Higher cost of Linux system administrators?
Ignoramus31561
administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
higher.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1606
If you think about it, this fact, if true, is good news to Linux
people, as we Linux people are getting better pay than our less
fortunate Windows counterparts. Other benefits of being a Linux
administrator include not needing to click mouse all day long, ability
to automate boring tasks, etc.
According to the study, `` Salary surveys conducted in the U.S.,
Britain, and Australia by payscale.com and IT Jobs Watch show that
Linux-certified professionals earn 10-20% more than their Microsoft
counterparts.''
So, I think, the no brainer message to our Windows friends is, "learn
Linux if you want to make more money".
The question that is in my mind is, why exactly are Linux people paid
more than Windows people? In perfect economy, such a shortage would
cause people to learn Linux and it would be self eliminated?
i
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
> higher.
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1606
>
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/0/a/20ac945c-34d0-4a60-8245-f80e80fe954f/Vital_Wave_Consulting_Affordable_Computing_TCO11June08.pdf
I wonder if that PDF also factors in how /many/ administrators are needed.
> So, I think, the no brainer message to our Windows friends is, "learn
> Linux if you want to make more money".
--
How many nuclear engineers does it take to change a light bulb ?
Seven: One to install the new bulb, and six to determine what to do
with the old one for the next 10,000 years.
Ignoramus31561
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Ignoramus31561 belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
>> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
>> higher.
>>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1606
>>
>> http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/0/a/20ac945c-34d0-4a60-8245-f80e80fe954f/Vital_Wave_Consulting_Affordable_Computing_TCO11June08.pdf
>
> I wonder if that PDF also factors in how /many/ administrators are needed.
It does not, but your good point is beside the point that I was
making:
>> So, I think, the no brainer message to our Windows friends is, "learn
>> Linux if you want to make more money".
>
--
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/
user
Have you ever found an engineer, that started off with unix/linux, and never
was confused by (similar/reversed) knowledge like MSs??
If you would start with linux/unix on school, it would be difficult to get
into MS "philosophy". It would only be because people want to pay for
viruses/spyware?? To earn some money on the stupid.
--
--
700+ Radio Stations on SW http://swstations.tk/
Shortwave transmissions in English, Francais, Nederlands, Deutsch,
Suid-Afrikaans, Chinese, Dansk, Urdu, Cantonese, Greek, Spanish,
Portuguese, ...
http://RADIOLANGUAGES.TK Updated every month or so ....
Christopher Hunter
> According to the study, `` Salary surveys conducted in the U.S.,
> Britain, and Australia by payscale.com and IT Jobs Watch show that
> Linux-certified professionals earn 10-20% more than their Microsoft
> counterparts.''
We find that the differential is /much/ bigger, but you need fewer Linux
admins than Windoze ones. Our guys earn at least twice as much as their
Windoze counterparts.
> So, I think, the no brainer message to our Windows friends is, "learn
> Linux if you want to make more money".
The "dyed in the wool" Windows "administrators" (MCSE = Minesweeper
Consultant and Solitaire Expert) are simply not up to it. Learning Linux
administration requires a modicum of /understanding/ rather than
the "monkey see, monkey do" approach to Windoze "training".
C.
Holz
Actually, because there are not too many. Our Power Builder developer
makes 4 times more then the ASP developer, but has one project a year...
when i got my first NT 3.5 certificate (1994), i earned 15%-20% more then
I did as a Novell ECNE, since it was in a very high demand. For every 99
ads for Novell you would find one! for NT. In 1996 it was already pretty
balanced, and you were required to know both, pay was still higher. The
explosion of NT was a 1000 times faster then Linux today, for many
reasons. It was very easy to learn, Novell "owned" the small business
environment and were very arrogant. Their licensing was tough, while NT
never really kicked you out if you over the quota :-)
Linux spreads very very very slowly. We rarely get requests for Linux
workstation, unless of course we push it hard. The servers are no
brainer, but on every client site we have (114 total), there is at least
one Windows based "main server" running either Exchange or SQL.
Linux is missing the market big time, by focusing on new versions rather
then making the ones out there more compatible and easy to use. See how
MAC grew from 4% market share to 11% even though it costs a bundle.
So do not hold your breath for the Linux admin job, it will evaporate
unless the change comes, and it better be fast. Windows 7 is right around
the corner, we have the developer version and I can tell you right now,
everyone needs to look out, but then again, VISTA was promising too
before it was fucked up by their developers /lawyers /copyright idiots.
--
Holz
Tim Smith
Ignoramus31561 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> wrote:
> The question that is in my mind is, why exactly are Linux people paid
> more than Windows people? In perfect economy, such a shortage would
Because a large number of Linux system administrators are *also* Windows
system administrators.
In a majority of cases, a "Windows shop" is a place that runs Windows on
the servers and the desktops. They need Windows administrators. And a
"Linux shop" is a place that runs Linux on the servers and Windows on
the desktops, so needs Linux administrators and Windows administrators.
