Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators? - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators? - Microsoft Windows ; On 2008-10-04, Canuck57 wrote: > > "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message > news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com ... > >>A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux >> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is >> higher. > > Generally your ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

  1. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On 2008-10-04, Canuck57 wrote:
    >
    > "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
    > news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >
    >>A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
    >> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
    >> higher.

    >
    > Generally your average xNIX admin is smarter, works smarted. and has more
    > education. Can manage a whole lot more machines at once with higher
    > uptimes, less viruses and less patching. In fact, many of them learn Linux,
    > then learn Microsoft and can do both. But this is rare with MS-Windows
    > admins doing the opposite. Of course there are exceptions, but the above is
    > the rule.
    >
    > However companies get into issues with MS-Windows proliferation. Every app
    > gets it's own machine and soon it grows out of control multiplying like rats
    > with too much food. With xNIX, put 2-3 or more on the same system! The
    > efficiencies a smart xNIX admin gets make them look cheap compared to the MS
    > Windows stuff all things told.


    My company is doing the opposite, consolidating Windows server apps
    from many windows machines to few Linux machines. Roughly 1:6 ratio.

    i

  2. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    Ignoramus26581 writes:

    > On 2008-10-04, Canuck57 wrote:
    >>
    >> "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
    >> news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >>
    >>>A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
    >>> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
    >>> higher.

    >>
    >> Generally your average xNIX admin is smarter, works smarted. and has more
    >> education. Can manage a whole lot more machines at once with higher
    >> uptimes, less viruses and less patching. In fact, many of them learn Linux,
    >> then learn Microsoft and can do both. But this is rare with MS-Windows
    >> admins doing the opposite. Of course there are exceptions, but the above is
    >> the rule.
    >>
    >> However companies get into issues with MS-Windows proliferation. Every app
    >> gets it's own machine and soon it grows out of control multiplying like rats
    >> with too much food. With xNIX, put 2-3 or more on the same system! The
    >> efficiencies a smart xNIX admin gets make them look cheap compared to the MS
    >> Windows stuff all things told.

    >
    > My company is doing the opposite, consolidating Windows server apps
    > from many windows machines to few Linux machines. Roughly 1:6 ratio.
    >
    > i


    Which apps?

  3. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On 2008-10-04, Hadron wrote:
    > Ignoramus26581 writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-04, Canuck57 wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
    >>> news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >>>
    >>>>A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
    >>>> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
    >>>> higher.
    >>>
    >>> Generally your average xNIX admin is smarter, works smarted. and has more
    >>> education. Can manage a whole lot more machines at once with higher
    >>> uptimes, less viruses and less patching. In fact, many of them learn Linux,
    >>> then learn Microsoft and can do both. But this is rare with MS-Windows
    >>> admins doing the opposite. Of course there are exceptions, but the above is
    >>> the rule.
    >>>
    >>> However companies get into issues with MS-Windows proliferation. Every app
    >>> gets it's own machine and soon it grows out of control multiplying like rats
    >>> with too much food. With xNIX, put 2-3 or more on the same system! The
    >>> efficiencies a smart xNIX admin gets make them look cheap compared to the MS
    >>> Windows stuff all things told.

    >>
    >> My company is doing the opposite, consolidating Windows server apps
    >> from many windows machines to few Linux machines. Roughly 1:6 ratio.
    >>
    >> i

    >
    > Which apps?


    proprietary trading.

