New to linux - Comparisions to Microsoft
Surf Ninja UK
alternative operating system.
This is mainly caused due to the fact that Microsoft are slowly increasing
their prices. I no longer like the way we are being forced to continually
update our software at such huge cost, without seeing any real business
benefit.
I am currently installing apache as a web server on a test Linux box. Can
anybody offer any advise on what the best software is to get a mail server
up and running (that offers many of the shared features that can be gained
by using outlook and exchange, such as shared calendars, task sharing,
etc...). Is star office a viable alternative to Microsoft office. What are
the best database servers to run on Linux.
this may seem obvious to some people, but I have never worked on systems
other than windows, starting with dos/windows 3.11 moving up to the current
offerings of whistler (beta's), and I am finding it hard to come to grasps
with the many differences between the two Operating Systems.
I work advising Small to Medium Size businesses on the best systems, and am
going to do a cost comparison of microsoft to linux systems. I would
therefore appreciate any comments on whether you would run a company on
linux based systems? Has anybody ever done a tco comparison or do you know
of any good links that detail this sort of information.
I must add that so far, I have been impressed with the linux version that I
have seen so far
Please advise
Craig. MCSE, CCNA
surf_n...@yahoo.co.uk
Andre van Dijk
>I have just started out with an investigation of using Linux as an
>alternative operating system.
>
>This is mainly caused due to the fact that Microsoft are slowly increasing
>their prices. I no longer like the way we are being forced to continually
>update our software at such huge cost, without seeing any real business
>benefit.
You're on the wrong end of the monopoly obviously.
>I am currently installing apache as a web server on a test Linux box. Can
>anybody offer any advise on what the best software is to get a mail server
>up and running (that offers many of the shared features that can be gained
>by using outlook and exchange, such as shared calendars, task sharing,
For just plain mail serving there's no problem. You have a couple of mail
server packages to choose from. For the Calendering your options are more
limited. First, HP offers Openmail which can act as an Exchange replacment.
The lastest release seems to work quite well for me. However HP announced
it will not continue to develop in any further (it will be supported to
2005 IIRC). Nice thing is that Openmail is free up to 50 users. Second
there's Lotus notes, which is certainly not free and doesn't yet work with
Outlook. If you're not tied to Outlook there are also a bunch of Web based
calendering systems.
>etc...). Is star office a viable alternative to Microsoft office. What are
>the best database servers to run on Linux.
Feature-wise Star Office is a good alternative to Office. The trouble
usually boils down to fonts. You can make it work but it's a little more
hassle than in Windows.
Best database server really depends on your application. Mysql is very good
for small to medium sized database e.g. for Web servers. But you can also
run Oracle if you must.
>this may seem obvious to some people, but I have never worked on systems
>other than windows, starting with dos/windows 3.11 moving up to the current
>offerings of whistler (beta's), and I am finding it hard to come to grasps
>with the many differences between the two Operating Systems.
Get a good Unix book that also learns you the philisophy behind the
system. With this knowledge it's much easier to explore further. If you're
a bit of programmer I think you will certainly appreciate Linux (or Unix)
and the complete control it offers.
>I work advising Small to Medium Size businesses on the best systems, and am
>going to do a cost comparison of microsoft to linux systems. I would
>therefore appreciate any comments on whether you would run a company on
I'd certainly recommend Linux for things like File serving, Web, DB and Mail
servers and firewalls or routers. I think it's also very cost effective for
these applications. I've even seen business that run Linux with a KDE and
StarOffice desktop, they told me it's a lower TCO than running Windows
desktops.
>linux based systems? Has anybody ever done a tco comparison or do you know
>of any good links that detail this sort of information.
Can't find them any more in my bookmarks :-(
--
Andre van Dijk
,----------------------------------+-------------+------------------.
| mailto:a.va...@unseen.demon.nl | icq:4249631 | fax:+31848833917 |
`----------------------------------+-------------+------------------'
Stan: Dolphins don't live in igloos, that's eskimos!
Steve Cox
<surf_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I have just started out with an investigation of using Linux as an
> alternative operating system.
>
> This is mainly caused due to the fact that Microsoft are slowly
> increasing their prices. I no longer like the way we are being forced
> to continually update our software at such huge cost, without seeing any
> real business benefit.
> I am currently installing apache as a web server on a test Linux box.
> Can anybody offer any advise on what the best software is to get a mail
> server up and running (that offers many of the shared features that can
> be gained by using outlook and exchange, such as shared calendars, task
> sharing, etc...). Is star office a viable alternative to Microsoft
> office. What are the best database servers to run on Linux.
>
Mail servers are usually 'driven' by sendmail - an MTA (mail transfer
agent). This is the system used for the majority of the worlds mail
systems. However, it can be quite complex to set up so alternatives like
postfix and qmail may be more appropriate.
Once, delievered locally, mail can be accessed either directly from the
spool files (using various clients like mutt etc) but in a network
enviroment it would probably be better to make it available by using a
POP server or better still an IMAP server.
As for calandering, ther are various apps but if you want mail/group
integration like Exchange, then look into the byrani systems
(www.byrani.com) amongst others.
star office is an alternative but it is very large and imposes it's own
desktop. If the environment you are looking is very 'controlled' then it
may be for you but I prefer seperate, small application for dedicated
tasks (though new versions of star office (open office) will split the
apps away from their destop analogy.
> this may seem obvious to some people, but I have never worked on systems
> other than windows, starting with dos/windows 3.11 moving up to the
> current offerings of whistler (beta's), and I am finding it hard to come
> to grasps with the many differences between the two Operating Systems.
>
It's a much more controlled, environmental and interconnected mindset. I
was lucky in terms of using *NIX before Win16 then Win32 so found myself
in the exact opposite situation
> I work advising Small to Medium Size businesses on the best systems, and
> am going to do a cost comparison of microsoft to linux systems. I would
> therefore appreciate any comments on whether you would run a company on
> linux based systems? Has anybody ever done a tco comparison or do you
> know of any good links that detail this sort of information.
>
IMHO, 'back' office requirements is a no-brainer - unless the
requirements are so MS specific - samba (linux impersonation of an NT
file/print server & domain controller) is a godsend. However, desktop use is
still problematic in a non-techie office.
david_b
I networked a very small office a year ago that was upgrading to Windows
2000 on their desktops, and they already had licenses for Office 2000. The
business had approximately 10 workstations. They wanted to do some very
basic sharing of contacts, calendars, tasks, etc, but not go the expense of
getting MS Exchange Server. As a budget solution, I deployed a linux server
based on Red Hat 7.0 known as E-Smith (www.e-smith.com), and configured the
email system and Outlook to share contacts, schedules, etc using email. In
other words, you can use Outlook and an email server to do some very basic
yet useful Outlook collaboration stuff.
I still prefer Windows 2000 on the desktop, but that's not going to last
much longer. Linux is coming along nicely and it's just a matter of time
before it gets to be "just good enough" and the MS Empire begins to crumble.
Actually, I really enjoy Windows 2000, but I don't like Microsoft as a
company, or Steve Balmer and Bill Gates as human beings. If anything, their
greed and lousy ethics will do more to push people like me into the arms of
Linux much sooner than the technology itself.
StarOffice is a very, very capable office suite, and from my understanding
Sun is going to release version 6.0 sometime soon. OpenOffice is also
coming along nicely, although I'm not certain if its ready for prime time
just yet.
Would I run a company on Linux based systems? The servers - absolutely
(web, email, etc). Desktop? Hmmm. I donno. A year ago I would have said
no-way, now... maybe. If you don't mind being locked into Microsoft's
endless upgrade tactics, scary license schemes, and crap for ethics - then
no, why bother switching if you're comfortable. If you want freedom and are
willing to suffer through a few configuration headaches, then yes. I myself
don't have the guts, but hope to find some within the next six months.
"Surf Ninja UK" <surf_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:thikdkn...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
Stephe Thayer
> I still prefer Windows 2000 on the desktop, but that's not going to last
> much longer. Linux is coming along nicely and it's just a matter of
> time before it gets to be "just good enough" and the MS Empire begins to
> crumble. Actually, I really enjoy Windows 2000, but I don't like
> Microsoft as a company, or Steve Balmer and Bill Gates as human beings.
> If anything, their greed and lousy ethics will do more to push people
> like me into the arms of Linux much sooner than the technology itself.
>
Ditto. I made the switch in anticipation of the XP BS.
BTW I LIKE the linux
desktops MUCH better than the MS ones and especially like the multiple
desktops. Too many of the apps feel like "beta" apps and feel like they
should be labled as such for people who are looking for stable
applications. Once it's configured, I don't see why anyone couldn't "use"
it and as far as security and being set so the user can't screw anything
up, it's MUCH better than MS products.
Stephe
Rob Weaver
Surf Ninja UK wrote:
>
> I have just started out with an investigation of using Linux as an
> alternative operating system.
A good start - and welcome aboard
>
> This is mainly caused due to the fact that Microsoft are slowly increasing
> their prices. I no longer like the way we are being forced to continually
> update our software at such huge cost, without seeing any real business
> benefit.
Ditto - though my requirement was Real Time - which windoze isn't
> I am currently installing apache as a web server on a test Linux box. Can
> anybody offer any advise on what the best software is to get a mail server
> up and running (that offers many of the shared features that can be gained
> by using outlook and exchange, such as shared calendars, task sharing,
> etc...). Is star office a viable alternative to Microsoft office. What are
> the best database servers to run on Linux.
I use StarOffice 5.1 on one of my computers at work, and I've
successfully read/modified/written Word, Excel, and Powerpoint files to
floppies formatted on my W98/Office 97 system. StarOffice allows saving
in Ofice 97 format. I'm running this on a Caldera eDesktop 2.4 distro
that I bought on sale for $9.95 (about £7). The current retail $39.95 I
think (about £27). I can't speak to databases - sorry.
<snip>
> I must add that so far, I have been impressed with the linux version that I
> have seen so far
ayup (New England colloquialism for strong agreement)
>
> Please advise
>
> Craig. MCSE, CCNA
> surf_n...@yahoo.co.uk
At this point, the only thing keeping Windoze on any of my systems at
work is corporate intertia. And don't tell anyone, but our internal mail
server runs on RH 6.1 (shhhhh!).
All the best,
Rob Weaver
Darkshot
Moses, Josh
I met a guy on here, who gave me this link. It helps out alot for
understanding the Admin side of Linux versus Windoze.
http://www.davenshirl.com
"Darkshot" <dark...@chudys.com> wrote in message
news:3B2E4E88...@chudys.com...
Jason
machines for public use. If something was uninstaled and needs to be
reinstalled, I look to the Linux fileserver. The homepage of every
Winmachine is recieved from our Linux HTTP sever. I ssh into work
ocasionally when there's problems I can fix from home, or a script I'm
working on.
Cost comparisons:
Windows: Software pricey, techs cheap
Linux: Software cheap (see FREE) techs hard to find/pricier.
Unless the company is willing to hire people with no papers (I have none
and manage all the machines/networking at work) then they are going to
pay. Lots. Training people in Linux (there are geeks aplenty out there
willing to learn) both lowers cost for the company, and engenders loyalty
to the company. Everyone likes to be taught new things if it will put them
another rung up on the ladder, and potentially increase their marketplace
value.
# Start defence sequence
I may get flamed for sounding like a corporation lover, but I got
a wife and kid and I'll be damned if I wont work my ass off to give them
everything their hearts desire, as long as I dont compromise my own values
in the process.
# end defence
--
Life is a trivial persuit,|
have a piece of pie. |__Julie Cutting