Places without Windows are a small minority, so the number of Linux
administrators who are NOT also Windows administrators is small.
People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
average for "Linux administrator" is high.
--
--Tim Smith
dennis@home
"Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:reply_in_group-9A9...@news.supernews.com...
Throw in some database expertise, a good understanding of networking and
some security understanding and you can actually find someone that
understands "computers". However we tend to design systems rather than
administer them. ;-)
Hadron
> Ignoramus31561 wrote:
>
>> According to the study, `` Salary surveys conducted in the U.S.,
>> Britain, and Australia by payscale.com and IT Jobs Watch show that
>> Linux-certified professionals earn 10-20% more than their Microsoft
>> counterparts.''
>
> We find that the differential is /much/ bigger, but you need fewer Linux
> admins than Windoze ones. Our guys earn at least twice as much as their
> Windoze counterparts.
Do you ever tell the truth?
They do no earn twice as much at all.
In fact you probably hire them in once in a blue moon since everything
is so stable. So they are considerably cheaper in the long run. Sure a
good one is worth a few % more but "good is good" and you pay for what
you get. Of course good Linux admins are few and far between because
there is little demand for them because of the low adoption rate of
Linux out there compared to Windows.
>
>> So, I think, the no brainer message to our Windows friends is, "learn
>> Linux if you want to make more money".
>
> The "dyed in the wool" Windows "administrators" (MCSE = Minesweeper
> Consultant and Solitaire Expert) are simply not up to it. Learning
> Linux
And that statement shows you to be the arse you have always been. There
are plenty of skill MS Admins and you know it. How can there not be?
Windows is by far the most common OS in the corporate world.
> administration requires a modicum of /understanding/ rather than
> the "monkey see, monkey do" approach to Windoze "training".
Your cluelessness has exceeded even my expectations for anything you
type. Your hatred for MS is palpable. Life is too short.
>
> C.
>
--
"If only someone would kill you two. Literally."
-- Tattoo Vampire <sit...@this.computer> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
7
> A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
> higher.
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1606
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!
WINDUMMIES are USELESS. Thats why they are cheap!
They don't even know how to use free LiveCDs so how they fsck
are they supposed to fix virus infected machines?
Christopher Hunter
The Windows Wankers /cannot/ "fix" anything - even /MS/ just tell their
victims to *reinstall* all the crapware.
Today we hired another two Linux admins. The financial catastrophes around
the world don't seem to be affecting the bigger multinationals. Ever more
major corporations and companies are making the move...
C.
ray
They certainly shold be paid more - it only takes about 1/10th as many to
do the job.
RonB
> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
Nice FUD try.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Moshe Goldfarb.
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
>
> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
>
> Nice FUD try.
Wrong.....
Can you say partitions, logical volume manger etc...
--
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
Hadron
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
>
> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and
> administering
No they haven't. Are you mad?
> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
>
> Nice FUD try.
There is also the point that they can do the windows boxes too....
--
"Maybe you can buy a Saturday Night Special and blow your POS brains out."
-- Rick <no...@nomail.com> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
RonB
> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
>>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
>>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
>>
>> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and
>> administering
>
> No they haven't. Are you mad?
No, informed. What kind of shops are you talking about. A bicycle store?
>> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
>>
>> Nice FUD try.
>
> There is also the point that they can do the windows boxes too....
No kidding. Almost every decent sized IT organization has a mix of
Windows, UNIX and Linux. To pretend otherwise is just dishonest.
Ignoramus31561
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
>
> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
>
Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
done
Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
(though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
unattended).
Try this on windows. Good luck.
Tattoo Vampire
> No, informed. What kind of shops are you talking about. A bicycle store?
What Queeg doesn't actually know, he makes up and posts as fact.
--
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/Proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC
You are deeply attached to your friends and acquaintances.
Christopher Hunter
> Almost every decent sized IT organization has a mix of
> Windows, UNIX and Linux. To pretend otherwise is just dishonest.
We have a number of Windows machines in our entirely Unix / Linux business.
They're used to test software that we sometimes have to build for that
platform, to test security threats to /our/ code through compromised
Windows machines, and because we like the shade of blue that's so often
seen on their monitors... :)
C.
dennis@home
"Ignoramus31561" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> wrote in message
news:Ip6dnYIMbpXg0nnV...@giganews.com...
> On 2008-10-02, RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
>>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
>>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
>>
>> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
>> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
>>
>
> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
>
> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
> done
>
> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
> unattended).
>
> Try this on windows. Good luck.
Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
automatically download and update.
All your comment shows is how poor your understanding of windows is.
You are probably hunter in disguise as he knows nothing that is true as far
as windows is concerned.
BTW there is a scripting language you could use to do windows but why when
there are management packages that do the job better?
With them you can roll the changes back if you discover any unwanted effects
later all without going near the machines.