    --
    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/

  4. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    Ignoramus26581 writes:

    > On 2008-10-04, Hadron wrote:
    >> Ignoramus26581 writes:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-10-04, Canuck57 wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
    >>>> news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >>>>
    >>>>>A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
    >>>>> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
    >>>>> higher.
    >>>>
    >>>> Generally your average xNIX admin is smarter, works smarted. and has more
    >>>> education. Can manage a whole lot more machines at once with higher
    >>>> uptimes, less viruses and less patching. In fact, many of them learn Linux,
    >>>> then learn Microsoft and can do both. But this is rare with MS-Windows
    >>>> admins doing the opposite. Of course there are exceptions, but the above is
    >>>> the rule.
    >>>>
    >>>> However companies get into issues with MS-Windows proliferation. Every app
    >>>> gets it's own machine and soon it grows out of control multiplying like rats
    >>>> with too much food. With xNIX, put 2-3 or more on the same system! The
    >>>> efficiencies a smart xNIX admin gets make them look cheap compared to the MS
    >>>> Windows stuff all things told.
    >>>
    >>> My company is doing the opposite, consolidating Windows server apps
    >>> from many windows machines to few Linux machines. Roughly 1:6 ratio.
    >>>
    >>> i

    >>
    >> Which apps?

    >
    > proprietary trading.


    But which apps?

    What are they written in that you can move them over so easily?


  5. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On 2008-10-04, Hadron wrote:
    > Ignoramus26581 writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-04, Hadron wrote:
    >>> Ignoramus26581 writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2008-10-04, Canuck57 wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
    >>>>> news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
    >>>>>> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
    >>>>>> higher.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Generally your average xNIX admin is smarter, works smarted. and has more
    >>>>> education. Can manage a whole lot more machines at once with higher
    >>>>> uptimes, less viruses and less patching. In fact, many of them learn Linux,
    >>>>> then learn Microsoft and can do both. But this is rare with MS-Windows
    >>>>> admins doing the opposite. Of course there are exceptions, but the above is
    >>>>> the rule.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> However companies get into issues with MS-Windows proliferation. Every app
    >>>>> gets it's own machine and soon it grows out of control multiplying like rats
    >>>>> with too much food. With xNIX, put 2-3 or more on the same system! The
    >>>>> efficiencies a smart xNIX admin gets make them look cheap compared to the MS
    >>>>> Windows stuff all things told.
    >>>>
    >>>> My company is doing the opposite, consolidating Windows server apps
    >>>> from many windows machines to few Linux machines. Roughly 1:6 ratio.
    >>>>
    >>>> i
    >>>
    >>> Which apps?

    >>
    >> proprietary trading.

    >
    > But which apps?
    >
    > What are they written in that you can move them over so easily?
    >


    Mostly C++ and some perl.

    We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
    Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
    port)

    --
    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/

  6. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:33:42 -0500, Ignoramus26581 wrote:

    > On 2008-10-04, Hadron wrote:
    >> Ignoramus26581 writes:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-10-04, Hadron wrote:
    >>>> Ignoramus26581 writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2008-10-04, Canuck57 wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
    >>>>>>> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
    >>>>>>> higher.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Generally your average xNIX admin is smarter, works smarted. and has more
    >>>>>> education. Can manage a whole lot more machines at once with higher
    >>>>>> uptimes, less viruses and less patching. In fact, many of them learn Linux,
    >>>>>> then learn Microsoft and can do both. But this is rare with MS-Windows
    >>>>>> admins doing the opposite. Of course there are exceptions, but the above is
    >>>>>> the rule.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> However companies get into issues with MS-Windows proliferation. Every app
    >>>>>> gets it's own machine and soon it grows out of control multiplying like rats
    >>>>>> with too much food. With xNIX, put 2-3 or more on the same system! The
    >>>>>> efficiencies a smart xNIX admin gets make them look cheap compared to the MS
    >>>>>> Windows stuff all things told.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> My company is doing the opposite, consolidating Windows server apps
    >>>>> from many windows machines to few Linux machines. Roughly 1:6 ratio.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> i
    >>>>
    >>>> Which apps?
    >>>
    >>> proprietary trading.

    >>
    >> But which apps?
    >>
    >> What are they written in that you can move them over so easily?
    >>

    >
    > Mostly C++ and some perl.
    >
    > We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
    > Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
    > port)


    So they are *proprietary but they are not proprietary*...
    Makes sense to me.....
    I think?????

