One more update on Windows to Linux migration - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on One more update on Windows to Linux migration - Ubuntu ; We are migrating our application servers (running our own custom apps) from Windows to Linux. As the light in the tunnel is visible, and we went beyond 1/2 of work, here are some conclusions: 1) We will be replacing roughly ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37

Thread: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

  1. One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    We are migrating our application servers (running our own custom apps)
    from Windows to Linux. As the light in the tunnel is visible, and we
    went beyond 1/2 of work, here are some conclusions:

    1) We will be replacing roughly 80 Windows servers with approximately
    15 Linux servers. We will probably use a few more Linux servers that
    would be for redundancy purposes only, and that will not be doing any
    actual work unless something breaks.

    2) Administering these machines is very highly automated and comes at
    zero "incremental cost of ownership" per machine. There are no admins
    walking around from machine to machine and being paid for repetitive
    actions.

    3) Administering those custom applications is also much easier under
    Linux due to much greater automation. No stupid Windows ****, like
    inability to delete a running executable, etc, interferes with system
    administration tasks.
    --
    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/

  2. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:21:54 -0500, Ignoramus24794 wrote:

    > We are migrating our application servers (running our own custom apps)
    > from Windows to Linux. As the light in the tunnel is visible, and we
    > went beyond 1/2 of work, here are some conclusions:
    >
    > 1) We will be replacing roughly 80 Windows servers with approximately 15
    > Linux servers. We will probably use a few more Linux servers that would
    > be for redundancy purposes only, and that will not be doing any actual
    > work unless something breaks.
    >
    > 2) Administering these machines is very highly automated and comes at
    > zero "incremental cost of ownership" per machine. There are no admins
    > walking around from machine to machine and being paid for repetitive
    > actions.
    >
    > 3) Administering those custom applications is also much easier under
    > Linux due to much greater automation. No stupid Windows ****, like
    > inability to delete a running executable, etc, interferes with system
    > administration tasks.


    FWIW - before I retired a few years ago, I adminned out Linux systems.
    Part time, as a collateral duty - took me on average about four hours per
    month. There was also a full time IT guy who took care of the MS machines
    - and that's all he did - but then he did have about four times as many
    boxes to manage.

  3. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On 2008-09-13, ray wrote:
    > On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:21:54 -0500, Ignoramus24794 wrote:
    >
    >> We are migrating our application servers (running our own custom apps)
    >> from Windows to Linux. As the light in the tunnel is visible, and we
    >> went beyond 1/2 of work, here are some conclusions:
    >>
    >> 1) We will be replacing roughly 80 Windows servers with approximately 15
    >> Linux servers. We will probably use a few more Linux servers that would
    >> be for redundancy purposes only, and that will not be doing any actual
    >> work unless something breaks.
    >>
    >> 2) Administering these machines is very highly automated and comes at
    >> zero "incremental cost of ownership" per machine. There are no admins
    >> walking around from machine to machine and being paid for repetitive
    >> actions.
    >>
    >> 3) Administering those custom applications is also much easier under
    >> Linux due to much greater automation. No stupid Windows ****, like
    >> inability to delete a running executable, etc, interferes with system
    >> administration tasks.

    >
    > FWIW - before I retired a few years ago, I adminned out Linux systems.
    > Part time, as a collateral duty - took me on average about four hours per
    > month. There was also a full time IT guy who took care of the MS machines
    > - and that's all he did - but then he did have about four times as many
    > boxes to manage.


    If I admined 10 times more machines, I would barely be doing any more
    work.

