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

This is a discussion on Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators? - Microsoft Windows ; "Canuck57" writes: > "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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

  1. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    "Canuck57" writes:

    > "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


    Possibly has better tools. But I dont hold with that. You probably have
    zero idea of the feature rich gui based network tools that the MS guys
    use.

    Why smarter? Certainly not smarter in any general sense.


    > 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


    That is nonsense. In some systems each app has its own machine. Not in
    all by any means.

    > 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.
    >
    > Take the top super computer clusters, they are almost all xNIX. I think
    > Microsoft has a few in the 400-500 down the list. This is because
    > when you


    So what?

  2. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On 2008-10-04, Hadron wrote:
    > "Canuck57" writes:
    >
    >> "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

    >
    > Possibly has better tools. But I dont hold with that. You probably have
    > zero idea of the feature rich gui based network tools that the MS guys
    > use.


    Clearly you do not either.

    [deletia]

    --

    Unfortunately, the universe will not conform itself to
    your fantasies. You have to manage based on what really happens |||
    rather than what you would like to happen. This is true of personal / | \
    affairs, government and business.


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

  3. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

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

    > On 2008-10-04, Hadron wrote:
    >>> "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
    >>>
    >>> Generally your average xNIX admin is smarter, works smarted. and has
    >>> more

    >>
    >> Possibly has better tools. But I dont hold with that. You probably have
    >> zero idea of the feature rich gui based network tools that the MS guys
    >> use.

    >
    > Clearly you do not either.
    >
    > [deletia]


    He's got the Microsoft marketing patter down, though:

    >> the feature rich gui based network tools




    I guess that's why so many more command-line sys-admin tools have come
    down the Microsoft pike the last few years.

    --
    #define SIOCGIFINDEX 0x8933 /* name -> if_index mapping */
    #define SIOGIFINDEX SIOCGIFINDEX /* misprint compatibility :-) */

    -- /usr/include/bits/ioctls.h

  4. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On 2008-10-04, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, JEDIDIAH belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-04, Hadron wrote:
    >>>> "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
    >>>>
    >>>> Generally your average xNIX admin is smarter, works smarted. and has
    >>>> more
    >>>
    >>> Possibly has better tools. But I dont hold with that. You probably have
    >>> zero idea of the feature rich gui based network tools that the MS guys
    >>> use.

    >>
    >> Clearly you do not either.
    >>
    >> [deletia]

    >
    > He's got the Microsoft marketing patter down, though:
    >
    >>> the feature rich gui based network tools

    >
    >
    >
    > I guess that's why so many more command-line sys-admin tools have come
    > down the Microsoft pike the last few years.
    >


    The plus of GUI is that an underpaid and undereducated sysadmin can
    do things.

    The minus is that it is hard to automate and anything manual is prone
    to mistakes, fat fingering etc.
    --
    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/

  5. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On 2008-10-04, Ignoramus25005 wrote:
    > The plus of GUI is that an underpaid and undereducated sysadmin can
    > do things.
    >
    > The minus is that it is hard to automate and anything manual is prone
    > to mistakes, fat fingering etc.


    Another minus of GUI is that settings are harder to move from computer
    to computer or to restore a computer after a "virus".
    --
    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/

+ Reply to Thread