Quote:

With you on that one, but let me ask you: Do you perceive anything wrong with Linux & others offering an alternative to MS? I would hope not. Sure, Linux is not the big kid on the block, but they are serving their purpose, I think.



Of course not. I use Linux myself, as a router and a fileserver using Samba. I also have a few Solaris x86 machines, and two old school SunOS pizzaboxes, but those are mostly for my test environment.

Quote:

The innovations & pushing/steering of technology is in their best interest with other companies nipping at their heels.



I agree with this as well. My problem only comes in when people blame Microsoft for shoddy products, and bad practices, when its nothing more than standard business with complex software. I've written software that's 1/100th the size of the Windows codebase, and managed to have next to impossible bugs to find. We had the same problems at Symantec, multiple teams, each working on their part of the code, and then when things are put together, they don't quite work as planned. Its all a part of large-scale software dev.

Quote:

First, kernel programming and server administration are ENTIRELY separate beasts. Letting a kernel programmer loose to admin a DC full of *NIX gear is a terrible waste of resources.



I have based my entire career around system administration. It just so happens I have also been coding since I was 14, and with the advanced knowledge I had of the kernel, I was offered a position I could not refuse. Once I was offered to be the lead admin at Symantec, I had to take the job. Nothing like being the primary admin on 4 networks, totalling over 500 machines. When at H-E-B I was the lead admin for a network of over 7000 machines, all servers for the stores, with only 1500 or so of them being windows (Citrix, actually).

Quote:

Admining a "Linux network" (or any *NIX based farm) isn't that damned hard;



Try pushing out software updates to 10k machines over an x.25 satelite network. The only option became to either hand-write distribution software, or install Tivoli. We went with Tivoli, and even then the windows machines were more apt to accept the updates than their UNIX counterparts.

Quote:

I want absolute control over what, how, and why something is running. *NIX based OSes allow that better than Windows (in my opinion).



Sure they do. But, that control can also get you into nightmares in the long run. From an admin standpoint its much easier to maintain 100 settings vs 100,000 settings. (Just an outta-the-butt example.)

Quote:

Sure, there are folks trying to make Linux as easy as using Windows, but where's the motivation to learn about what's REALLY going on?



I'm from the UNIX "old school". I prefer UNIX shell, and no GUI. Ever since they've started adding a GUI to UNIX flavours, they've started to eliminate its usefulness. They now are trying to compete with Windows, instead of sticking it out in their niche, where they were dominant. They now have to spend much more time making sure X, Gnome, or whatever works, when they could be fixing the filesystem problems, or the hardware compatiblity issues.

Quote:

... And E1, I mean no disrespect. =]



None taken. =) I enjoy good thought out discussions like this. It's only when people take the "MS is evil! They should be taken out!" attitude that I get annoyed.

I have a rather unique background, and thus a different idea of things. I was 100% a "UNIX guy" for years. My first computer was a SunOS machine, long before I ever got my first copy of Windows 95. I've admin'd major networks for both UNIX and Windows, and I've programmed on both branches, as well. From my standpoint, Microsoft has made life easier for devs, admins, and users alike -- of which I am all 3. I can't imagine what it'd be like for me trying to do 3D API development on UNIX -- but MS makes that easy for me -- along with a host of other things they make easier on a day to day basis.

E1

1999 Cougar - Supercharged 3L 1992 Talon TSi - AWD Turbo 1992 Eclipse GSX - AWD Turbo