Question for people in the IT field.

[Iwuvnix]

Recently had a debate in which I of course was pro-linux and the opposition was proM$. Was hoping some of the IT pros, who are actually familiar with linux networks being deployed in the field on a large scale ( like corp etc.) Could help clear something really bothering me up.

While generally bashed the other side in the debates head's in pointing out nix already runs pretty much everything important in the world, from web servers to the spaceshuttle.

They kept insisting the enterprise linux distro's like Redhat enterprise for example, was actually more expensive than comparable M$ prods. Was taken aback by this thought. I'm an online marketer ... not a nix networking guru or IT dept manager.

Asking you guys ( any people in the know ), is that actually the case ? Is running enterprise class RH software n support in fact more expensive than the use of M$'s junkware ?

Whatever the answer is regardless, the dept of defense chooses RH, NASA (linux) ... The Navy to run nuclear subs ( linux ) n google the linux kernel to be at the heart of android. Not to mention 78% of the web servers being summin apache. So I have no doubt which is better.

Just been nagging at me to think RH is charging people more than M$ ? True, untrue ... the thoughts of people who have experience in the matter ? Another assertion was that linux in a mass scale deployment really comes up short compared to M$ products. As in 1,000's of workstations and the admin of a linux network. I couldn't see how that could poss be true. Considering how versatile nix is. The fact that it's already the server platform of choice and the king of interoperability.

Just couldn't get how linux being the server platform and being able to run M$ workstations totally smoothly. Could poss not be even better if those workstations themselves were running something native linux. Am I wrong in thinking that folks ? Does linux come up short in terms of client/workstation networking ?

Thanks.

[hazel]

I'm not a professional, but I remember there was some FUD coming out of Microsoft a few years ago arguing that Linux was more expensive overall if you included staff retraining costs. That may have been what your informants were referring to.

[Roxoff]

RedHat do charge quite a bit for their server support, but it is for the support - not for the operating system itself, although they don't provide OS updates unless you have a support contract. You can see the costs if you poke around their website.

As far as easier to deploy over large numbers? Well if your 1000+ computers come pre-installed with a Windwos, it's going to be easier to roll that out than Linux. If, on the other hand, your 1000+ computers come pre-installed with Linux, then it'd be harder to roll out Windwos. If your computer come with nothing, and the hardware is all the same, then it's easier with Linux, you just use a preconfigured boot/install disk, or roll your own liveCD that auto installs just for your kit. Or set them all up for PXE booting and have them download the kernel from the server...

[Iwuvnix]

Appreciate the replies,

Of course realise the retraining costs is smoke n mirror nonsense. If someone has an avg IQ shouldn't be much to understanding how pretty much any OS basically works. From my limited experience with nix so far. Found many a distro's GUI seems much better laid out and intuitive than anything M$ I've used over the years.

Also heard the security through obscurity nonsense from the M$ fanboys I wasted time discussing things with. Told em, errr no actually linux devs fix holes when they are found. Write better code n most the time you aren't running as root user in nix. Have the option of installing 1,000's or 10,000's of software apps in a few clicks from a trusted repo. Well among other things.

I tried poking around on RH's site about their enterprise support packages. Wasn't able to really digest it. Figured next best thing was to ask on a really popular linux forum like this one. In the RH/fedora section ... etc.

The answer above is what'd I been guessing. Though I'm heavily biased in favor on linux. Plus mentioned while I get along well enough in personal computing. Never met a tech challenge enough googling couldn't fix. Am not a nix networking guru or any kind of networking guru for that matter.

That's about what I assumed though. Makes no sense that nix can and does handle anything and everything thrown it's way flawlessly. Yet would come up short vs M$. World famous for buggy, holey ... subgrade code.

Ahhh end rant ... no point rehashing a pointless exchange I had with some braindead folks n winblows fanboys. Was just wanting and trying to satisfy my own curiousity. Fact that whole countries are migrating to linux ( some already have.) Seems to indicate to me deploying linux in mass isn't an impossible technological feat.