    --
    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: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 22:41:00 -0500, Ignoramus24794 wrote:

    > On 2008-09-13, ray wrote:
    >> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:21:54 -0500, Ignoramus24794 wrote:
    >>
    >>> We are migrating our application servers (running our own custom apps)
    >>> from Windows to Linux. As the light in the tunnel is visible, and we
    >>> went beyond 1/2 of work, here are some conclusions:
    >>>
    >>> 1) We will be replacing roughly 80 Windows servers with approximately
    >>> 15 Linux servers. We will probably use a few more Linux servers that
    >>> would be for redundancy purposes only, and that will not be doing any
    >>> actual work unless something breaks.
    >>>
    >>> 2) Administering these machines is very highly automated and comes at
    >>> zero "incremental cost of ownership" per machine. There are no admins
    >>> walking around from machine to machine and being paid for repetitive
    >>> actions.
    >>>
    >>> 3) Administering those custom applications is also much easier under
    >>> Linux due to much greater automation. No stupid Windows ****, like
    >>> inability to delete a running executable, etc, interferes with system
    >>> administration tasks.

    >>
    >> FWIW - before I retired a few years ago, I adminned out Linux systems.
    >> Part time, as a collateral duty - took me on average about four hours
    >> per month. There was also a full time IT guy who took care of the MS
    >> machines - and that's all he did - but then he did have about four
    >> times as many boxes to manage.

    >
    > If I admined 10 times more machines, I would barely be doing any more
    > work.


    Gnu/linux is for lazy people......!!!

    sf


  5. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On 2008-09-13, jellybean stonerfish wrote:
    > On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 22:41:00 -0500, Ignoramus24794 wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-09-13, ray wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:21:54 -0500, Ignoramus24794 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> We are migrating our application servers (running our own custom apps)
    >>>> from Windows to Linux. As the light in the tunnel is visible, and we
    >>>> went beyond 1/2 of work, here are some conclusions:
    >>>>
    >>>> 1) We will be replacing roughly 80 Windows servers with approximately
    >>>> 15 Linux servers. We will probably use a few more Linux servers that
    >>>> would be for redundancy purposes only, and that will not be doing any
    >>>> actual work unless something breaks.
    >>>>
    >>>> 2) Administering these machines is very highly automated and comes at
    >>>> zero "incremental cost of ownership" per machine. There are no admins
    >>>> walking around from machine to machine and being paid for repetitive
    >>>> actions.
    >>>>
    >>>> 3) Administering those custom applications is also much easier under
    >>>> Linux due to much greater automation. No stupid Windows ****, like
    >>>> inability to delete a running executable, etc, interferes with system
    >>>> administration tasks.
    >>>
    >>> FWIW - before I retired a few years ago, I adminned out Linux systems.
    >>> Part time, as a collateral duty - took me on average about four hours
    >>> per month. There was also a full time IT guy who took care of the MS
    >>> machines - and that's all he did - but then he did have about four
    >>> times as many boxes to manage.

    >>
    >> If I admined 10 times more machines, I would barely be doing any more
    >> work.

    >
    > Gnu/linux is for lazy people......!!!
    >


    That's how I see it as well.

    --
    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: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    Ignoramus24794 wrote:
    > On 2008-09-13, jellybean stonerfish wrote:
    >> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 22:41:00 -0500, Ignoramus24794 wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-09-13, ray wrote:
    >>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:21:54 -0500, Ignoramus24794 wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> We are migrating our application servers (running our own custom apps)
    >>>>> from Windows to Linux. As the light in the tunnel is visible, and we
    >>>>> went beyond 1/2 of work, here are some conclusions:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 1) We will be replacing roughly 80 Windows servers with approximately
    >>>>> 15 Linux servers. We will probably use a few more Linux servers that
    >>>>> would be for redundancy purposes only, and that will not be doing any
    >>>>> actual work unless something breaks.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 2) Administering these machines is very highly automated and comes at
    >>>>> zero "incremental cost of ownership" per machine. There are no admins
    >>>>> walking around from machine to machine and being paid for repetitive
    >>>>> actions.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 3) Administering those custom applications is also much easier under
    >>>>> Linux due to much greater automation. No stupid Windows ****, like
    >>>>> inability to delete a running executable, etc, interferes with system
    >>>>> administration tasks.
    >>>> FWIW - before I retired a few years ago, I adminned out Linux systems.
    >>>> Part time, as a collateral duty - took me on average about four hours
    >>>> per month. There was also a full time IT guy who took care of the MS
    >>>> machines - and that's all he did - but then he did have about four
    >>>> times as many boxes to manage.
    >>> If I admined 10 times more machines, I would barely be doing any more
    >>> work.

