Originally posted by Charlie Spencer
Tink, we're not discussing desktop OS's at this stage (165+ at this facility; several hundred company wide), just servers.
I wasn't either ;) ... I was responsible for about
6000 servers at a time, and no, none of them
were running WinDOHs... had I been talking
about clients we had been looking at about
... use SMS. (That's Microsoft's Systems Management Server. In the last few days I've seen that abbreviation used in another context, but I don't know what it is.)
Short Message Service, and it's been around for
longer than the MS term :} .. and I've seen SMS
(the MS thing) in progress ... I wasn't overly impressed.
While we don't roll out anything new, Microsoft or otherwise, without testing, we don't even test unless the new version offers features we actively need. That's why we're still on Office 97.
Congratulations ... how do you guys manage
to exchange douments with people who use
a brand-new version of Office?
Yes, there was re-learning involved between NT and 2000, and again between 2000 and XP. But I wasn't offered seven different flavors of XP and told "Try them all to see which one you like, then repeat for six flavors of browser, four of GUI, five of file manager, etc." That seems to be the stock response newbies get when we ask for a hard opinion on most options. Some people enjoy having a wide range of choices. For others, it's confusing; we're initally willing to settle for "good enough". That's why I'm settling for the "first-found, first-installed" approach (and why I drive a car until it dies). [quote]
All I can say in this context: stick with
what you have until you discover it
doesn't do what you want. At the end
of the day there's just TWO big families
of Linux-distros, that's those with SysV
and those with BSD style startup-scripts,
and even that shouldn't be impossible to
change over :} As long as it has a linux
kernel for the CPU architecture of your
choice you can pretty much change
whatever you want (with varying effort,
of course), most of it on the fly. If I wasn't
a fanatic power-saver I'd say that my
server wasn't booted since the last kernel
upgrade, and I could say that without
I'm not sure where people get the time to do something as time-consuming as test loading OS's, but it seems we newbies are expected to do it a lot. (Admit it, it's a hazing ritual, right? You guru's have a betting pool going on how many time you can talk a guy into switching distros.) I consider loading an OS as a major operation, the computer equivalent of a brain transplant. Maybe there's some part of the distro testing process I don't understand yet, some step that makes it easier than I imagine.
I must have missed something :} Where is
the guy who takes the bets?! :D I don't really
expect anyone to try several distros. I will,
however, if people have problems with their
distro that are specific to their distro point
out that there are alternatives ;) ... and I do
the same to people who have problems with
If I'm at a shell prompt / terminal window (Look! I've been reading and learning new terms!), is there any apparent difference between distributions?
Good man. And no ... not really. There may be gimmicks
like colour highlighting of certain file-types enabled
in one distro, and the prompt looks different in the
next, but again, at the end of the day you're most
likely using bash 2.05 or a tcshell ... the vast majority
of commands will be the same everywhere, sometimes
aliased to a more harmless version (some distros will
alias rm=rm -i to prevent accidental deletion of files).
The thing is, the guts are ALWAYS the same. But the
person who is in charge of one distro can make them
look/act slightly different...
The greatest advantage of this diversity that seems to
scare/puzzle you is the fact that it makes it pretty darn
impossible to write malicious code that will affect all