    --
    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

  7. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    Ignoramus26581 wrote:

    > Mostly C++ and some perl.
    >
    > We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
    > Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
    > port)


    Windoze is /not/ POSIX compliant. It never was, and never can be.

    C.


  8. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    Christopher Hunter writes:

    > Ignoramus26581 wrote:
    >
    >> Mostly C++ and some perl.
    >>
    >> We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
    >> Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
    >> port)

    >
    > Windoze is /not/ POSIX compliant. It never was, and never can be.
    >
    > C.


    Not 100% no.

    But Interix goes a long way.

  9. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    Hadron wrote:

    > Christopher Hunter writes:
    >
    >> Ignoramus26581 wrote:
    >>
    >>> Mostly C++ and some perl.
    >>>
    >>> We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
    >>> Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
    >>> port)

    >>
    >> Windoze is /not/ POSIX compliant. It never was, and never can be.
    >>
    >> C.

    >
    > Not 100% no.


    XP and Server2003 not at all. They don't have the posix subsystem anymore.
    No real loss, though. The Posix subsystem from NT was a riot

    > But Interix goes a long way.


    Still not far enough. WSU may be a try, but still just a nice try
    --
    Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course


  10. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Ignoramus26581 belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > On 2008-10-04, Hadron wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Which apps?
    >>>
    >>> proprietary trading.

    >>
    >> But which apps?
    >>
    >> What are they written in that you can move them over so easily?

    >
    > Mostly C++ and some perl.
    >
    > We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
    > Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
    > port)


    It takes a little effort to write code that runs on Linux and Windows,
    but I think it pays off in ways besides just having the same application
    available on your favorite platform(s). Your code also gets a good
    workout from the syntax checkers of more than one compiler. (This same
    effect occurs as your compiler(s) get upgrading, too).

    I had to lock into gcc/g++ 4.1 for our project because some of our
    cross-platform libraries and apps wouldn't build. I had a day off
    yesterday, to I used it to figure out what was wrong (mostly it was just
    that gcc/g++'s header-file cleanup exposed some developer's forgetting
    to include and in some modules.

    And I also found that some developers didn't know how to declare an enum
    typedef, and both Visual C++ and the earlier gcc weren't calling them on
    it. Some also had functions that returned "const int" and such.

    Pretty minor, just irritating to an anal-retentive coder like me.

    Back to the cross-platform stuff. I found it was possible
    (though not at all trivial) to wrap up the ALSA library and one of the
    Windows audio models in a callback-based class, to play audio files.

    Threads were actually a bit difficult, but the pthreads_w32 library now
    looks like the way to go (to me, anyway).

    GUIs have been cross-platform for a long time.

    As you note, you have avoid the single-vendor trap up front. Sometimes
    you have to hound your developers about it. Microsoft is kind of
    sneaky, to my way of thinking, with the CLI/C++ stuff. Example:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/05/cplusplus_cli/

    Stroustrop's take:

    http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#CppCLI

    Moderated ranting:

    http://groups.google.com/group/comp....B%2FCLI&hl=en&

    --
    The fountain code has been tightened slightly so you can no longer dip objects
    into a fountain or drink from one while you are floating in mid-air due to
    levitation.

    Teleporting to hell via a teleportation trap will no longer occur if the
    character does not have fire resistance.

    -- README file from the NetHack game

  11. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?



    "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    news:rUKFk.58260$XB4.47407@bignews9.bellsouth.net. ..
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Ignoramus26581 belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-04, Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Which apps?
    >>>>
    >>>> proprietary trading.
    >>>
    >>> But which apps?
    >>>
    >>> What are they written in that you can move them over so easily?

    >>
    >> Mostly C++ and some perl.
    >>
    >> We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
    >> Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
    >> port)

    >
    > It takes a little effort to write code that runs on Linux and Windows,
    > but I think it pays off in ways besides just having the same application
    > available on your favorite platform(s). Your code also gets a good
    > workout from the syntax checkers of more than one compiler. (This same
    > effect occurs as your compiler(s) get upgrading, too).