    >> Gnu/linux is for lazy people......!!!
    >>

    >
    > That's how I see it as well.
    >

    No, being serious, and in these days of credit crunches people are, its
    cost effective.

    In London, one sofware facilities management company cites the cost of
    fully supporting a PC windows network and applications at 3000 per
    machine per annum.

    At London admin wages thats a full time person for every 15 or so machines..

    Let alone teh costs due to people fiddling with stiff on a windows
    desktop that they dont need when they might be doing something useful.

    Linux can be setup once to do just the job that the staff actually need
    to do, and every other executable removed, and that config rolled out to
    workstations.

    If the desktop requires no more than a single custom app to run,Linux is
    way the preferred solution: Windows only makes sense if there is some
    third party app that is necessary and not available under Linux.

    I suspect this trend will continue until more and more 3rd party apps do
    get ported to Linux, and that will be the death knell of Windows in the
    corporate marketplace. Where arguably it never should have been in the
    first place.



  7. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:21:54 -0500, Ignoramus24794 wrote:

    >1) We will be replacing roughly 80 Windows servers with approximately
    >15 Linux servers. We will probably use a few more Linux servers that
    >would be for redundancy purposes only, and that will not be doing any
    >actual work unless something breaks.


    Are you using two or more virtual servers on one machine or are
    those 15 just single, real servers?

    The reason behind my question is to find out more about the
    value of virtualization. I'm wondering whether and where it is
    genuinely useful.

    Hans-Georg
    --
    No mail, please.

  8. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On 2008-09-12, Ignoramus24794 wrote:
    > We are migrating our application servers (running our own custom apps)
    > from Windows to Linux. As the light in the tunnel is visible, and we
    > went beyond 1/2 of work, here are some conclusions:
    >
    > 1) We will be replacing roughly 80 Windows servers with approximately
    > 15 Linux servers. We will probably use a few more Linux servers that
    > would be for redundancy purposes only, and that will not be doing any
    > actual work unless something breaks.
    >
    > 2) Administering these machines is very highly automated and comes at
    > zero "incremental cost of ownership" per machine. There are no admins
    > walking around from machine to machine and being paid for repetitive
    > actions.
    >
    > 3) Administering those custom applications is also much easier under
    > Linux due to much greater automation. No stupid Windows ****, like
    > inability to delete a running executable, etc, interferes with system
    > administration tasks.


    Ms Penguin, blurted out Bugger! as she went out the door to go fishing. I
    caught something that more and more people are doing this these days.


  9. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On 2008-09-13, jellybean stonerfish wrote:

    [snip]
    >
    > Gnu/linux is for lazy people......!!!


    Quote of the month!

  10. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On 2008-09-13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    [snip]

    > In London, one sofware facilities management company cites the cost of
    > fully supporting a PC windows network and applications at 3000 per
    > machine per annum.
    >
    > At London admin wages thats a full time person for every 15 or so machines..
    >
    > Let alone teh costs due to people fiddling with stiff on a windows
    > desktop that they dont need when they might be doing something useful.
    >
    > Linux can be setup once to do just the job that the staff actually need
    > to do, and every other executable removed, and that config rolled out to
    > workstations.
    >
    > If the desktop requires no more than a single custom app to run,Linux is
    > way the preferred solution: Windows only makes sense if there is some
    > third party app that is necessary and not available under Linux.
    >
    > I suspect this trend will continue until more and more 3rd party apps do
    > get ported to Linux, and that will be the death knell of Windows in the
    > corporate marketplace. Where arguably it never should have been in the
    > first place.


    Or any where else post 1999.

