Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 01:58:18 -0800 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com>, "Andrew C. Hornback" <achornback@worldnet.att.net>, "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org> Cc: <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <001701c17985$89206f20$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <03c501c17982$c8243510$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG >[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Anthony >Atkielski >Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 1:39 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Andrew C. Hornback; Mike Meyer >Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG >Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) > > >There isn't any reason _not_ to go with Windows. It does the job >nicely--it's >hardly "garbage-grade." > It does the job that Microsoft thinks you want done nicely. It doesen't do the job that _needs_ to be done nicely, nor is it easy to modify it to do so. >> People pay a lower up front cost for Windows because >> it's cheap to set up, but over the total cost of >> the system they pay much more simply because Windows >> isn't the best solution for their infrastructure. > >I have seen zero evidence of this anywhere. Your not looking for it. Take for example a typical old-style file-locking accounting program, I'll use MAS90 for this (I happened to have to support this at a former employer) If this was implemented on UNIX when you set up a remote site all you would have to do is put terminal emulation clients on the remote systems (or use Windows Terminal or Hyperterminal) and put up a dedicated circuit, perhaps even a VPN. But when it's implemented on Windows you can't do that you have to spend a bunch of money to enhance the server that the locked files are on into Windows Terminal Server then load Terminal Server clients on all remote clients and spend a lot more money on bandwidth between the sites. This is because Windows is so inflexible and limited that Microsoft had to graft all the terminal services onto it to be able to support this kind of thing. It's those kinds of bandaids are where you lose money by spending it on time. > >Windows addresses the lowest common denominator in computing, and as >IT becomes >more widespread, the average user more and more closely approaches >this lowest >common denominator. This illustrates what I was saying in a different way but your looking at it from a half-full perspective. yes the average user more closely approaches this but they never quite hit it spot on. Getting from where Microsoft wants them to be to where the user wants Microsoft to be is very hard. >UNIX is a technically superior solution for many server >applications and perhaps even the occasional desktop, but it >requires staffing. > >Look at setting up a Web server, for example. Any idiot can set up a Windows >server and a Web site, almost, with virtually no advance training. >Practically >no one can set up a UNIX Web site with the same ease--some IT background is >pretty much mandatory, just to understand the manuals (if any). The UNIX >solution is less expensive in terms of hardware and software and >provdes better >Web support than Windows, but you lose that savings in personnel >costs, unless >your organization is big enough to be able to afford a few people to tend the >Unices. > But then you lose all that savings when Code Red or Nimba come around, because the idiot that set up the Windows webserver didn't know enough to lock it down. Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001701c17985$89206f20$1401a8c0>