I guess its the difference between someone that knows how to design and
manage a few hundred machines and some cowboy that manages four or five
machines.. one needs to know how to do things the proper way, the other can
struggle along and get away with it. It is why some people get paid lots,
its also why the opinion about windows that most people express in this
group is such cr@p, they just don't have a clue and never will have as they
are too scared to actually even learn the basics about windows admin.
Ian Thompson-Bell
> A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
> higher.
It's bollocks. Of course a Linux sysadmin gets paid more than an M$ one,
but that is because he actually knows what he is doing. That means that
he fixes things more permanently more often than the M$ guy so his value
for money - which is the real factor you should be using - is much
higher than the M$ one.
Cheers
Ian
The Natural Philosopher
to admisnter MS systems compared with Linux ones, and thats from actual
accountants figures quoted to me a few years back.
Of course its not strictly a fair comparison, because if someone has
actually installed a Linux or Unix based system, that already implies
they were taking things seriously, and looking for efficiencies, and had
probably customised and stripped the whole thing down to the bare
minimum needed to perform the desired business function.
As opposed from buying a lot pf colourful boxes full of one CD, two
manuals and a bunch of licences and spending three or 5 days staring at
little boxes and randomly filling them in with values. And ending up
with software that does so much more that no one never needed in the
firsts place, on hardware that is so much more expensive than it needs
to be, and which will do it undexpectedly when someone hits the wrong
key by mistake.
Microsoft was always a hobby system and its migration via PCDOS to run
smart terminals for IBM mainframes, and then to trying to ape the worst
excesses of the Macintosh, has never made it a system of any efficiency.
It doesnt matter what you do or how you administer it: it was never
designed from the ground up as a multiuser server style system, and it
never does that function well.
*nix of course has its roots precisely there, and the underlying chassis
is the result of years of development on many platforms..it just plain
works at that level.
The problem is to get it to run as an acceptable desktop: and to have
the broad access to specialized applications.
Where these are not required, the *nix desktop is just fine. If they
are, chances are you will still have a windows desktop, and whilst at
least the servers may work better as Linux, its not an option if you
need to run some specialised application.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> "Ignoramus31561" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
>>
>> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
>> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
>> done
>>
>> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
>> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
>> unattended).
>>
>> Try this on windows. Good luck.
>
> Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
> You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
> automatically download and update.
How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?
> I guess its the difference between someone that knows how to design and
> manage a few hundred machines and some cowboy that manages four or five
> machines.. one needs to know how to do things the proper way, the other can
> struggle along and get away with it. It is why some people get paid lots,
> its also why the opinion about windows that most people express in this
> group is such cr@p, they just don't have a clue and never will have as they
> are too scared to actually even learn the basics about windows admin.
^^^^^^
guffaw
--
When I think about myself,
I almost laugh myself to death, ...
I laugh until I start to crying,
When I think about my folks. -- Maya Angelou
Maxwell Lol
>> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
>> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
>>
>> Nice FUD try.
>
> Wrong.....
>
> Can you say partitions, logical volume manger etc...
A Unix admin that can handle Solaris, AIX, and HPUX can easily handle Linux.
dennis@home
"Chris Ahlstrom" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
news:2%1Fk.41060$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> "Ignoramus31561" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
>>>
>>> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
>>> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
>>> done
>>>
>>> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
>>> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
>>> unattended).
>>>
>>> Try this on windows. Good luck.
>>
>> Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
>> You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
>> automatically download and update.
>
> How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?
That is the difference between knowing about something and chucking out cr@p
statements like some in this group.
>> I guess its the difference between someone that knows how to design and
>> manage a few hundred machines and some cowboy that manages four or five
>> machines.. one needs to know how to do things the proper way, the other
>> can
>> struggle along and get away with it. It is why some people get paid lots,
>> its also why the opinion about windows that most people express in this
>> group is such cr@p, they just don't have a clue and never will have as
>> they
>> are too scared to actually even learn the basics about windows admin.
> ^^^^^^
>
> guffaw
I take it you can only find spell chucker errors to argue about?
Ignoramus23721
> Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
>> Ignoramus31561 wrote:
>>> A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
>>> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
>>> higher.
>>
>> It's bollocks. Of course a Linux sysadmin gets paid more than an M$ one,
>> but that is because he actually knows what he is doing. That means that
>> he fixes things more permanently more often than the M$ guy so his value
>> for money - which is the real factor you should be using - is much
>> higher than the M$ one.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ian
> about 10:1 to 100:1 depending on the desktops. That is how much it costs
> to admisnter MS systems compared with Linux ones, and thats from actual
> accountants figures quoted to me a few years back.
A Unix admin with clue can administer more machines, because
administration can be automated.
I recall talking to a WIndows IT shop manager who told me that he
considering buying a "tool" to automate system updates of his
thousands of Windows machines, and how he balked at buying the tool
because it was pricey and would lock him in. (He wanted to control
what machines are updated when, so he could not put them on
autoupdates) So instead of buying that tool they continued having
admins walk from machine to machine (or VNC from machine to machine).