  11. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On 2008-09-12, Ignoramus24794 wrote:
    > We are migrating our application servers (running our own custom apps)
    > from Windows to Linux. As the light in the tunnel is visible, and we
    > went beyond 1/2 of work, here are some conclusions:
    >
    > 1) We will be replacing roughly 80 Windows servers with approximately
    > 15 Linux servers. We will probably use a few more Linux servers that
    > would be for redundancy purposes only, and that will not be doing any
    > actual work unless something breaks.
    >
    > 2) Administering these machines is very highly automated and comes at
    > zero "incremental cost of ownership" per machine. There are no admins
    > walking around from machine to machine and being paid for repetitive
    > actions.
    >
    > 3) Administering those custom applications is also much easier under
    > Linux due to much greater automation. No stupid Windows ****, like
    > inability to delete a running executable, etc, interferes with system
    > administration tasks.


    I wonder how then, the company I work for, manages to manage all of the many
    thousands of windows machines that they own. Many hundreds of which are used
    by telecommuters - such as my self. Windows update is disabled, so they push
    only the updates they want.... Yet they never come to my house. hmmm.

    --
    Tom Shelton

  12. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On 2008-09-13, Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
    > On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:21:54 -0500, Ignoramus24794 wrote:
    >
    >>1) We will be replacing roughly 80 Windows servers with approximately
    >>15 Linux servers. We will probably use a few more Linux servers that
    >>would be for redundancy purposes only, and that will not be doing any
    >>actual work unless something breaks.

    >
    > Are you using two or more virtual servers on one machine or are
    > those 15 just single, real servers?


    No, we do not use virtualization at all. The servers are simply able
    to run more apps per server.

    > The reason behind my question is to find out more about the
    > value of virtualization. I'm wondering whether and where it is
    > genuinely useful.


    I think that it is useful either for people who cannot afford more
    than one computer and want to run two OSes, or for ISPs. In my
    opinion, which is worthj what you paid for it, virtualization in
    corporate environment means poorly designed aplications that cannot
    cooperate with opne another properly.
    --
    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: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    Tom Shelton wrote:
    > On 2008-09-12, Ignoramus24794 wrote:
    >> We are migrating our application servers (running our own custom apps)
    >> from Windows to Linux. As the light in the tunnel is visible, and we
    >> went beyond 1/2 of work, here are some conclusions:
    >>
    >> 1) We will be replacing roughly 80 Windows servers with approximately
    >> 15 Linux servers. We will probably use a few more Linux servers that
    >> would be for redundancy purposes only, and that will not be doing any
    >> actual work unless something breaks.
    >>
    >> 2) Administering these machines is very highly automated and comes at
    >> zero "incremental cost of ownership" per machine. There are no admins
    >> walking around from machine to machine and being paid for repetitive
    >> actions.
    >>
    >> 3) Administering those custom applications is also much easier under
    >> Linux due to much greater automation. No stupid Windows ****, like
    >> inability to delete a running executable, etc, interferes with system
    >> administration tasks.

    >
    > I wonder how then, the company I work for, manages to manage all of the many
    > thousands of windows machines that they own. Many hundreds of which are used
    > by telecommuters - such as my self. Windows update is disabled, so they push
    > only the updates they want.... Yet they never come to my house. hmmm.



    He claimed it was harder, not impossible.

  14. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    ray wrote:

    > On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:21:54 -0500, Ignoramus24794 wrote:
    >
    >> We are migrating our application servers (running our own custom apps)
    >> from Windows to Linux. As the light in the tunnel is visible, and we
    >> went beyond 1/2 of work, here are some conclusions:
    >>
    >> 1) We will be replacing roughly 80 Windows servers with approximately 15
    >> Linux servers. We will probably use a few more Linux servers that would
    >> be for redundancy purposes only, and that will not be doing any actual
    >> work unless something breaks.
    >>
    >> 2) Administering these machines is very highly automated and comes at
    >> zero "incremental cost of ownership" per machine. There are no admins
    >> walking around from machine to machine and being paid for repetitive
    >> actions.
    >>
    >> 3) Administering those custom applications is also much easier under
    >> Linux due to much greater automation. No stupid Windows ****, like
    >> inability to delete a running executable, etc, interferes with system
    >> administration tasks.