    Its quite easy with java, but its not something I would write a complex
    program in.
    OTH open office uses a lot of java and works well on a reasonably good
    machine.

    we did some very basic graphical stuff a few years ago (if you call 10 a
    few) using the sun java environment and a C program running on a remote unix
    box and it worked OK on unix and windows. Things can only have got better
    since as the net libs are much better now..




  12. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On 2008-10-04, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Ignoramus26581 belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-04, Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Which apps?
    >>>>
    >>>> proprietary trading.
    >>>
    >>> But which apps?
    >>>
    >>> What are they written in that you can move them over so easily?

    >>
    >> Mostly C++ and some perl.
    >>
    >> We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
    >> Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
    >> port)

    >
    > It takes a little effort to write code that runs on Linux and Windows,
    > but I think it pays off in ways besides just having the same application
    > available on your favorite platform(s). Your code also gets a good
    > workout from the syntax checkers of more than one compiler. (This same
    > effect occurs as your compiler(s) get upgrading, too).


    Yes. GCC is a much better compiler than Microsoft and pointed out a
    lot of un-obvious mistakes to us over the years.

    > I had to lock into gcc/g++ 4.1 for our project because some of our
    > cross-platform libraries and apps wouldn't build. I had a day off
    > yesterday, to I used it to figure out what was wrong (mostly it was
    > just that gcc/g++'s header-file cleanup exposed some developer's
    > forgetting to include and in some modules.
    >
    > And I also found that some developers didn't know how to declare an enum
    > typedef, and both Visual C++ and the earlier gcc weren't calling them on
    > it. Some also had functions that returned "const int" and such.
    >
    > Pretty minor, just irritating to an anal-retentive coder like me.
    >
    > Back to the cross-platform stuff. I found it was possible
    > (though not at all trivial) to wrap up the ALSA library and one of the
    > Windows audio models in a callback-based class, to play audio files.
    >
    > Threads were actually a bit difficult, but the pthreads_w32 library now
    > looks like the way to go (to me, anyway).
    >
    > GUIs have been cross-platform for a long time.
    >
    > As you note, you have avoid the single-vendor trap up front. Sometimes
    > you have to hound your developers about it. Microsoft is kind of
    > sneaky, to my way of thinking, with the CLI/C++ stuff. Example:
    >
    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/05/cplusplus_cli/
    >
    > Stroustrop's take:
    >
    > http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#CppCLI
    >
    > Moderated ranting:
    >
    > http://groups.google.com/group/comp....B%2FCLI&hl=en&
    >


    Staying far away from everything Microsoft, is definitely helpful in
    the long run. You are preaching to the choire here.
    --
    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/

  13. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?


    "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote in message
    news:u4mly6duc1yy.12go6a0n04hgg$.dlg@40tude.net...
    > On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:33:42 -0500, Ignoramus26581 wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-04, Hadron wrote:
    >>> Ignoramus26581 writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2008-10-04, Hadron wrote:
    >>>>> Ignoramus26581 writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 2008-10-04, Canuck57 wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Ignoramus31561" wrote in
    >>>>>>> message
    >>>>>>> news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
    >>>>>>>> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
    >>>>>>>> higher.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Generally your average xNIX admin is smarter, works smarted. and has
    >>>>>>> more
    >>>>>>> education. Can manage a whole lot more machines at once with higher
    >>>>>>> uptimes, less viruses and less patching. In fact, many of them
    >>>>>>> learn Linux,
    >>>>>>> then learn Microsoft and can do both. But this is rare with
    >>>>>>> MS-Windows
    >>>>>>> admins doing the opposite. Of course there are exceptions, but the
    >>>>>>> above is
    >>>>>>> the rule.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> However companies get into issues with MS-Windows proliferation.
    >>>>>>> Every app
    >>>>>>> gets it's own machine and soon it grows out of control multiplying
    >>>>>>> like rats
    >>>>>>> with too much food. With xNIX, put 2-3 or more on the same system!
    >>>>>>> The
    >>>>>>> efficiencies a smart xNIX admin gets make them look cheap compared
    >>>>>>> to the MS
    >>>>>>> Windows stuff all things told.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> My company is doing the opposite, consolidating Windows server apps
    >>>>>> from many windows machines to few Linux machines. Roughly 1:6 ratio.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> i
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Which apps?
    >>>>
    >>>> proprietary trading.
    >>>
    >>> But which apps?
    >>>
    >>> What are they written in that you can move them over so easily?
    >>>

