Re: [Linux-aus] Why Linux is not ready for business

[Paul Wayper <paul.wayper@anu.edu.au>]

Steve Walsh wrote:
> Let's face it, networking and share-based security in windows is
> hardly difficult, look at the number of 12 and 13 yo's at School
> Holiday LAN comps who can get their machines running on the network
> and sharing MP3's with their mates, videos with others, and keep their
> pr0n stash secure in less time that it take to compile a kernel on a
> P2/350. Linux users aren't the only people who tinker with the OS when
> they want to do something different. It's just a little harder to add
> extras into that particular kernel. Yes, we have to worry about the
> 25-30 yo's who came in with win95 networking, and take the "shotgun"
> approach to networking, but the generations coming up now have a lot
> more nonce than the people do now.
Do you mean nous?

True, and I'm not saying all kids are stupid, but I'm talking about the
difference between a person who's done it for fun and a person who sees
it as a serious calling.  Sometimes you don't get to pick the
requirements, the time frame, the software or the people you work for. 
It took me one go to realise that I didn't like programming when I
wasn't in control of the requirements, for instance :-)

> Don't discount the kids coming out of College's with MCSE's, CCNA's
> and the like. For a lot of them, getting the letters is only part of
> it, making the qualification part of their year 12 certificate means
> they have to know more than the theory, and a lot of them are seeking
> outside work to get that knowledge.
True, and likewise colleges and universities are doing more with the
state of the art now rather than teaching hoary old theory that doesn't
apply any more.  I learnt computer graphics from Bresenham's Line
Algorithm up; people learn computer graphics now by using the OpenGL
library.  I learn networks from the ISO Seven Layer Model; my brother
got his degree a year ago and he wrote a HTTP and SMTP proxy for an
assignment.

But my assertion is that the 'street corner Windows tech' may not be at
that stage.  There are plenty of reports of people with MCSEs and no
real world clue at all.

> Ever built a SOE for a windows environment? Did you get to pick what
> was in it, or was it dictated by the business need and knowledge
> within the department? More often than not (and I know this, my
> current contract is all about building a windows SOE when I'm not
> playing with their linux infrastructure) the Managers dictate the SOE
> components and the tech makes it work together.
This is my other point - that the 'street corner Windows tech' doesn't
have the breadth of experience with all platforms to know how to take
what e's given and make it work together.  Case in point - at the
company I worked for in Melbourne (product was Solaris based and most
used; marketing, admin and some techs used Windows) we had an extremely
clueful sysadmin who kept both architectures working together.  When he
quit in disgust, the guy they hired had his MCSE and all mod cons, and
had no idea whatsoever about how to administrate the Solaris side.  It
took a lot of pressure from Support and Development to stop him
scrapping the main server and trying to convert everyone to using Windows.

> It comes (yet again) to the managers. Management know windows, so they
> dictate. They don't know linux, so they leave it to those that do. Top
> down changes are a metric crapload easier than a bottom-up change.
Which is why I maintain that the major reason that Microsoft has been so
successful is that it hasn't even bothered selling the software to the
tech support; it sells it to management.  The techs can support just
about anything anyway, as myriad DailyWTF articles attest...

Have fun,

Paul