    >
    > FWIW - before I retired a few years ago, I adminned out Linux systems.
    > Part time, as a collateral duty - took me on average about four hours per
    > month. There was also a full time IT guy who took care of the MS machines
    > - and that's all he did - but then he did have about four times as many
    > boxes to manage.


    You say you spent 1 hour per week on administering an X amount of Linux
    boxes. This other guy spent 40 hours per week administering four times that
    number of Windows boxes.

    So if I understand your numbers correctly, administering Windows boxes takes
    at least *ten times* the amount of work Linux boxes take. And I say "at
    least", because you only were a sort of occasional, part-time sysadmin,
    while this other guy had a fulltime job -- which means his work flow should
    be rather more efficient than yours. This sounds pretty staggering. I know
    that Windows sysadmins can't handle by far the amount of machines *nix
    sysadmins handle, but I always understood it was merely (hahaha) a factor
    of three or four, not ten.

    To all those Wintrolls: can you say "TCO"?

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl

  15. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    Richard Rasker writes:

    > ray wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:21:54 -0500, Ignoramus24794 wrote:
    >>
    >>> We are migrating our application servers (running our own custom apps)
    >>> from Windows to Linux. As the light in the tunnel is visible, and we
    >>> went beyond 1/2 of work, here are some conclusions:
    >>>
    >>> 1) We will be replacing roughly 80 Windows servers with approximately 15
    >>> Linux servers. We will probably use a few more Linux servers that would
    >>> be for redundancy purposes only, and that will not be doing any actual
    >>> work unless something breaks.
    >>>
    >>> 2) Administering these machines is very highly automated and comes at
    >>> zero "incremental cost of ownership" per machine. There are no admins
    >>> walking around from machine to machine and being paid for repetitive
    >>> actions.
    >>>
    >>> 3) Administering those custom applications is also much easier under
    >>> Linux due to much greater automation. No stupid Windows ****, like
    >>> inability to delete a running executable, etc, interferes with system
    >>> administration tasks.

    >>
    >> FWIW - before I retired a few years ago, I adminned out Linux systems.
    >> Part time, as a collateral duty - took me on average about four hours per
    >> month. There was also a full time IT guy who took care of the MS machines
    >> - and that's all he did - but then he did have about four times as many
    >> boxes to manage.

    >
    > You say you spent 1 hour per week on administering an X amount of Linux
    > boxes. This other guy spent 40 hours per week administering four times that
    > number of Windows boxes.


    If you believe all this hogwash of course.

    Now lets dig deeper:

    servers : low maintenance.
    desktops : prone to users messing up

    I wonder what OS was where?

    >
    > So if I understand your numbers correctly, administering Windows boxes takes
    > at least *ten times* the amount of work Linux boxes take. And I say
    > "at


    For Ray.

    > least", because you only were a sort of occasional, part-time sysadmin,
    > while this other guy had a fulltime job -- which means his work flow should
    > be rather more efficient than yours. This sounds pretty staggering. I know
    > that Windows sysadmins can't handle by far the amount of machines *nix
    > sysadmins handle, but I always understood it was merely (hahaha) a factor
    > of three or four, not ten.
    >
    > To all those Wintrolls: can you say "TCO"?


    And to you I say "Want to buy a bridge"?

  16. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 04:18:00 +0000, jellybean stonerfish wrote:

    > On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 22:41:00 -0500, Ignoramus24794 wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-09-13, ray wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:21:54 -0500, Ignoramus24794 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> We are migrating our application servers (running our own custom
    >>>> apps) from Windows to Linux. As the light in the tunnel is visible,
    >>>> and we went beyond 1/2 of work, here are some conclusions:
    >>>>
    >>>> 1) We will be replacing roughly 80 Windows servers with approximately
    >>>> 15 Linux servers. We will probably use a few more Linux servers that
    >>>> would be for redundancy purposes only, and that will not be doing any
    >>>> actual work unless something breaks.
    >>>>
    >>>> 2) Administering these machines is very highly automated and comes at
    >>>> zero "incremental cost of ownership" per machine. There are no admins
    >>>> walking around from machine to machine and being paid for repetitive
    >>>> actions.
    >>>>
    >>>> 3) Administering those custom applications is also much easier under
    >>>> Linux due to much greater automation. No stupid Windows ****, like
    >>>> inability to delete a running executable, etc, interferes with system
    >>>> administration tasks.
    >>>
    >>> FWIW - before I retired a few years ago, I adminned out Linux systems.
    >>> Part time, as a collateral duty - took me on average about four hours
    >>> per month. There was also a full time IT guy who took care of the MS
    >>> machines - and that's all he did - but then he did have about four
    >>> times as many boxes to manage.

    >>
    >> If I admined 10 times more machines, I would barely be doing any more
    >> work.

    >
    > Gnu/linux is for lazy people......!!!
    >
    > sf


    Yeah. I'm a mathematician by training. Mathematicians are notoriously
    lazy. We'll spend three days researching a problem so we can save a few
    hours solving it. But then when the same problem recurrs, we've already
    got it beat.

  17. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:35:09 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > Richard Rasker writes:
    >
    >> ray wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:21:54 -0500, Ignoramus24794 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> We are migrating our application servers (running our own custom
    >>>> apps) from Windows to Linux. As the light in the tunnel is visible,
    >>>> and we went beyond 1/2 of work, here are some conclusions:
    >>>>
    >>>> 1) We will be replacing roughly 80 Windows servers with approximately
    >>>> 15 Linux servers. We will probably use a few more Linux servers that
    >>>> would be for redundancy purposes only, and that will not be doing any
    >>>> actual work unless something breaks.
    >>>>
    >>>> 2) Administering these machines is very highly automated and comes at
    >>>> zero "incremental cost of ownership" per machine. There are no admins
    >>>> walking around from machine to machine and being paid for repetitive
    >>>> actions.
    >>>>
    >>>> 3) Administering those custom applications is also much easier under
    >>>> Linux due to much greater automation. No stupid Windows ****, like
    >>>> inability to delete a running executable, etc, interferes with system
    >>>> administration tasks.
    >>>
    >>> FWIW - before I retired a few years ago, I adminned out Linux systems.
    >>> Part time, as a collateral duty - took me on average about four hours
    >>> per month. There was also a full time IT guy who took care of the MS
    >>> machines - and that's all he did - but then he did have about four
    >>> times as many boxes to manage.

    >>
    >> You say you spent 1 hour per week on administering an X amount of Linux
    >> boxes. This other guy spent 40 hours per week administering four times
    >> that number of Windows boxes.

    >
    > If you believe all this hogwash of course.
    >
    > Now lets dig deeper:
    >
    > servers : low maintenance.
    > desktops : prone to users messing up
    >
    > I wonder what OS was where?


    Actually, the mix was around 80/20 desktop/server on both OSs.


    >
    >
    >> So if I understand your numbers correctly, administering Windows boxes
    >> takes at least *ten times* the amount of work Linux boxes take. And I
    >> say "at

    >
    > For Ray.
    >
    >> least", because you only were a sort of occasional, part-time sysadmin,
    >> while this other guy had a fulltime job -- which means his work flow
    >> should be rather more efficient than yours. This sounds pretty
    >> staggering. I know that Windows sysadmins can't handle by far the
    >> amount of machines *nix sysadmins handle, but I always understood it
    >> was merely (hahaha) a factor of three or four, not ten.
    >>
    >> To all those Wintrolls: can you say "TCO"?

    >
    > And to you I say "Want to buy a bridge"?



  18. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On 2008-09-13, Hadron wrote:
    > Richard Rasker writes:
    >
    >> ray wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:21:54 -0500, Ignoramus24794 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> We are migrating our application servers (running our own custom apps)
    >>>> from Windows to Linux. As the light in the tunnel is visible, and we
    >>>> went beyond 1/2 of work, here are some conclusions:
    >>>>
    >>>> 1) We will be replacing roughly 80 Windows servers with approximately 15
    >>>> Linux servers. We will probably use a few more Linux servers that would
    >>>> be for redundancy purposes only, and that will not be doing any actual
    >>>> work unless something breaks.
    >>>>
    >>>> 2) Administering these machines is very highly automated and comes at
    >>>> zero "incremental cost of ownership" per machine. There are no admins
    >>>> walking around from machine to machine and being paid for repetitive
    >>>> actions.
    >>>>
    >>>> 3) Administering those custom applications is also much easier under
    >>>> Linux due to much greater automation. No stupid Windows ****, like
    >>>> inability to delete a running executable, etc, interferes with system
    >>>> administration tasks.
    >>>
    >>> FWIW - before I retired a few years ago, I adminned out Linux systems.
    >>> Part time, as a collateral duty - took me on average about four hours per
    >>> month. There was also a full time IT guy who took care of the MS machines
    >>> - and that's all he did - but then he did have about four times as many
    >>> boxes to manage.

    >>
    >> You say you spent 1 hour per week on administering an X amount of Linux
    >> boxes. This other guy spent 40 hours per week administering four times that
    >> number of Windows boxes.

    >
    > If you believe all this hogwash of course.
    >
    > Now lets dig deeper:
    >
    > servers : low maintenance.
    > desktops : prone to users messing up
    >
    > I wonder what OS was where?


    Comparing servers against desktops is not valid, but in my case the
    comparison is servers against servers.

    i

    --
    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/

  19. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Ignoramus22875 pravi:
    >> The reason behind my question is to find out more about the
    >> value of virtualization. I'm wondering whether and where it is
    >> genuinely useful.

    >
    > I think that it is useful either for people who cannot afford more
    > than one computer and want to run two OSes,


    One good example is running Windows 95-only software on modern
    computers. Since windows 95 can't handle ACPI you just can't install it
    on a modern PC. And for servicing some old lab equipment there is only
    software that works windows 95. VMWare is the only choice.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iD8DBQFIy+ANB6mNZXe93qgRAohQAKC0y4m62+IP4j6xxWXQz6 MlxS8YQACdEuLn
    icIZaUZkbFdY1V3HAYpuRsU=
    =IUof
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  20. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    * ray peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:35:09 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>> ray wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> FWIW - before I retired a few years ago, I adminned out Linux systems.
    >>>> Part time, as a collateral duty - took me on average about four hours
    >>>> per month. There was also a full time IT guy who took care of the MS
    >>>> machines - and that's all he did - but then he did have about four
    >>>> times as many boxes to manage.
    >>>
    >>> You say you spent 1 hour per week on administering an X amount of Linux
    >>> boxes. This other guy spent 40 hours per week administering four times
    >>> that number of Windows boxes.

    >>
    >> If you believe all this hogwash of course.
    >>
    >> Now lets dig deeper:
    >>
    >> servers : low maintenance.
    >> desktops : prone to users messing up
    >>
    >> I wonder what OS was where?

    >
    > Actually, the mix was around 80/20 desktop/server on both OSs.
    >>
    >> And to you I say "Want to buy a bridge"?


    Your big mistake, guys, was posting something positive.

    Since Hadrone didn't post the positive item, he has to come along to
    tear it down.

    Like clockwork.

    A major self-important asshole is Hadrone Queeg.

    --
    Evolution is as much a fact as the earth turning on its axis and going around
    the sun. At one time this was called the Copernican theory; but, when
    evidence for a theory becomes so overwhelming that no informed person can
    doubt it, it is customary for scientists to call it a fact. That all present
    life descended from earlier forms, over vast stretches of geologic time, is
    as firmly established as Copernican cosmology. Biologists differ only with
    respect to theories about how the process operates.
    -- Martin Gardner, "Irving Kristol and the Facts of Life".

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast