can handle Solaris, AIX, and HPUX can easily handle
> Linux.
>

At the level that most people operate at almost anyone could handle linux.
They don't appear to be able to setup windows not to use admin for user
accounts though.
I guess they don't actually understand admin functions under any OS
including linux?

On 2008-10-02, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
>>>
>>> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
>>>
>>> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
>>> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
>>> done
>>>
>>> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
>>> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
>>> unattended).
>>>
>>> Try this on windows. Good luck.
>>
>> Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
>> You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
>> automatically download and update.
>
> How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?

I dunno, I still would personally feel better being able to go
out to each machine, fire off an update command and then get the
response so that it can be logged by the same process that's in
charge of the update.

Interestingly enough, there's supposed to be something available
under Windows to do the Unix version of what we're talking about.
Some Unix admin I'm talking to in another forum claims to be familiar
with the details. Although he hasn't laid them out though.

OTOH, you could build your own local package repository with
Linux or Solaris and do the same sort of approach as is being
advocated for Windows. Set the individual machines to always update
from the repository and just add things to it.

Then let the fur fly.

--
Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's |||
continued popularity as does an attempt to do some / | \
simple date manipulations in postgres.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Christopher Hunter wrote:
> RonB wrote:
>
>> Almost every decent sized IT organization has a mix of
>> Windows, UNIX and Linux. To pretend otherwise is just dishonest.
>
> We have a number of Windows machines in our entirely Unix / Linux
> business. They're used to test software that we sometimes have to
> build for that platform, to test security threats to /our/ code
> through compromised Windows machines, and because we like the shade
> of blue that's so often seen on their monitors...

You'll be posting video proof of these BSOD any minute now, right liar?

Ignoramus31561 writes:

> On 2008-10-02, RonB wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
>>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
>>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
>>
>> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
>> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
>>
>
> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
>
> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
> done
>
> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
> unattended).
>
> Try this on windows. Good luck.

You probably would not want to.

I think a nicer solution is to either ssh/sync a package file (list of
packages in it) or to allow the destination machines to pick it up
themsleves using rsync on a machine specific cron job.

Forcing an update onto remote machines is naive unless you really,
really now that machine is (a) up and (b) in a position where installing
SW is a good idea.

On 2008-10-02, dennis@home wrote:
>
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
> news:2%1Fk.41060$XT1.6024@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
>>>>
>>>> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
>>>> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
>>>> done
>>>>
>>>> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
>>>> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
>>>> unattended).
>>>>
>>>> Try this on windows. Good luck.
>>>
>>> Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
>>> You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
>>> automatically download and update.
>>
>> How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?
>
> That is the difference between knowing about something and chucking out cr@p
> statements like some in this group.

Until you prove otherwise, you fall in the latter category.

[deletia]

--
Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's |||
continued popularity as does an attempt to do some / | \
simple date manipulations in postgres.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

After takin' a swig o' grog, Moshe Goldfarb. belched out
this bit o' wisdom:

> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:48:34 -0500, RonB wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
>>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
>>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
>>
>> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
>> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
>>
>> Nice FUD try.
>
> Wrong.....
>
> Can you say partitions, logical volume manger etc...

Can you say Active Directory?

'nuff said.

--
...you could spend *all day* customizing the title bar. Believe me. I
speak from experience.
-- Matt Welsh

After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
this bit o' wisdom:

>>> are too scared to actually even learn the basics about windows admin.
>> ^^^^^^
>>
>> guffaw
>
> I take it you can only find spell chucker errors to argue about?

It's not a spell "chucker" (good pun by the way) error. It's a
deep-structure error ;->

--
List at least two alternate dates.