[ARCHIVED THREAD] - I hate linux again (Page 1 of 4)
Posted: 2/24/2015 9:42:40 AM EDT
|
Every few years I give Linux another shot. Every time something happens and I get frustrated and say fuck it. A couple years ago it was the wireless drivers on a laptop. Sometimes it worked sometimes it didn't. This time I had linux on my HTPC with XBMC. I wanted to upgrade to Kodi. Sounds easy enough. Ran the commands through SSH. Nope failed. I had originally installed Xbmcbuntu, I believe 12.1. For some reason they didn't use a LTS. So I had an end of life version of Ubuntu. Ok I'll upgrade that first. Nope failed. Ok I'll download a new version of Kodibuntu and make a bootable USB. Ok I get started on the install and an error message pops up after the screen where I create a username and password. Ok I'll try a different USB stick. Nope fails. Ok download again. Nope. Download the 32 bit version. Nope. Download plain Ubuntu. Nope in the middle of the install the screen goes blank. Try just running the Live version of the USB. Works fine. Somewhere in this mess I also tried a SD card. It was a slow one so I didn't expect much.
My current laptop doesn't have a DVD burner because who needs one? I had to break out the old laptop to burn a DVD. Installed fine. This morning I turn it on and there was an error message on the screen. Reboot and it is fine. I HATE LINUX. 2015 The Year of Linux!!!!! |
|
You know, in the over 20 years I have been installing and using Linux as a daily driver on my home desktops and laptops, I have had a few frustrations. I have NEVER gotten so stuck I couldn't get a Linux distro installed in under an hour, though. I have probably installed 8 flavors of Linux on 50 unique hardware configs, easily.
I think, too, it's important to put the whole "Linux experience" in the proper perspective. Remember how much you paid for the product and who the support team is and how much money they make from their efforts. |
|
only reason i am using it for the HTPC is i wanted a bare bones OS to run Kodi only. I don't want to deal with anything else. no weekly updates, antivirus etc. Even on the one i had installed before, it never shutdown properly. Doesn't matter if I used the remote or hit shutdown. 90% of the time it would hang.
Just ranting |
|
Quoted: You know, in the over 20 years I have been installing and using Linux as a daily driver on my home desktops and laptops, I have had a few frustrations. I have NEVER gotten so stuck I couldn't get a Linux distro installed in under an hour, though. I have probably installed 8 flavors of Linux on 50 unique hardware configs, easily. I think, too, it's important to put the whole "Linux experience" in the proper perspective. Remember how much you paid for the product and who the support team is and how much money they make from their efforts. Never done a stage 1 build of Gentoo on a 486 Pentium Pro, have you?   |
|
Every now and then I get the bug. I install Linux(Ubuntu) boot the X Windows and stare at the desktop for a few minutes and think "Now what".
As much as I hate Microsoft anymore you really can't beat Windows with it's enormous application infrastructure. Plus when things go haywire in Linux it's a M&%$#@&*@... |
|
Quoted:
Every now and then I get the bug. I install Linux(Ubuntu) boot the X Windows and stare at the desktop for a few minutes and think "Now what". As much as I hate Microsoft anymore you really can't beat Windows with it's enormous application infrastructure. Plus when things go haywire in Linux it's a M&%$#@&*@... Yeah, verbose error logging and debug settings are so clusterfucky. I'd rather have Windows tell me "This application has crashed! Send a report to MS?" That'll help me fix it. |
|
Linux is a piece of crap for computer nerd dilletantes as far as I'm concerned. I ran servers for a large Linux company application. The main problem is that while I'm sure Linux features are available, a typical big-company IT department will cheap out on extras like nice graphical monitoring systems, decent GUI's and many other things that Windows has built in.
For example, Windows has performance monitoring items for every server application they make. PerfMon is easy to use, it's graphical. Cheapskate IT leaders won't buy the stuff for Linux so you're stuck with crappy line edit interfaces and no monitoring systems worth a damn. Reading GB sized log files?--fuck that. There's a whole generation of Bill Gates -aged old IT dipshits out there that think Microsoft is the devil and that they shoulda coulda been Bill Gates. ETA: The Linux "stability" claim I've seen made completely worthless due to it's lack of GUI tools. Situation--an admin opened some debug tool and forgot it was on. It logged for weeks without anyone knowing then filled a drive, consumed all CPU and crashed the system. Again, due to the opaque nature of a non-GUI OS. The Linux upgrade situation is no better than Windows. |
|
Quoted:
It's really not for you and to be honest, I've never liked the communities collective desire to make it a mainstream, user friendly operating system. Those are the fucktards that want a free alternative to Windows, (and now Mac OS X) instead of a free PC unix. |
|
Quoted:
why would i do that? I have 1080p on a used small form factor that I purchased for $150. After replacing the fans with a better quieter one, it is near silent. I do want to replace the hard drive with a SSD. Quoted:
Quoted:
Get a Mac. why would i do that? I have 1080p on a used small form factor that I purchased for $150. After replacing the fans with a better quieter one, it is near silent. I do want to replace the hard drive with a SSD. ...What? How does screen resolution, fans and an SSD relate in any way at all to buying a Mac? |
|
Quoted:
Meh, it has its moments of trials and tribulations. But Linux is still my go to. I can't use Apple stuff and Windows has gone off the rails so its the best option. Fedora for me. Just a normal schmo here without a technical background, unlike the majority of Linux users. I've been using Fedora for 6 years as my daily desktop OS. During that time I've had F installed on PCs, MACs, and workstations of various configuration and abilities. Never once as a computing idiot have I got into a driver or any other issue that I couldn't overcome. I can't speak for other distros but F is so easy that even a neanderthal can do it. Fedora 21 MATE presently in use. Fantastic operating system IMO. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Linux is a piece of crap for computer nerd dilletantes as far as I'm concerned. I ran servers for a large Linux company application. The main problem is that while I'm sure Linux features are available, a typical big-company IT department will cheap out on extras like nice graphical monitoring systems, decent GUI's and many other things that Windows has built in. For example, Windows has performance monitoring items for every server application they make. PerfMon is easy to use, it's graphical. Cheapskate IT leaders won't buy the stuff for Linux so you're stuck with crappy line edit interfaces and no monitoring systems worth a damn. Reading GB sized log files?--fuck that. There's a whole generation of Bill Gates -aged old IT dipshits out there that think Microsoft is the devil and that they shoulda coulda been Bill Gates. That does sound like a pain in the ass, but it doesn't sound like a linux problem. |
|
Quoted:
That does sound like a pain in the ass, but it doesn't sound like a linux problem. Quoted:
Quoted:
Linux is a piece of crap for computer nerd dilletantes as far as I'm concerned. I ran servers for a large Linux company application. The main problem is that while I'm sure Linux features are available, a typical big-company IT department will cheap out on extras like nice graphical monitoring systems, decent GUI's and many other things that Windows has built in. For example, Windows has performance monitoring items for every server application they make. PerfMon is easy to use, it's graphical. Cheapskate IT leaders won't buy the stuff for Linux so you're stuck with crappy line edit interfaces and no monitoring systems worth a damn. Reading GB sized log files?--fuck that. There's a whole generation of Bill Gates -aged old IT dipshits out there that think Microsoft is the devil and that they shoulda coulda been Bill Gates. That does sound like a pain in the ass, but it doesn't sound like a linux problem. It's a Linux problem because the "senior" leaders are a bunch of anti-Microsoft Unix + Oracle dipshits. |
|
Quoted:
Every few years I give Linux another shot. Every time something happens and I get frustrated and say fuck it. A couple years ago it was the wireless drivers on a laptop. Sometimes it worked sometimes it didn't. This time I had linux on my HTPC with XBMC. I wanted to upgrade to Kodi. Sounds easy enough. Ran the commands through SSH. Nope failed. I had originally installed Xbmcbuntu, I believe 12.1. For some reason they didn't use a LTS. So I had an end of life version of Ubuntu. Ok I'll upgrade that first. Nope failed. Ok I'll download a new version of Kodibuntu and make a bootable USB. Ok I get started on the install and an error message pops up after the screen where I create a username and password. Ok I'll try a different USB stick. Nope fails. Ok download again. Nope. Download the 32 bit version. Nope. Download plain Ubuntu. Nope in the middle of the install the screen goes blank. Try just running the Live version of the USB. Works fine. Somewhere in this mess I also tried a SD card. It was a slow one so I didn't expect much. My current laptop doesn't have a DVD burner because who needs one? I had to break out the old laptop to burn a DVD. Installed fine. This morning I turn it on and there was an error message on the screen. Reboot and it is fine. I HATE LINUX. 2015 The Year of Linux!!!!! There's a reason Linux doesn't work well as a desktop OS. It wasn't intended as one. It's a server operating system, and when used as a server OS it's acceptable. If you try to shoehorn it as a workstation / desktop OS, there are always going to be problems. Apple is the only company so far that has halfway managed to make a nix based OS workable as a desktop OS (Mac OS X is derived from FreeBSD). Everyone else has failed at this. |
|
Quoted:
It's a Linux problem because the "senior" leaders are a bunch of anti-Microsoft Unix + Oracle dipshits. If you didn't want anything to do with a command line or log files you probably shouldn't have taken a job administering linux servers. It's not like that should have been a surprise. What did you think it would be like? |
|
Quoted: It's not a Linux problem because the "senior" leaders are a bunch of anti-Microsoft Unix + Oracle dipshits. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Linux is a piece of crap for computer nerd dilletantes as far as I'm concerned. I ran servers for a large Linux company application. The main problem is that while I'm sure Linux features are available, a typical big-company IT department will cheap out on extras like nice graphical monitoring systems, decent GUI's and many other things that Windows has built in. For example, Windows has performance monitoring items for every server application they make. PerfMon is easy to use, it's graphical. Cheapskate IT leaders won't buy the stuff for Linux so you're stuck with crappy line edit interfaces and no monitoring systems worth a damn. Reading GB sized log files?--fuck that. There's a whole generation of Bill Gates -aged old IT dipshits out there that think Microsoft is the devil and that they shoulda coulda been Bill Gates. That does sound like a pain in the ass, but it doesn't sound like a linux problem. It's not a Linux problem because the "senior" leaders are a bunch of anti-Microsoft Unix + Oracle dipshits. ETA: And you sound like the wrong guy for a linux sysadmin job. |
|
Quoted:
Linux is a piece of crap for computer nerd dilletantes as far as I'm concerned. I ran servers for a large Linux company application. The main problem is that while I'm sure Linux features are available, a typical big-company IT department will cheap out on extras like nice graphical monitoring systems, decent GUI's and many other things that Windows has built in. For example, Windows has performance monitoring items for every server application they make. PerfMon is easy to use, it's graphical. Cheapskate IT leaders won't buy the stuff for Linux so you're stuck with crappy line edit interfaces and no monitoring systems worth a damn. Reading GB sized log files?--fuck that. There's a whole generation of Bill Gates -aged old IT dipshits out there that think Microsoft is the devil and that they shoulda coulda been Bill Gates. ETA: The Linux "stability" claim I've seen made completely worthless due to it's lack of GUI tools. Situation--an admin opened some debug tool and forgot it was on. It logged for weeks without anyone knowing then filled a drive, consumed all CPU and crashed the system. Again, due to the opaque nature of a non-GUI OS. The Linux upgrade situation is no better than Windows. Quoted:
Linux is a piece of crap for computer nerd dilletantes as far as I'm concerned. I ran servers for a large Linux company application. The main problem is that while I'm sure Linux features are available, a typical big-company IT department will cheap out on extras like nice graphical monitoring systems, decent GUI's and many other things that Windows has built in. For example, Windows has performance monitoring items for every server application they make. PerfMon is easy to use, it's graphical. Cheapskate IT leaders won't buy the stuff for Linux so you're stuck with crappy line edit interfaces and no monitoring systems worth a damn. Reading GB sized log files?--fuck that. There's a whole generation of Bill Gates -aged old IT dipshits out there that think Microsoft is the devil and that they shoulda coulda been Bill Gates. ETA: The Linux "stability" claim I've seen made completely worthless due to it's lack of GUI tools. Situation--an admin opened some debug tool and forgot it was on. It logged for weeks without anyone knowing then filled a drive, consumed all CPU and crashed the system. Again, due to the opaque nature of a non-GUI OS. The Linux upgrade situation is no better than Windows. Agree 100% with this. I've yet to see a Linux system that could outperform a Windows server system in terms of operating cost. You might be able to get setup on Linux for cheap compared to windows, but your ongoing maintenance costs will kill you. FreeBSD is worthwhile for environments that need to be as hardened as possible in a security sense. For anything else, you're probably better off with Windows servers. Quoted:
only reason i am using it for the HTPC is i wanted a bare bones OS to run Kodi only. I don't want to deal with anything else. no weekly updates, antivirus etc. Even on the one i had installed before, it never shutdown properly. Doesn't matter if I used the remote or hit shutdown. 90% of the time it would hang. Just ranting I'm running a minidlna music server on Fedora with an Intel Atom based system. I get the shutdown hangs constantly. I have up trying to fix them. then again, the machine is a server intended to be up 24/7 and it reboots fine, so it's not a big deal to me. Still, I know your frustration. |
|
Quoted: Agree 100% with this. I've yet to see a Linux system that could outperform a Windows server system in terms of operating cost. You might be able to get setup on Linux for cheap compared to windows, but your ongoing maintenance costs will kill you. FreeBSD is worthwhile for environments that need to be as hardened as possible in a security sense. For anything else, you're probably better off with Windows servers.  |
|
Quoted:
Agree 100% with this. I've yet to see a Linux system that could outperform a Windows server system in terms of operating cost. You might be able to get setup on Linux for cheap compared to windows, but your ongoing maintenance costs will kill you. FreeBSD is worthwhile for environments that need to be as hardened as possible in a security sense. For anything else, you're probably better off with Windows servers. Quoted:
Quoted:
Linux is a piece of crap for computer nerd dilletantes as far as I'm concerned. I ran servers for a large Linux company application. The main problem is that while I'm sure Linux features are available, a typical big-company IT department will cheap out on extras like nice graphical monitoring systems, decent GUI's and many other things that Windows has built in. For example, Windows has performance monitoring items for every server application they make. PerfMon is easy to use, it's graphical. Cheapskate IT leaders won't buy the stuff for Linux so you're stuck with crappy line edit interfaces and no monitoring systems worth a damn. Reading GB sized log files?--fuck that. There's a whole generation of Bill Gates -aged old IT dipshits out there that think Microsoft is the devil and that they shoulda coulda been Bill Gates. ETA: The Linux "stability" claim I've seen made completely worthless due to it's lack of GUI tools. Situation--an admin opened some debug tool and forgot it was on. It logged for weeks without anyone knowing then filled a drive, consumed all CPU and crashed the system. Again, due to the opaque nature of a non-GUI OS. The Linux upgrade situation is no better than Windows. Agree 100% with this. I've yet to see a Linux system that could outperform a Windows server system in terms of operating cost. You might be able to get setup on Linux for cheap compared to windows, but your ongoing maintenance costs will kill you. FreeBSD is worthwhile for environments that need to be as hardened as possible in a security sense. For anything else, you're probably better off with Windows servers. I literally lol'd. |
|
Quoted:
...What? How does screen resolution, fans and an SSD relate in any way at all to buying a Mac? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Get a Mac. why would i do that? I have 1080p on a used small form factor that I purchased for $150. After replacing the fans with a better quieter one, it is near silent. I do want to replace the hard drive with a SSD. ...What? How does screen resolution, fans and an SSD relate in any way at all to buying a Mac? Why wouldn't they matter? |
|
Quoted:
If you didn't want anything to do with a command line or log files you probably shouldn't have taken a job administering linux servers. It's not like that should have been a surprise. What did you think it would be like? Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a Linux problem because the "senior" leaders are a bunch of anti-Microsoft Unix + Oracle dipshits. If you didn't want anything to do with a command line or log files you probably shouldn't have taken a job administering linux servers. It's not like that should have been a surprise. What did you think it would be like? Having experienced both I fail to see the attraction. I've run TPCD tests Oracle vs. SQL Server and there was no comparison. SQL Server hands down. Query speed, ease of installation, all the built-in monitoring, the alert system, built-in integrated mail commands. mail -s "here's your fucking text format report" [email protected] blah blah blah. |
|
Quoted:
Why wouldn't they matter? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Get a Mac. why would i do that? I have 1080p on a used small form factor that I purchased for $150. After replacing the fans with a better quieter one, it is near silent. I do want to replace the hard drive with a SSD. ...What? How does screen resolution, fans and an SSD relate in any way at all to buying a Mac? Why wouldn't they matter? Because if you're talking a desktop Mac, then it'll have an SSD and near silent fans. If you're buying a Macbook, it'll have an SSD and a UHD display and be silent. |
|
Quoted:
Agree 100% with this. I've yet to see a Linux system that could outperform a Windows server system in terms of operating cost. You might be able to get setup on Linux for cheap compared to windows, but your ongoing maintenance costs will kill you. What are those ongoing costs? I administer quite a few linux boxes and I just don't see it. When there's something pressing I upgrade system packages. That's about it. |
|
Quoted: Those are the fucktards that want a free alternative to Windows, (and now Mac OS X) instead of a free PC unix. Quoted: Quoted: It's really not for you and to be honest, I've never liked the communities collective desire to make it a mainstream, user friendly operating system. Those are the fucktards that want a free alternative to Windows, (and now Mac OS X) instead of a free PC unix. Yeah, you can hear them WINE all the time about that shit. |
|
Quoted: What are those ongoing costs? I administer quite a few linux boxes and I just don't see it. When there's something pressing I upgrade system packages. That's about it. Quoted: Quoted: Agree 100% with this. I've yet to see a Linux system that could outperform a Windows server system in terms of operating cost. You might be able to get setup on Linux for cheap compared to windows, but your ongoing maintenance costs will kill you. What are those ongoing costs? I administer quite a few linux boxes and I just don't see it. When there's something pressing I upgrade system packages. That's about it. A couple good linux admins probably cost more than half dozen helpdesk techs and a MS Support license.  |
|
Quoted:
Having experienced both I fail to see the attraction. I've run TPCD tests Oracle vs. SQL Server and there was no comparison. SQL Server hands down. Query speed, ease of installation, all the built-in monitoring, the alert system, built-in integrated mail commands. mail -s "here's your fucking text format report" [email protected] blah blah blah. More or less "I just don't like it" is a perfectly valid preference but I don't know how you expected any different. |
|
Quoted:
The world runs on Linux. This simply means that Linux isn't right for you, which is ok. No, the world runs on supported Linux, as in they're versions released and maintained by major software houses like Red Hat. If you have some open source freeware it's supported in the sense that a driver for your printer will be released the moment some hobbyist in Norway gets around to writing it. |
|
Quoted:
Because if you're talking a desktop Mac, then it'll have an SSD and near silent fans. If you're buying a Macbook, it'll have an SSD and a UHD display and be silent. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Get a Mac. why would i do that? I have 1080p on a used small form factor that I purchased for $150. After replacing the fans with a better quieter one, it is near silent. I do want to replace the hard drive with a SSD. ...What? How does screen resolution, fans and an SSD relate in any way at all to buying a Mac? Why wouldn't they matter? Because if you're talking a desktop Mac, then it'll have an SSD and near silent fans. If you're buying a Macbook, it'll have an SSD and a UHD display and be silent. So I should junk my used $150 box and purchase a $900 mac mini to get the same capabilities as now? Why? |
|
Quoted:
What are those ongoing costs? I administer quite a few linux boxes and I just don't see it. When there's something pressing I upgrade system packages. That's about it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Agree 100% with this. I've yet to see a Linux system that could outperform a Windows server system in terms of operating cost. You might be able to get setup on Linux for cheap compared to windows, but your ongoing maintenance costs will kill you. What are those ongoing costs? I administer quite a few linux boxes and I just don't see it. When there's something pressing I upgrade system packages. That's about it. I was thinking in terms of time put in on maintenance. I've had more than one linux machine randomly lose it's mind without explanation (this has been in a lab environment, not live). In retrospect, it's true that I haven't toyed with every different flavor of linux out there. Maybe others are better than the ones I've dealt with thus far. If so, I'd like to know which ones to use and which ones to avoid. |
|
Quoted:
More or less "I just don't like it" is a perfectly valid preference but I don't know how you expected any different. Quoted:
Quoted:
Having experienced both I fail to see the attraction. I've run TPCD tests Oracle vs. SQL Server and there was no comparison. SQL Server hands down. Query speed, ease of installation, all the built-in monitoring, the alert system, built-in integrated mail commands. mail -s "here's your fucking text format report" [email protected] blah blah blah. More or less "I just don't like it" is a perfectly valid preference but I don't know how you expected any different. Numbers, black and white: SQL Server on Windows won. In the cost of ownership department also. Then, years of running both systems. If it were my company it would be an all-Microsoft organization, or nearly all. No IBM. No Oracle. Linux, sure, maybe depending on what it was for. |
|
Quoted:
So I should junk my used $150 box and purchase a $900 mac mini to get the same capabilities as now? Why? Your wording brings up irrelevant points and doesn't respond to the statement as it's presented. "I've only got $150 into this machine, it's a waste of money to get a Mac" is a much better response than "I've got a 1080p monitor and fans and an SSD," which are all things that are included on any modern machine. As for what I think you should do: Install Windows. |
|
Quoted:
I was thinking in terms of time put in on maintenance. I've had more than one linux machine randomly lose it's mind without explanation (this has been in a lab environment, not live). In retrospect, it's true that I haven't toyed with every different flavor of linux out there. Maybe others are better than the ones I've dealt with thus far. If so, I'd like to know which ones to use and which ones to avoid. There's a tendency for hobbyists to want to run the latest (and that's rarely greatest) version of everything. Grabbing whatever is the hot distro right now with the latest everything and then putting it on a production server *is* a recipe for disaster. The company I work for is gradually getting rid of all our Windows servers and moving everything to linux. We're about 3/4 of the way there now. We use Slackware just because that's what I prefer, but I think any distro with a conservative approach to versions is fine. We have one box running Ubuntu server because that's what a contract developer preferred and a couple DNS servers running BSD now that I think about it. |
|
Quoted: Having experienced both I fail to see the attraction. I've run TPCD tests Oracle vs. SQL Server and there was no comparison. SQL Server hands down. Query speed, ease of installation, all the built-in monitoring, the alert system, built-in integrated mail commands. mail -s "here's your fucking text format report" [email protected] blah blah blah. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's a Linux problem because the "senior" leaders are a bunch of anti-Microsoft Unix + Oracle dipshits. If you didn't want anything to do with a command line or log files you probably shouldn't have taken a job administering linux servers. It's not like that should have been a surprise. What did you think it would be like? Having experienced both I fail to see the attraction. I've run TPCD tests Oracle vs. SQL Server and there was no comparison. SQL Server hands down. Query speed, ease of installation, all the built-in monitoring, the alert system, built-in integrated mail commands. mail -s "here's your fucking text format report" [email protected] blah blah blah. I think using an obsolete 15 year old benchmark as justification as to which product you prefer is sort of... weird. But hey, whatever man. |
|
Quoted:
Your wording brings up irrelevant points and doesn't respond to the statement as it's presented. "I've only got $150 into this machine, it's a waste of money to get a Mac" is a much better response than "I've got a 1080p monitor and fans and an SSD," which are all things that are included on any modern machine. As for what I think you should do: Install Windows. Quoted:
Quoted:
So I should junk my used $150 box and purchase a $900 mac mini to get the same capabilities as now? Why? Your wording brings up irrelevant points and doesn't respond to the statement as it's presented. "I've only got $150 into this machine, it's a waste of money to get a Mac" is a much better response than "I've got a 1080p monitor and fans and an SSD," which are all things that are included on any modern machine. As for what I think you should do: Install Windows. what are you talking about? How is it irrelevant? The person said get a mac. I asked why? As in what benefit is there. That is why I listed the specs that were important. As long as I don't have that startup issue, I will be able to live with the linux version. If not, it will get windows. |
|
Quoted:
There's a tendency for hobbyists to want to run the latest (and that's rarely greatest) version of everything. Grabbing whatever is the hot distro right now with the latest everything and then putting it on a production server *is* a recipe for disaster. The company I work for is gradually getting rid of all our Windows servers and moving everything to linux. We're about 3/4 of the way there now. We use Slackware just because that's what I prefer, but I think any distro with a conservative approach to versions is fine. We have one box running Ubuntu server because that's what a contract developer preferred and a couple DNS servers running BSD now that I think about it. Quoted:
Quoted:
I was thinking in terms of time put in on maintenance. I've had more than one linux machine randomly lose it's mind without explanation (this has been in a lab environment, not live). In retrospect, it's true that I haven't toyed with every different flavor of linux out there. Maybe others are better than the ones I've dealt with thus far. If so, I'd like to know which ones to use and which ones to avoid. There's a tendency for hobbyists to want to run the latest (and that's rarely greatest) version of everything. Grabbing whatever is the hot distro right now with the latest everything and then putting it on a production server *is* a recipe for disaster. The company I work for is gradually getting rid of all our Windows servers and moving everything to linux. We're about 3/4 of the way there now. We use Slackware just because that's what I prefer, but I think any distro with a conservative approach to versions is fine. We have one box running Ubuntu server because that's what a contract developer preferred and a couple DNS servers running BSD now that I think about it. You running with the paid support versions? I think one of the problems that you run into here, is that Linux can bill itself as cheap, until you start buying a lot of the good tools that make systems administration a lot easier, plus the paid tech support if you need it. Then people that control the money start asking why not just go with Windows? There's no doubt that the linux stuff I've dealt with in lab environments is not something you'd want to throw on a production server. However, my budget for this kind of lab testing is zero, so I get what I can get. And when it doesn't perform in a stable way...well, you can see how management would start getting skittish about it. In our environment, we have some regulatory requirements we have to meet. Part of that involves email, and MS Exchange was the solution that was selected. That only runs on Windows. We have two linux systems, but both of them came preconfigured from the vendor and are administered by web interface, so that doesn't really count IMO. That makes us an MS shop by default. I would happily admin for a linux system if we were to need one and were willing to pony up for a stable paid version. But since our regulatory requirements push us towards MS tools, we've determined there's no need to complicate things further by having Windows and Linux systems running side by side. |