And I could not help thinking that "my tool is bash and ssh".
dennis@home
"Maxwell Lol" <nos...@com.invalid> wrote in message
news:87fxnfm...@com.invalid...
At the level that most people operate at almost anyone could handle linux.
They don't appear to be able to setup windows not to use admin for user
accounts though.
I guess they don't actually understand admin functions under any OS
including linux?
chrisv
>The question that is in my mind is, why exactly are Linux people paid
>more than Windows people? In perfect economy, such a shortage would
>cause people to learn Linux and it would be self eliminated?
So, in a "perfect economy", rocket scientists and fry-cooks would make
exactly the same, because any pay disparity would "cause people to
learn rocket science"?
Hadron
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 06:22:12 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
>>>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
>>>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
>>>
>>> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and
>>> administering
>>
>> No they haven't. Are you mad?
>
> No, informed. What kind of shops are you talking about. A bicycle
> store?
Well, I've had dealings with some stores in Europe and they used Windows
back end servers for all their reports and POS logging/control/updates
etc. I dont deny others might have used something else. But Unix? Not likely.
I never saw a Unix server in a single one.
That is a "shop". You know, about 80 POS terminals in it. Something
like M&S in the uk, Hertie in Germany, etc etc.
Now, if you mean the main office which controls the entire corporation
of 1000s of stores and employees then yes i agree.
>
>>> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
>>>
>>> Nice FUD try.
>>
>> There is also the point that they can do the windows boxes too....
>
> No kidding. Almost every decent sized IT organization has a mix of
> Windows, UNIX and Linux. To pretend otherwise is just dishonest.
IT Organization?
Again few I now have Unix boxes because most use the Systems they make
commercial money from - Windows.
I think you mean "IT Departments" of large companies? That is a different
thing again.
--
"Bwahahahahahahahah - Anyone else think that this announcement from the MS
marketing machine was anything other than a last ditch attempt to try and
foster *some* interest in XP ?"
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
DFS
You'll be posting video proof of these BSOD any minute now, right liar?
Hadron
> On 2008-10-02, RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
>>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
>>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
>>
>> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
>> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
>>
>
> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
>
> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
> done
>
> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
> unattended).
>
> Try this on windows. Good luck.
You probably would not want to.
I think a nicer solution is to either ssh/sync a package file (list of
packages in it) or to allow the destination machines to pick it up
themsleves using rsync on a machine specific cron job.
Forcing an update onto remote machines is naive unless you really,
really now that machine is (a) up and (b) in a position where installing
SW is a good idea.
JEDIDIAH
> After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> "Ignoramus31561" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
>>>
>>> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
>>> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
>>> done
>>>
>>> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
>>> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
>>> unattended).
>>>
>>> Try this on windows. Good luck.
>>
>> Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
>> You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
>> automatically download and update.
>
> How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?
I dunno, I still would personally feel better being able to go
out to each machine, fire off an update command and then get the
response so that it can be logged by the same process that's in
charge of the update.
Interestingly enough, there's supposed to be something available
under Windows to do the Unix version of what we're talking about.
Some Unix admin I'm talking to in another forum claims to be familiar
with the details. Although he hasn't laid them out though.
OTOH, you could build your own local package repository with
Linux or Solaris and do the same sort of approach as is being
advocated for Windows. Set the individual machines to always update
from the repository and just add things to it.
Then let the fur fly.
--
Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's |||
continued popularity as does an attempt to do some / | \
simple date manipulations in postgres.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Hadron
Yes you are talking bollox. You cant have it both ways. If as you claim
Windows is so crap then a GOOD sys admin (which obviously few in COLA
have ever worked with from all the nightmare stories you make up) is
worth his weight in gold.
Good Unix/Linux sys admins command more generally because they are rarer
on the ground to start with and can demand more. In addition the Linux
side of it is usually in addition to knowing Windows systems.
Example : you dont pay the mechanic more because you never take your
reliable car into the garage.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:48:34 -0500, RonB wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
>>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
>>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
>>
>> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
>> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
>>
>> Nice FUD try.
>
> Wrong.....
>
> Can you say partitions, logical volume manger etc...
Can you say Active Directory?
'nuff said.
--
..you could spend *all day* customizing the title bar. Believe me. I
speak from experience.
-- Matt Welsh
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
>>> are too scared to actually even learn the basics about windows admin.
>> ^^^^^^
>>
>> guffaw
>
> I take it you can only find spell chucker errors to argue about?
It's not a spell "chucker" (good pun by the way) error. It's a
deep-structure error ;->
--
List at least two alternate dates.
Ignoramus23721
Ubuntu is extremely friendly to doing this, actually, updates in
have never screwed up any running apps. I have been doing this for a
while and had a good luck with it. If some machines are not up, the
same thing can be safey re-run again, the machines that already have
wantedpackage will do nothing.