Just hoping some of you will share your experiences with such an effort that you've been involved with or seen. Figured RH n fedora go hand n hand. So this section would be a good place to solicit you gals/guys feedback.

Thanks to those who replied. Would appreciate any other replies on the topic anyone with experience in the field feels like sharing. Boot servers and thin clients was where my mind went too. With something like that really shouldn't matter what OS is involved. With linux being what it is. Would have to assume it would still handle things better than winblows, lol.

They just seem to claim tech qualifications that I can't say I have. Was/is really nagging at me to think they could poss have any basis for something that to me sounds ludicris ... M$ better at anything ( well other than getting wide spread virus infection ) than linux ? The thought pains n sickens me ... Errrr ok now end rant ... sorry folks.


Thanks.

[ashish_singh_2010]

Appreciate the replies,
Found many a distro's GUI seems much better laid out and intuitive than anything M$ I've used over the years.

Sorry this is off-topic - please suggest some distros with "easier" gui. I have often heard that ms is easy to use whereas linux is meant for nerds. I will be trying ubuntu soon.

[Iwuvnix]

Linux Mint, mucho better than ubuntu. Though it's based on ubuntu. PCOSlinux only used that one on live session. But gets great reviews and looked great from livecd.

The 3 I have installed ( tried about a dozen so far.) None of them were bad. Just liked some more than others. Not necessarily listed in best - worst.

Antix 11 ( debian based goodness well simplymepis based goodness which is based on debian itself )
Slitaz 3.0 ( independent distro )
Vector Linux Light 6.0 ( slackware based goodness )

Though the two above these 3 are the ones I'd advise ya to go with if you're just getting into nix. You'll end up really liking either. If you go with Mint. Jmo but would suggest Mint 9 or 10, their latest is 11. Couldn't hurt to try I guess. Some folks are luving it ... But some others are having problems with it. N do not try one of Mint's debian based rolling releases just starting out. They are not newb friendly atm. For that matter people with linux experience are having problems running them smoothly sometimes, lol.

Stick with Mint 9, or 10. Again PCOSlinux was sweet too. Wonderful thing about nix ... majority are 100% free. And with a lil research. dual booting or tri booting a bunch and trying them out is easy. I've got 4 operating systems on this PC 3 nix +1 winblows OS. Take the plunge ya won't regret either of these distro's imo. Tons of others out there that get mucho great feedback n I don't doubt are great. Have actually used these 2 ... N are highly recommended for people new to nix for sure.

If your comp has less than 512mbs/ram ... older system. AntiX would get my vote. Sweet and ultra light distro too. Sheesh try all 3 an see whatcha think. Linux Mint, Antix 11 and PCOSlinux. Won't hurt your system. If you do a lil bit of reading beforehand about dual/tri/quad ... 12 bootin a PC. Sighs trying to be detailed here. With Mint and PCOSlinux wouldn't bother unless ya have 512mbs/ram or above. Trying to be detailed here n point ya in the best direction I can. Would help to know more about your system specs too. I run ultra light distro's cause my system is old and only has 512mbs. Mint 10 ran fine on it though. I just wanted lighter distro's. So spent a lot of time looking for that kinda stuff.

Could rattle off a bunch of others I really liked. But compared to Mint and PCOSlinux ... Wouldn't so much call them linux newb friendly. I loved em ... and had no issues. But safe bets those 2 I've been rambling most about in da post.

[MASONTX]

Distrowatch.com has hundreds of distros and a nifty search tool. Each distro has a brief write up describing it, a list of packages it contains or supports, and links to that distro's downloads, site, and usually to a forum that supports it. Most of the distro's you can download and burn as a live CD/DVD to try without installing, and all of the distro's are free. They have the top 100 distro's listed on the right side of the page, and if you start at the top and work your way down, you will find one you like pretty quickly.