    >>
    >> Mostly C++ and some perl.
    >>
    >> We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
    >> Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
    >> port)

    >
    > So they are *proprietary but they are not proprietary*...
    > Makes sense to me.....
    > I think?????


    Me thinks troll.



  14. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On 2008-10-04, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    > On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:33:42 -0500, Ignoramus26581 wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-04, Hadron wrote:
    >>> Ignoramus26581 writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2008-10-04, Hadron wrote:
    >>>>> Ignoramus26581 writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 2008-10-04, Canuck57 wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
    >>>>>>>> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
    >>>>>>>> higher.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Generally your average xNIX admin is smarter, works smarted. and has more
    >>>>>>> education. Can manage a whole lot more machines at once with higher
    >>>>>>> uptimes, less viruses and less patching. In fact, many of them learn Linux,
    >>>>>>> then learn Microsoft and can do both. But this is rare with MS-Windows
    >>>>>>> admins doing the opposite. Of course there are exceptions, but the above is
    >>>>>>> the rule.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> However companies get into issues with MS-Windows proliferation. Every app
    >>>>>>> gets it's own machine and soon it grows out of control multiplying like rats
    >>>>>>> with too much food. With xNIX, put 2-3 or more on the same system! The
    >>>>>>> efficiencies a smart xNIX admin gets make them look cheap compared to the MS
    >>>>>>> Windows stuff all things told.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> My company is doing the opposite, consolidating Windows server apps
    >>>>>> from many windows machines to few Linux machines. Roughly 1:6 ratio.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> i
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Which apps?
    >>>>
    >>>> proprietary trading.
    >>>
    >>> But which apps?
    >>>
    >>> What are they written in that you can move them over so easily?
    >>>

    >>
    >> Mostly C++ and some perl.
    >>
    >> We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
    >> Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
    >> port)

    >
    > So they are *proprietary but they are not proprietary*...
    > Makes sense to me.....
    > I think?????
    >


    our apps are proprietary

    tools we use are not proprietary

    --
    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/

  15. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    Canuck57 wrote:
    > "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote...
    >> Ignoramus26581 wrote:
    >>
    >>> Mostly C++ and some perl.
    >>>
    >>> We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
    >>> Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
    >>> port)

    >>
    >> So they are *proprietary but they are not proprietary*... Makes sense
    >> to me.....
    >> I think?????

    >
    > Me thinks troll.


    Bingo!

    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html

    --
    HPT

  16. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    alt.os.linux.ubuntu pruned; this isn't specifically
    about Ubuntu. Followups reset.

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Christopher Hunter

    wrote
    on Sat, 04 Oct 2008 06:40:02 +0000
    <6kodtnF8vub7U2@mid.individual.net>:
    > Ignoramus26581 wrote:
    >
    >> Mostly C++ and some perl.
    >>
    >> We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
    >> Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
    >> port)

    >
    > Windoze is /not/ POSIX compliant. It never was, and never can be.
    >
    > C.
    >


    One might have to qualify that carefully; the POSIX
    specifications appear to have multiple versions (as does,
    of course, Windows).

    Windows does not support X without additional software;
    I'm frankly curious as to what Microsoft's SFU brings to
    the table in that area. One can always install Cygwin.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Murphy was an optimist.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

+ Reply to Thread