Hadron
Just think about cron'ing the other machines to get it when they are
ready and are running. No work from you at all. Just a suggestion...
--
"Your Ref header shows bt.com. The "kustomkomputer" troll nymshifted again?"
-- William Poaster <w...@leafnode.amd64.eu> boring people to death with his header compulsion in comp.os.linux.advocacy
JEDIDIAH
>
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
> news:2%1Fk.41060$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> "Ignoramus31561" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
>>>>
>>>> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
>>>> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
>>>> done
>>>>
>>>> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
>>>> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
>>>> unattended).
>>>>
>>>> Try this on windows. Good luck.
>>>
>>> Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
>>> You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
>>> automatically download and update.
>>
>> How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?
>
> That is the difference between knowing about something and chucking out cr@p
> statements like some in this group.
Until you prove otherwise, you fall in the latter category.
[deletia]
dennis@home
"Ignoramus23721" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.23721.invalid> wrote in message
news:A66dnWAdzMheUXnV...@giganews.com...
So you think that killing, say, the web server or the database engine while
in the middle of a customer transaction isn't a problem? There are quite
significant differences in how you can admin a server and a workstation
unless you want to be unpopular.
dennis@home
"Chris Ahlstrom" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
news:dX3Fk.43671$vX2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>>> are too scared to actually even learn the basics about windows admin.
>>> ^^^^^^
>>>
>>> guffaw
>>
>> I take it you can only find spell chucker errors to argue about?
>
> It's not a spell "chucker" (good pun by the way) error. It's a
> deep-structure error ;->
>
I thought it was quite a good substitution when it was pointed out, maybe a
Freudian slip?
Tom Shelton
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> "Ignoramus31561" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
>>>
>>> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
>>> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
>>> done
>>>
>>> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
>>> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
>>> unattended).
>>>
>>> Try this on windows. Good luck.
>>
>> Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
>> You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
>> automatically download and update.
>
> How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?
Group Policy and WSUS.
--
Tom Shelton
Jean-David Beyer
>
> So you think that killing, say, the web server or the database engine while
> in the middle of a customer transaction isn't a problem? There are quite
> significant differences in how you can admin a server and a workstation
> unless you want to be unpopular.
>
Replacing a program is not done by killing a process and restarting it.
Linux and UNIX have been able to manage this "forever."
What happens in this case is that the existing process continues to run. All
new instances of the process use the new version.
At one time, a hard link was made to the existing program and then the
original name of it was removed. That way, no one could start the old one.
But the old process could continue to run. I do not know if that is how they
do it now, but the effect is the same. My system is up 24/7 except when I
reboot it for a new kernel, something I can do whenever I choose; or when I
power it off because the room gets too hot in the summer and it risks
overheating.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 11:45:01 up 7 days, 12:47, 3 users, load average: 4.18, 4.17, 4.27
Peter Köhlmann
Why do you think that the application *needs* to be killed when updated?
Since you obviously know nothing about linux, here is a hint: You can update
running apps while they run. You can restart them later, after the update
has taken place, at any time. It is not as with windows where you can't
replace running apps/dlls without stopping them before.
--
We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms.
The Natural Philosopher
Well thats why there are kill levels. to allow things to shut down
gracefully.
dennis@home
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:122296347...@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>> So you think that killing, say, the web server or the database engine
>> while in the middle of a customer transaction isn't a problem? There are
>> quite significant differences in how you can admin a server and a
>> workstation unless you want to be unpopular.
>
> Well thats why there are kill levels. to allow things to shut down
> gracefully.
You know that and I know that but Peter probably doesn't.
He thinks an update has been done even though the old code is still running.
I wonder if I can find an application that writes its config out when it
exits so it overwrites the new one installed by the update?
Nah, nobody would ever do something that stupid. ;-)
The Natural Philosopher
>
>
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:122296347...@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>
>>> So you think that killing, say, the web server or the database engine
>>> while in the middle of a customer transaction isn't a problem? There
>>> are quite significant differences in how you can admin a server and a
>>> workstation unless you want to be unpopular.
>>
>> Well thats why there are kill levels. to allow things to shut down
>> gracefully.
>
> You know that and I know that but Peter probably doesn't.
> He thinks an update has been done even though the old code is still
> running.
>
It all depends on what you mean by update.
If the program is a child process called by a parent, then when it exist
gracefully of its own accord, the next instance will be the update.
If its a forked copy, then it wont.
If its a complex daemon, you rewrite te start script so that restart
does the correct thing.
The power of *nix is that you CAN rewrite it.
> I wonder if I can find an application that writes its config out when it
> exits so it overwrites the new one installed by the update?
> Nah, nobody would ever do something that stupid. ;-)
Microsoft probably would.
It would be considered a top priority bug in Linux.