[TaZMAniac]

Where I work at the software developers and engineers write code for Windows.
Mention Linux and they cower or scurry away.
I believe the largest costs would be in retraining and coding proprietary software. Heavy emphasis on retraining any developers or IT department.
I say this because most of the M$ IT people I have met are pretty well fixed in M$ and don't seem to want to break out of their shell.
I've said it more then once. They are like mushrooms. Kept in the dark and fed sh**.
Sad to say but pretty much true to the point.

Now if the company is lucky and they have a few IT guys that free thinking and aren't afraid to try new things like Linux, their costs for retraining will drop dramatically.
I can tell you plenty of stories about the games we have played on the Windows IT guys using Linux.
Had them baffled and scrambling trying to figure out what was going on.

[Iwuvnix]

There's a fedora based distro have seen good feedback on called Fusion linux. It's supposed to be for fedora what linux mint is to ubuntu. And Mint is definitely quite a bit better imo, than pure ubuntu itself. Tried ubuntu 10.10 and Linux Mint 10 ... and Mint was by far better. I hated ubuntu 10.10 to tell the truth.

Never used fedora myself, so only going off what I've heard ... fedora 14 n 15 are supposed to be great. But require someone be more up to speed linuxwise to use from what I've been told about it anyway. That could be wrong and these folks would be the one's who'd know.

Agree with the person who said distrowatch too. But you'd asked me for specific recommendation of real newb user friendly linux ... and Mint and PCOSlinux are two I know just about any PC user would like a lot, shrugs. Or at least that's my opinion.

There's so many others out there ... Tons of them are great. Think the best thing someone can do is a little bit of reading beforehand on multibootin a system. Then no matter what, you can try as many as ya want. Until you find the ones you like the most. I ended up with 3 so far cause anyone dabbling in the gazillion great linux distro's is probably going to run into so many they like. They won't want to part with em and will wind up with several staying installed, lol.

If I'd have kept everything I liked. This comp would have 10 OS's on it instead of 4. Which just isn't practical in my mind. Fun and wouldn't hurt anything, but who needs 10 operating systems on 1 PC ?

As mentioned too, the system specs of the PC you have can change what's best for it too. Vector linux light 6.0 could almost run on a calculator in terms of RAM, lol. My VL install uses 43mbs/ram at idle n boot up. It's made for old low spec hardware. Blazes for me on 512mbs. And is extremely user friendly and full featured. Just takes a bit more setup than any of the more mainstream one's I'd recommended. Not much ... and nothing major ... Just does. But I honestly think this distro could run half decent on a comp with 128mbs/ram and perfectly well on a comp with 256 or higher.

LOL ... Taz, sounds like you've got more insight into the IT field than I do. Am not surprised by that at all. Think it's sad though and there are plenty of opensource support companies in the world. At least as far as I know there are.

Think one of the best things an IT dept could do to make things run smoothier n drastically lower costs would be fire most the people working in em.

Starting with the least competent M$ fanboys on staff o course. Think that's one of the reasons they cling onto M$ for dear life. If nix were widely implemented it'd take less people to run and maintain IT needs. So those clingers know they'd be the 1st ones to get issued their walking papers.

The 2 self acclaimed tech geniuses that prompted me to start this thread were two such folks. Don't even have a networking degree n bet I could vastly improve whatever IT deployment they have. The star of the show would be one of the free enterprise, made for organizational use nix's out there. Ahhhhh trusty google, never lets me down. Well hasn't so far, no matter what I wanted to know or learn.

One of em said what ever organization he works for is still using IE 6 ?!??!? What ?!?! Why ... IE's still craptastic, but maybe they've heard newer versions have come out since IE6 ? Yep ... definitely a forward thinking organization there. Staying on the cutting edge of networking no doubt.

[Etna]

Our server admin has a RedHat and Oracle certification, and yet he absolutely refuses to use anything other than Windows for both the servers and the workstations.

So much for Windows suck huh? More like Linux and UNIX sucks if someone with the certification for it refuses to use it for our mission critical machines.