Ignoramus23721
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>> So you think that killing, say, the web server or the database engine while
>> in the middle of a customer transaction isn't a problem? There are quite
>> significant differences in how you can admin a server and a workstation
>> unless you want to be unpopular.
>>
> Why would updating a program be a problem in these circumstances?
> Replacing a program is not done by killing a process and restarting it.
>
> Linux and UNIX have been able to manage this "forever."
>
> What happens in this case is that the existing process continues to run. All
> new instances of the process use the new version.
>
> At one time, a hard link was made to the existing program and then the
> original name of it was removed. That way, no one could start the old one.
> But the old process could continue to run. I do not know if that is how they
> do it now, but the effect is the same. My system is up 24/7 except when I
> reboot it for a new kernel, something I can do whenever I choose; or when I
> power it off because the room gets too hot in the summer and it risks
> overheating.
>
correct. Most things that are patched, are not actually having their
instances killed. And you CAN remove a file with a running program. It
continues to exist until the program exits.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
Ah, thanks Tom! (As you can tell, I don't do much Windows maintenance,
DFS's demented shriekings to the contrary.)
--
When Dexter's on the Internet, can Hell be far behind?"
Moshe Goldfarb.
Also these days most people are wearing multiple hats.
IOW they admin both Windows and *nix systems at least to some degree.
The big money, at least in the USA is for DBA work.
--
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
dennis@home
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:122296479...@proxy00.news.clara.net...
The bug reports have several instances.
dennis@home
"Moshe Goldfarb." <brick....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1mpebk9r0hovi$.14ryw6gqgq2tn$.dlg@40tude.net...
Its not hard either, just mind numbingly boring.
When I was designing and benchmarking DB apps I decided I couldn't do more
than three months before finding something more interesting, the admin side
must be far worse.
Hadron
Good Admins are rare. Nobody really wants to do it unless they are a
life drop out who wants to take the easy option or a megalomaniac jobs
worth who likes to feel bitter that the fact that good SW development
project managers he interfaces with earn 5 times his salary. Thats not
to put down the job they do. But its pretty much "do by numbers" whereas
SW development (the good type) requires far more skills in terms of team
work, creativity,technical know how and market knowledge.
--
"Maybe he knows where the body is because he saw where
it was put." -- "Rick" defending Hans Reiser (his hero) in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Jean-David Beyer
> It all depends on what you mean by update.
>
> If the program is a child process called by a parent, then when it exist
> gracefully of its own accord, the next instance will be the update.
>
> If its a forked copy, then it wont.
>
I do not understand the distinction you are making between a "called" child
process and a "forked" process, since they all get started by one of the
fork(2) functions.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 13:30:01 up 7 days, 14:32, 4 users, load average: 4.24, 4.17, 4.35
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> It all depends on what you mean by update.
>>
>> If the program is a child process called by a parent, then when it exist
>> gracefully of its own accord, the next instance will be the update.
>>
>> If its a forked copy, then it wont.
>>
> I do not understand the distinction you are making between a "called"
> child process and a "forked" process, since they all get started by one
> of the fork(2) functions.
>
>
Chris Davies
> So you think that killing, say, the web server or the database engine while
> in the middle of a customer transaction isn't a problem? There are quite
> significant differences in how you can admin a server and a workstation
> unless you want to be unpopular.
Jean-David Beyer <jeand...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Why would updating a program be a problem in these circumstances?
> Replacing a program is not done by killing a process and restarting it.
Unfortunately Debian and its derivatives seem trigger happy about
stopping a service before upgrading it. I can't speak for the Redhat
rpm-based distributions, though; can anyone else contribute?
Chris
JEDIDIAH
I would expect that this is entirely a matter of the tastes
of the person building the relevant packages.
--
My macintosh runs Ubuntu. |||
/ | \
technomaNge
>
>>>>
>>>> Try this on windows. Good luck.
>>>
>>> automatically download and update.
>>
>> How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?
>
> cr@p statements like some in this group.
>
>>> manage a few hundred machines and some cowboy that manages four or five
>>> machines.. one needs to know how to do things the proper way, the
Get off the dime, wintard, Do you know how to do the update
or not?
I'll believe it when you can write it out in 20 steps or less.
technomaNge
--
The operat~1 system I use at work
unders~1 long filena~1,
at home I use Linux.
dennis@home
"technomaNge" <pir...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:HUeFk.41356$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Try this on windows. Good luck.
>>>>
>>>> Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
>>>> You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
>>>> automatically download and update.
>>>
>>> How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?
>>
>> That is the difference between knowing about something and chucking out
>> cr@p statements like some in this group.
>>
>>>> I guess its the difference between someone that knows how to design and
>>>> manage a few hundred machines and some cowboy that manages four or five
>>>> machines.. one needs to know how to do things the proper way, the
>
> Get off the dime, wintard, Do you know how to do the update
> or not?
>
> I'll believe it when you can write it out in 20 steps or less.
What do I care what you believe?
It can be done as others already know.
If you want to know you can ask one of those "really stupid" MCSE types to
educate you.
You won't get any windows help in a ubuntu group from me, especially as you
don't really want it.
Peter Köhlmann
>
>
> "technomaNge" <pir...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:HUeFk.41356$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try this on windows. Good luck.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
>>>>> You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
>>>>> automatically download and update.
>>>>
>>>> How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?
>>>
>>> That is the difference between knowing about something and chucking out
>>> cr@p statements like some in this group.
>>>
>>>>> I guess its the difference between someone that knows how to design
>>>>> and manage a few hundred machines and some cowboy that manages four or
>>>>> five machines.. one needs to know how to do things the proper way, the
>>
>> Get off the dime, wintard, Do you know how to do the update
>> or not?
>>
>> I'll believe it when you can write it out in 20 steps or less.
>
> What do I care what you believe?
> It can be done as others already know.
It might be. But you certainly don't know /how/
Otherwise you would not evade the question
> If you want to know you can ask one of those "really stupid" MCSE types to
> educate you.
Why would he want to know how to run minesweeper? Those MCSE types are not
much better than school dropouts. 99% of them are simply oxygen thiefs
> You won't get any windows help in a ubuntu group from me, especially as
> you don't really want it.
Well, I don't think that was what he wanted.
You should provide the outlines of how "simple" (or rather, complicated) the
windows way is, compared to the linux way.
You failed
--
Microsoft software doesn't get released - it escapes, leaving
a trail of destruction behind it.
The Natural Philosopher
Hoity Toity.
>
> You won't get any windows help in a ubuntu group from me, especially as
> you don't really want it.
sure thats not because you are talking out yer anus?
seems equally plausible to me.
Ian Thompson-Bell
> Ian Thompson-Bell <ruffr...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Ignoramus31561 wrote:
>>> A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
>>> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
>>> higher.
>> It's bollocks. Of course a Linux sysadmin gets paid more than an M$
>> one, but that is because he actually knows what he is doing. That
>> means that he fixes things more permanently more often than the M$ guy
>> so his value for money - which is the real factor you should be using
>> - is much higher than the M$ one.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ian
>
> Yes you are talking bollox. You cant have it both ways. If as you claim
> Windows is so crap then a GOOD sys admin (which obviously few in COLA
> have ever worked with from all the nightmare stories you make up) is
> worth his weight in gold.
>
Er, no. A Linux sysadmin actually knows what's going on INSIDE his sytem
because it is open. A Windoze one cannot have this level of knowledge
because the system is closed. His level of knowledge is therefore very
limited so no matter how GOOD he is he cannot be as effective a a LinuX
sysadmin.
You cannot make a silk purse (Linux) out of a sow's ear (WIndoze).
> Good Unix/Linux sys admins command more generally because they are rarer
> on the ground to start with and can demand more.
No, it's because Linux systems need less hours/machine to administer and
there are less of them.
In addition the Linux
> side of it is usually in addition to knowing Windows systems.
>
> Example : you dont pay the mechanic more because you never take your
> reliable car into the garage.
But you do pay a mechanic more if he can actually fix your car so it
remains more reliable rather than go so some beat up shop that applies a
quick fix that may or may not work.
Cheers
Ian
Ian Thompson-Bell
In which case the original M$ argument IS bollocks.
Cheers
Ian
Moshe Goldfarb.
No it's not.
The answer is "it depends".
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>> Ian Thompson-Bell <ruffr...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Ignoramus31561 wrote:
>>>> A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
>>>> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
>>>> higher.
>>> It's bollocks. Of course a Linux sysadmin gets paid more than an M$
>>> one, but that is because he actually knows what he is doing. That
>>> means that he fixes things more permanently more often than the M$ guy
>>> so his value for money - which is the real factor you should be using
>>> - is much higher than the M$ one.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Ian
>>
>> Yes you are talking bollox. You cant have it both ways. If as you claim
>> Windows is so crap then a GOOD sys admin (which obviously few in COLA
>> have ever worked with from all the nightmare stories you make up) is
>> worth his weight in gold.
>>
>
> Er, no. A Linux sysadmin actually knows what's going on INSIDE his
> sytem because it is open. A Windoze one cannot have this level of
> knowledge because the system is closed. His level of knowledge is
> therefore very limited so no matter how GOOD he is he cannot be as
> effective a a LinuX sysadmin.
>
> You cannot make a silk purse (Linux) out of a sow's ear (WIndoze).
OK. You have drunk the Koolaid. Have fun!
Peter Köhlmann
>
>
> "PeterKöhlmann" <peter.k...@arcor.de> wrote in message
> news:48e5dce3$0$28906$9b4e...@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "technomaNge" <pir...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:HUeFk.41356$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try this on windows. Good luck.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
>>>>>>> You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows
>>>>>>> machines automatically download and update.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?
>>>>>
>>>>> That is the difference between knowing about something and chucking
>>>>> out cr@p statements like some in this group.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess its the difference between someone that knows how to design
>>>>>>> and manage a few hundred machines and some cowboy that manages four
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> five machines.. one needs to know how to do things the proper way,
>>>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>> Get off the dime, wintard, Do you know how to do the update
>>>> or not?
>>>>
>>>> I'll believe it when you can write it out in 20 steps or less.
>>>
>>> What do I care what you believe?
>>> It can be done as others already know.
>>
>> It might be. But you certainly don't know /how/
>> Otherwise you would not evade the question
>
> It doesn't matter if I know how, the answer is correct.
Naturally. Because *you* say so. Spot the flaw
> I didn't say I knew just that it could be done.
> As it happens I do know how and if you want to pay I might tell you.
Translation: You don't know shit
>>
>>> If you want to know you can ask one of those "really stupid" MCSE types
>>> to
>>> educate you.
>>
>> Why would he want to know how to run minesweeper? Those MCSE types are
>> not much better than school dropouts. 99% of them are simply oxygen
>> thiefs
>
> Well it doesn't take much to do it.
Well, as it does not take much to be a MCSE, it is also utterly useless to
be one.
> More than you are capable off by the looks of it though.
>
>
> There are several ways to do it too.
> Why don't you try it and see if you can learn something?
Why would I /learn/ something which is utterly useless?
--
Howe's Law: Everyone has a scheme that will not work.
Ian Thompson-Bell
You are right, it depends one which example best shows Microsoft's case.
Cheers
Ian
Moshe Goldfarb.
Welcome to the real world Ian.
And would you expect them to post a study that doesn't best show their POV?
Do you think Redhat would do that?
I agree with Hadron, I think you have had too much Koolaid for today.
We're cutting you off Ian :)
Canuck57
"Ignoramus31561" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> wrote in message
news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37V...@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.
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
have a monster computation task xNIX is a server of choice for performance,
reliability and clustering. All which are superior to anything Microsoft
has. Some research person does not want to go to the director saying we had
to bring the cluster down because node 1389 needed a patch.
Companies often get sucked into the Microsoft trap. As the Scottish would
say, penny wise and pound foolish. While you would save money using a small
app on a MS-Windows box in a very small environment, as soon as you scale it
MS-Windows is a real costly efficiency drag as it was designed as a desktop,
not a scalable server. But does employ lots of people companies don't need.
Did you know Linux and UNIX systems can outperform MS-Windows as a file
server? (Serve more files faster to MS-Windows PC on the same hardware!).
Microsoft's study is of course flawed as it gets. Most people that have
been around for awhile know that these MS studies are not worth a dead rats
ass.
------------
MS-Windows for boys
X-Windows for men
Ignoramus26581
>
> "Ignoramus31561" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> wrote in message
> news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37V...@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
Hadron
> "Ignoramus31561" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> wrote in message
> news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37V...@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?
Hadron
Which apps?
Ignoramus26581
proprietary trading.
Hadron
But which apps?
What are they written in that you can move them over so easily?
Ignoramus26581
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)
Moshe Goldfarb.
So they are *proprietary but they are not proprietary*...
Makes sense to me.....
I think?????
Christopher Hunter
> 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.
Hadron
Not 100% no.
But Interix goes a long way.
Peter Köhlmann
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
JEDIDIAH
>
>> "Ignoramus31561" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37V...@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.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On 2008-10-04, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> 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 <memory> and <string.h> 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:
--
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
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On 2008-10-04, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Ignoramus31561" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> 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
<chuckle>
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
dennis@home
"Chris Ahlstrom" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
news:rUKFk.58260$XB4....@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Ignoramus26581 belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2008-10-04, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> 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..
Ignoramus25005
> After takin' a swig o' grog, JEDIDIAH belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2008-10-04, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Ignoramus31561" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> 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
>
><chuckle>
>
> 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.
Ignoramus25005
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2008-10-04, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> 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 <memory> and <string.h> 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.lang.c++.moderated/browse_frm/thread/84253d37f970dd2b?q=C%2B%2B%2FCLI&hl=en&
>
Staying far away from everything Microsoft, is definitely helpful in
the long run. You are preaching to the choire here.
Ignoramus25005
> 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".
Canuck57
"Moshe Goldfarb." <brick....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u4mly6duc1yy.12go6a0n04hgg$.dlg@40tude.net...
Me thinks troll.
Ignoramus8122
our apps are proprietary
tools we use are not proprietary
High Plains Thumper
> "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/2008/01/moshe-goldfarb-troll.html
--
HPT
The Ghost In The Machine
about Ubuntu. Followups reset.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Christopher Hunter
<cehu...@invalid.inv>
wrote
on Sat, 04 Oct 2008 06:40:02 +0000
<6kodtnF...@mid.individual.net>:
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, ewi...@earthlink.net
Murphy was an optimist.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **