My daughter's small private school is running a two-year-old NT server. The system along with all the PCs were bought through Gateway along with dedicated network support. Gateway, because of recent financial problems, is getting out of the network support service and is the school principal is handing over their duties to a small PC shop in town. The tech guy there wants to charge the school several thousand dollars and convert the network to a Unix Server and install new boxes and lines.
I don't know much about NT servers or Unix.
This sounds very fishy to me. Is there some reason why one would want to convert a smoothly running NT network to a Unix based one?
Is there something I'm missing here?
-or- does this sound like somebody taking advantage of people who really do not know much about computers.

There is no reason to make a change like that unless you are making other changes that require that kind of change. If everything is working fine and no periferals or other hardware is being added to the network then there is no need for this drastic of a change.

I have been in the computer networking arena for about 5 years and I go by the old saying, "If it aint broke, don't fix it".

This holds true in 99% of the things I do.

I hope it is not to late to stop this guy.

You answered your question when you said 'private school'. I'm sure you could hear that guy say 'cha-ching' when the school called him.

The guy could simply be more familiar with nix systems than NT, or he could simple hate MS.

Or he could know more about the schools network situation than we do. I'd need more information to be absolutely sure.

I do assume you are getting more than one bid on this contract? What do the others say?

If the network is of considerable size, it is very possible that a UNIX system is the correct solution. Gateway most likely used WinNT because I don't believe they provided any UNIX services. However, I believe in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" way of thinking when it comes to IT. There is no need to upgrade or replace a system that is currently running adequetly.

Unless you guys are planning a major expansion to the network, or adding services to the network that the old NT server is not capable of I would say you things should probably stay the same.

Do keep in mind that a properly setup unix server can require less attention then its Windows counterpart due to the rash of virus' and patches. Also, UNIX systems tend to have less overhead then Windows systems. If now is not the time to upgrade, they might want to consider going the UNIX route when that time comes.

Two words JOB SECURITY.

I am a huge fan of Unix, but that doesn't mean I am going to strip out a NT network and build a new one just because I prefer Unix.

This guy would have great job security. Could any of the campus "computer literate" teachers ever touch a CLI? probably not. If he uses unix, anytime that something goes wrong (granted not that often) he will be back. As opposed to a teacher getting a book and learning a bit of NT himself.

There are bennifits of running unix, as opposed to NT, but for a small prive school network, both will work.

But like was said previously, this guy might know something about the network/students/network services that we don't.

Oh yeah, and some people aren't that crafty with NT either. Kinda confusing with the all of the IPSec rules and stuff.

quote:Originally posted by cmsanto:
Running stable NT server - consultant wants UNIX - why?

Shouldn't this be posed to the consultant? If he can't justify his proposal it shouldn't be accepted.

I second everything said so far and add that a migration would give the consultant a lot of money, a lot of power and a lot of leeway upfront. Unless the NT system is falling apart and is seriously compromised the conversion does not seem as a good idea.

I think we have FAR to little info to make any judgements...

Maybe they have really outgrown the NT solution, and want to expand, and the best solution cost wise is a UNIX one...you said yourself its been in place for some time now... maybe they want to provide something they dont have today like an EMAIL server for a few thousands of people, and that could be done very well for practically nothing in UNIX or pay $$$$ for an NT upgrade+dedicated exchange server+Licenses etc...

You really don't have much info to say one thing or another.

And one more thing.... my experience is that PRIVATE SCHOOLS are MUCH MORE THRIFTY with their money and do far MORE with FEWER dollars than public schools... the public schools typically get MUCH MORE per student from the taxpayers, than private schools charge for tuition....so your assumption that they are just throwing money around is probably way out of line.

The system is only a couple of years old. It's been running real stable with no problems. The guy said today to my wife that he believes any network over 20 pc's should be a Unix to insure stability. He's really triing to push this thing, he even used the arguement that terrorists will go after our computer systems next - implying unless they have Unix servers I guess. Anyway, his cost was high, 10,000 or so for the school. This school DOES NOT HAVE a lot money. Another thing, he did mention that he was more comfortable with Unix systems than NT Server. He also said that with his network in place, pc's wouldn't all go down if one did, but that doesn't happen now.

sounds like this guy is blowing a lot of smoke in your eyes....

talking about terrorism? what a knieving choad....why do people have to play on people's fear to make a buck.

As someone here's sig says:

"If you can impress them with knowledge, confuse then with bullS___"

or something to that effect

What age kids are these? Are the servers in question only, or will the NT boxes just run service off there? I will tell you one thing non-engineer nerd types (like all of us ) do not want to tough a system running any of the *nixes at this point, and it might turn them away from a good learning experience.

I am all for getting some of the machines so kids that want to actually learn computers can have real systems to learn on, but the kids that just want to check email and look at stupid stuff on the internet....not a chance.

Just a couple of "blunt" observations...

1. If it aint broke, don't fix it.
2. Get a 2nd AND 3rd opinion! (less than 10K)
If still unsure, see # 1

quote:Originally posted by cmsanto:
The system is only a couple of years old. It's been running real stable with no problems. The guy said today to my wife that he believes any network over 20 pc's should be a Unix to insure stability. He's really triing to push this thing, he even used the arguement that terrorists will go after our computer systems next - implying unless they have Unix servers I guess. Anyway, his cost was high, 10,000 or so for the school. This school DOES NOT HAVE a lot money. Another thing, he did mention that he was more comfortable with Unix systems than NT Server. He also said that with his network in place, pc's wouldn't all go down if one did, but that doesn't happen now.

It sounds to me this guy is taking advantage of the situation. Windows NT and Unix have their strengths and weeknesses and what he provided as a weekness on NT part is a lie. If it were true that NT would become unstable with 20 clients then NT would not have survived the market. I think you need to take the advise of the above posters and seek more opinions. I reccomend not going with a local firm and seek one of the big boys like IBM, Compaq, or Dell. They offer discounts to schools and provide better support. I know Compaq and IBM will sometimes offer support for competitors machines and operating systems.

Jim

The biggest reason I would ever want to move to UNIX (Solaris as the example) from NT is simple: remote administration and repair.

Let's say a server is having issues. If it is a UNIX box, I telnet into OpenBoot and type a couple of forth commands to find out what is wrong with the machine. If it is a problem with the current install, I could easily tell it to do a net install and as long as my image server is working fine, the image would go over to the machine in a matter of minutes.

This means in theory, that as long as hardware is not having issues, the administrator can easily log into the machines and fix them from his desktop (or if he had a nice wireless connection, his PDA).

More than 20 pc's and an NT network becomes unstable? What a load of crap! I work in IT and most NT networks I have seen have hundreds to thousands of users. I would ditch this guy merely on the Terrorist comment alone, never mind the fact he is trying to sell a network config the school doesn't need.

This proposed changeover is unnecessary. This will want to be done as a money maker, plain and simple.

Any network installs done via gateway systems with suported warranty on-site network service contracts like is currently provided for this institution(we have contracted both gateway and dell systems support for 500-5000 system lans) will be setup in such a way that proposed network topolgy will suffice easy for 500 + users.

There is no reason to switch over the NT lan to unix based platforms, unless the current setup involves nt4 domains, and more secured access for vpn and remote solutions is desired by the facaulty. Then, and only then the upgrade path to windows 2000 and its related licensing costs will be the only benefactor that would be taken into consideration and proposed for towards a unix migration as opposed to a counter-investment for new windows 2000, .net server installation.

And Im sure this is the scenario. If not, then its a money drian.

i'm going to second everything that everyone else has said and add my own two pence.

small shop in town: the techie there probably doesn't have much experience in *real* networks, probably one of these "Micro$oft is trying to take over the world!" wannabe hacker types. so what he knows about networks is only about unix, because it's cooler than microsoft.

unix is good, but you can do virtually everything that you can on unix, on NT4. if you want more security, unless you really know what you are doing (and therefore shouldn't be working in a shop, you are earning serious money for network security) use win2k.

it sounds like this guy just wants to secure a big contract, but as has been pointed out... what do i know, i haven't seen your network. although i would be very surprised if you really needed unix.

NT = pffft!!

you = not a clue!!

Whatever....

Sure it would not make sense to replace the network in this instance (for the cost involved in such a transition)

But my statement still stands

And you are the one with no clue or you would know the superiority of unix over WinBloat Nice Try

Just to point out something... most of your "real" networks are unix networks. You don't see many universities, ISP's or large corperate networks that don't have a unix backbone.

quote:Originally posted by pletharoe:
i'm going to second everything that everyone else has said and add my own two pence.

small shop in town: the techie there probably doesn't have much experience in *real* networks, probably one of these "Micro$oft is trying to take over the world!" wannabe hacker types. so what he knows about networks is only about unix, because it's cooler than microsoft.

unix is good, but you can do virtually everything that you can on unix, on NT4. if you want more security, unless you really know what you are doing (and therefore shouldn't be working in a shop, you are earning serious money for network security) use win2k.

it sounds like this guy just wants to secure a big contract, but as has been pointed out... what do i know, i haven't seen your network. although i would be very surprised if you really needed unix.

quote:Originally posted by RangerBFK:
....And [c] are the one with no clue or you would know the superiority of unix over WinBloat Nice Try

Don't ya just love these disgruntled Microsoft shareholders? Imo they'll be active online from now on defending MS's monopolyware from loosing it's marketshare. In essence, corporate-sponsored internet information terrorists. IIT.dll

quote:

Don't ya just love these disgruntled Microsoft shareholders? Imo they'll be active online from now on defending MS's monopolyware from loosing it's marketshare. In essence, corporate-sponsored internet information terrorists. IIT.dll

Good point... I wonder if THEY will all be as staunch defenders of MS when, MS is a MINORITY platform??? Hmmmm...

quote:Originally posted by jtshaw:
Just to point out something... most of your "real" networks are unix networks. You don't see many universities, ISP's or large corperate networks that don't have a unix backbone.

NT= File servers, Exchange servers, print servers, web/application server (front end of the application). If running an application server most likely using Citrix or IIS and IE.
Unix= Database servers, web servers/application servers (backend for the application), etc...
DNS/DHCP= usually a hardware solution.

This is pretty common setup. At least from what I seen. Now, my shop is different, but we are moving from a OS/2, AS/400, NT 4 setup to the above setup of Win2k and Solaris.

I have certifications in AIX and OS/2. I like Unix as much as the next guy, but its clear that the poster is being taken on a ride. There is no reason for his school to upgrade to Unix if he feels that NT is servings his schools need.

Jim

I have comments for both of the above posters, for one, RangerBFK, your statement holds no water. Explain to me why *you* feel unix is superior to windows, not because everyone else says it is. I have worked with both, and both have there place, unfortunatly, your misinformed edutcational outlook on both operating systems is biased and cluttered. You do not understand the benefits of one of the over, or you would have not stated such a premature comment.

to jtshaw, you bring up a good point, and one that is relevant. However, you want to talk about real networks? Look at Microsofts market share across the corporate sales spectrum, tell me who holds the market share on coporate server implimentations. Microsoft holds a 79% coporate server preception, and 83% data center with there nt4 enterprise and now 2000 data center server products. These are world wide corporate networks, I hope you are not implying that all these IT personnel dont have a rats ass clue what they're doing?

Unix is used because it can contiue to be used on what can be considered inferior hardware, does not require patches or the same upkeep, can be scaled, and requires little user intervention once configured in a production environment. But most importantly, in most cases its a much cheaper solution then microsoft's licensing, its not because its superior in anyway. In some cases, yes. I have nothing against either, i have spent a great deal of time with unix, hp unix, sun solaris, novell 4, 5, 5.1, BeOS coporate and microsoft's mix. I think i have some rather relative experience, and I dont boast false claims, so with that being said, there is nothing I despise more then a my os beats your os, not implying this to you by any means, but I understand where I sit. The problem with public forums like this, and especially here - most indivduals do not have the real world experience to abse there opinions on.

quote:Originally posted by [C]:
I have comments for both of the above posters, for one, RangerBFK, your statement holds no water. Explain to me why *you* feel unix is superior to windows, not because everyone else says it is. I have worked with both, and both have there place, unfortunatly, your misinformed edutcational outlook on both operating systems is biased and cluttered. You do not understand the benefits of one of the over, or you would have not stated such a premature comment.

to jtshaw, you bring up a good point, and one that is relevant. However, you want to talk about real networks? Look at Microsofts market share across the corporate sales spectrum, tell me who holds the market share on coporate server implimentations. Microsoft holds a 79% coporate server preception, and 83% data center with there nt4 enterprise and now 2000 data center server products. These are world wide corporate networks, I hope you are not implying that all these IT personnel dont have a rats ass clue what they're doing?

Unix is used because it can contiue to be used on what can be considered inferior hardware, does not require patches or the same upkeep, can be scaled, and requires little user intervention once configured in a production environment. But most importantly, in most cases its a much cheaper solution then microsoft's licensing, its not because its superior in anyway. In some cases, yes. I have nothing against either, i have spent a great deal of time with unix, hp unix, sun solaris, novell 4, 5, 5.1, BeOS coporate and microsoft's mix. I think i have some rather relative experience, and I dont boast false claims, so with that being said, there is nothing I despise more then a my os beats your os, not implying this to you by any means, but I understand where I sit. The problem with public forums like this, and especially here - most indivduals do not have the real world experience to abse there opinions on.

Boy are you clueless about the real world.... I have more than a decade of fortune 50 IT experience and I would have to say just about everything you said is wrong...

well so you claim anyways. And for that matter with what reasoning?

Im telling you the way it is from my perspective, i dont care what insdustry sector YOU are in/ fortune 50 company or not means not much if your biased or sheltered. I see absolutly nothing off skew in my above reply, nor does your reply justify the off reasoning.

Intelligently speaking, I dont know if I care about what you think, Ive seen previous posts about your thoughts on Microsoft's operating systems. Notice I dont mention what os i use, i dont base opinions strickly on experience or what i think to be rebelious. Im not a Microsoft follower by any means, and with that being said, your previous posts about being as anti-mircrosoft as you claim, how can your insight truly be held in high regards?

The thing you seem to be over looking, is Microsoft and UNIX are two seperate operating systems geard towards two clientel markets, realistically. I understand microsoft tries to get into large structed unix networks, and I dont support that, but it has its place. If its so useless why does it continue to sell?

And this is where I think half the 'older' population is overlooking something!! UNIX was BIG five years ago when nt 3.51 was around, nt was not then what it is today. If you seriously do research, and I mean really look into, not just numbers off a website(and you have no idea who I am, or what I do for a living so how can you base what I say as clueless?) you will see that Microsoft's Server products are replacing UNIX more all the time. As nt matures and improves in areas where they lacked before, they can offer much more intutative setup, maintance and administration then UNIX platforms, offer a much greater wide array of supported software, technical support and in turn offer much more capacity of use then a unix platform, im not talking load base.

When we researched UNIX migrations which were very strong five years ago, it was based on its previous reliability which was at that time unproven in the corporate IT industry, it offered a very affordable approach to a fast, secure and widely disperable and scaleble feature set, with no comparison or competition.

I know quite well what is being used today and to what extent, but I ask you this, and not taking away from my above topic, why do you think Microsoft's total sales revenue on nt4 enterprise edition, and windows server products increased dramtically over 39% in one year of availability, and UNIX reported migrations decreased? Why was this? Not everyone is brainwashed into thinking microsoft is the end all solution, so that leaves experienced administrators held responsible for the companies future. And the corporate departments calculate more cost savings with added functionalty of microsofts server products.

I highly doubt those numbers will continue to climb when .net servers are available on a wide scale, but we will see as contracts have already started passing. There is always going to be a place for UNIX platforms, and I think you missed my initial post to this forum, and caught the last one, which justified what I said the first time around. I am not allowed to garner biased opinions. My insight and opinions are based on comapny history, track records, and current deployment and the expected upgrade migrations for 2-3 year time.

This is leading off topic from the original topic.

I have no problem hearing your thoughts hitman, infact I dont mind them - but from all previous posts i have read from you, it sounds as though you hold a grudge towards microsoft products, whether you work with them daily or not, I dont feel your above comments are warranted as you have no idea on my standpoint, nor do I think you are entirely aware of what the REST of the WORLD is doing at the present time. If you keep things intelligent on a proven scale them I am more then intersted on your take of things, but dont consider my ideas clueless, becuase they dont coincide what you think makes a right.

quote:Originally posted by The_Hitman:
Good point... I wonder if THEY will all be as staunch defenders of MS when, MS is a MINORITY platform??? Hmmmm...

No because it is all about being on the bandwagon.

[C]-- That is the longest post I have seen here in a while!

ON topic: In my book I guess it comes down what reasons this guys gives for his Unix request. Personally I would rather be on a Unix network.

The unix workstations I use are powerful machines, but there are not even close to cheap in a school budget sense.

You need to see what you will be running on these machines.

CAD/CAM? FEA/FEM? Movie production? Large numeric method codes? Will the programs all run interactively? Will there be batch job servers? Do you want all your machines to be effective hosts? Will you need good Network File System integration?

Don't get yourself locked into business with one person.

Get second and third professional opinions!!

C: your ass needs to chill out.....people have the right to bash MS whether its true or not. People will have their own damn opinions, and you can't do anything about it.
Thats why we call this country of ours a "Democracy." So do the rest of these forums a favor and take some friggin valium to calm your ass down.

[C]... i'm glad that someone on this forum can make a valid point without jumping on bandwagons and being "cool rebel hacker types". i agree with you, both MS and UNIX have their places, lets not forget that and start arguing over my O/S is better than yours.

quote:Originally posted by allmixedup:
C: your ass needs to chill out.....people have the right to bash MS whether its true or not. People will have their own damn opinions, and you can't do anything about it.
Thats why we call this country of ours a "Democracy." So do the rest of these forums a favor and take some friggin valium to calm your ass down.

I have nothing to chill out about? I dont understand where you think that reply has any place. I have nothing against people that do not care for microsoft products, check the above posts, nowhere up their did anyone say 'i hate microsoft, unix rules' and I am not 'defending' any product one way or the other, I have no biased opinions like stated previously, i use meaningful examples and state valid points, i dont make an argument at all. I suggest you learn to look into more what someone is saying besides just the key words that poke you in the eye.

I could have stopped posting in this subject, infact I will if it continues on this route, my concern is not whether I believe I am right, and understanding how each individual has there own opinion(and what burns me, is nowhere did I deny this fact..once!) I do not push for something over the other unless requested. The problem I feel, is the majority and this holds true to half the above posters, think its cool to use anything *but* what is mainstream or the popular choice? I do not know, but without valid reasoning or the expression of your thoughts your post adds to useless babble.

I have worked with many OS and WinNT has never been as stable or as capable as A Unix based (or Unix Like) Operating System

-- This is My Experience --

You seem to have had better experiences with NT, Good for you...

quote:Originally posted by [C]:
I have nothing to chill out about? I dont understand where you think that reply has any place. I have nothing against people that do not care for microsoft products, check the above posts, nowhere up their did anyone say 'i hate microsoft, unix rules' and I am not 'defending' any product one way or the other, I have no biased opinions like stated previously, i use meaningful examples and state valid points, i dont make an argument at all. I suggest you learn to look into more what someone is saying besides just the key words that poke you in the eye.

I could have stopped posting in this subject, infact I will if it continues on this route, my concern is not whether I believe I am right, and understanding how each individual has there own opinion(and what burns me, is nowhere did I deny this fact..once!) I do not push for something over the other unless requested. The problem I feel, is the majority and this holds true to half the above posters, think its cool to use anything *but* what is mainstream or the popular choice? I do not know, but without valid reasoning or the expression of your thoughts your post adds to useless babble.

Well put. Agree 100%.

Jim

quote:Originally posted by [C]:
I have nothing to chill out about? I dont understand where you think that reply has any place. I have nothing against people that do not care for microsoft products, check the above posts, nowhere up their did anyone say 'i hate microsoft, unix rules' and I am not 'defending' any product one way or the other, I have no biased opinions like stated previously, i use meaningful examples and state valid points, i dont make an argument at all. I suggest you learn to look into more what someone is saying besides just the key words that poke you in the eye.

I could have stopped posting in this subject, infact I will if it continues on this route, my concern is not whether I believe I am right, and understanding how each individual has there own opinion(and what burns me, is nowhere did I deny this fact..once!) I do not push for something over the other unless requested. The problem I feel, is the majority and this holds true to half the above posters, think its cool to use anything *but* what is mainstream or the popular choice? I do not know, but without valid reasoning or the expression of your thoughts your post adds to useless babble.

Hey man I have nothing against Microsoft, all My OS's have been MS from day one. I only recently have decided to dual boot some comps with linux.

quote:Originally posted by [C]:
....I have nothing against people that do not care for microsoft products, ....i use meaningful examples and state valid points, i dont make an argument at all.
....The problem I feel, is the majority and this holds true to half the above posters, think its cool to use anything *but* what is mainstream or the popular choice? I do not know, but without valid reasoning....

You want "valid reasoning" ok, fine. How's this: COMPANIES CANNOT AFFORD MS PRODUCTS ANYMORE. How's that as reasoning?

Want another one? Ok, how about "what IT consultant wants to implement a MS solution when .Net allows for remote network monitoring and administration?" In 5 years most MS-based NT5+ networks may well be admin.ed by 'Bapoo' on his terminal in some sweatshop in Calcutta @$3.95/min. rather than by in-house administrators.

Here's a third reason: What IT administrator wants to put an OS on the internet who's kernal is based upon a closed source code? In case you haven't appreciated it both Code Red and nimda are kernal-based virii, meaning only a handful of programmers at MS have the capability of debugging their effects upon the affected MS kernals. To date MS has not realeased a fix for CR's damage to the 98 kernal. It took Symmantic 6 weeks to identify and make a '98 cleaning utility for CR's virtual root worm which infects all MS kernals across platforms. Furthermore, Symmantic needed MS's 'permission' to release the fix for '98. Unfortunately, that's only 1-of-at least 3 CR payloads that infect '98. I know, I've to clean it and that included reflashing an infected bios.

With open source OSs there's literally thousands of coders to debug and fix kernal bugs and virii.

I simply do not accept the fact that 'a group of university students in Guagxiou, China' cracked MS source codes and use that knowledge to degrade legacy MS OS kernals whilst MS only puts out fixes for it's new kernals. Now That's UNACCEPTABLE to any serious IT worker. I get paid by my company, not MS. I have to serve their interests and right now, MS's policies and products are a manifest burden to the business community.

Putting everything back into perspective on this thread, the school is a small school, only a couple of hundred kids. The grades are from pre-k to 7th(?) grade. We are not talking about future hackers here, only little kids. The private school itself is not rich and does not serve an affluent community but is a good solid alternative to the local school system, which really stinks.

Whatever your perspective on Microsoft is, my original question still stands, when the school is running a stable NT server, why would a consultant want UNIX.

From the many posts that addressed this issue I am left with just a few answers. This guy is indeed trying to milk the school into a hefty (last I heard it stood at $10,000) contract. This guy is so NT clueless that he needs UNIX or he is lost. And last - one other possibility - he wants to use remote administration, which is fairly easy to use in UNIX, because of various reasons - too lazy to come to the school etc.

The good news is that the School Principal, who is not very informed when it comes to IT or computer systems, has decided to bring in at least one more consultant for recommendations. Hopefully this person will make more logical recommendations that will better serve our needs.

Thanks for all the posts.

I wouldn't say he is nt clueless, after all nt is the server os for Joe "tech avg". If you understand unix, NT is comparable to a kiddie toy

He does seem to be trying to bilk the school for money

Remote administration is not laziness, its efficient. The school would actually save money by not having a tech come out to fix simple issues.

"Remote administration is not laziness, its efficient. The school would actually save money by not having a tech come out to fix simple issues.

Good point and well taken. Thanks.

quote:Originally posted by RangerBFK:
I wouldn't say he is nt clueless, after all nt is the server os for Joe "tech avg". If you understand unix, NT is comparable to a kiddie toy

He does seem to be trying to bilk the school for money

Remote administration is not laziness, its efficient. The school would actually save money by not having a tech come out to fix simple issues.

Ranger,

Tell me how you came to the conclusion regarding your stance on Windows NT and Unix. Give me an example of how you had an NT server and why you migrated it to a Unix server. Tell me what was the role of the NT server and what version of Unix you migrated to. Tell me what services you decided to use on the Unix box to replace those used on the NT box. Tell me what client operating system you were using and how you connected them to your Unix box. I am having a hard time believing you have any experiance in either Unix or Windows NT by your replys, so if you could explain to us how you came to your conclusion it will make your points to more believeable.

Thanks,
Jim

P.S.

Don't mistake me for a Microsoft freak and don't answer me by pointing that out. I believe each NOS has its place in the market and I feel, even though I don't like Microsoft's Licenses, that Windows does have a few strengths that many poeple, specially those that don't know, over look.

quote:Originally posted by Gerbil Survivor:
You want "valid reasoning" ok, fine. How's this: [b]COMPANIES CANNOT AFFORD MS PRODUCTS ANYMORE. How's that as reasoning?

Want another one? Ok, how about "what IT consultant wants to implement a MS solution when .Net allows for remote network monitoring and administration?" In 5 years most MS-based NT5+ networks may well be admin.ed by 'Bapoo' on his terminal in some sweatshop in Calcutta @$3.95/min. rather than by in-house administrators.

Here's a third reason: What IT administrator wants to put an OS on the internet who's kernal is based upon a closed source code? In case you haven't appreciated it both Code Red and nimda are kernal-based virii, meaning only a handful of programmers at MS have the capability of debugging their effects upon the affected MS kernals. To date MS has not realeased a fix for CR's damage to the 98 kernal. It took Symmantic 6 weeks to identify and make a '98 cleaning utility for CR's virtual root worm which infects all MS kernals across platforms. Furthermore, Symmantic needed MS's 'permission' to release the fix for '98. Unfortunately, that's only 1-of-at least 3 CR payloads that infect '98. I know, I've to clean it and that included reflashing an infected bios.

With open source OSs there's literally thousands of coders to debug and fix kernal bugs and virii.

I simply do not accept the fact that 'a group of university students in Guagxiou, China' cracked MS source codes and use that knowledge to degrade legacy MS OS kernals whilst MS only puts out fixes for it's new kernals. Now That's UNACCEPTABLE to any serious IT worker. I get paid by my company, not MS. I have to serve their interests and right now, MS's policies and products are a manifest burden to the business community.

[/B]

We were not talking about OpenSource vs close source. We are talking about Unix verses Windows NT. Unix does not mean Opernsource. Also, have you ever looked at the cost of a Unix solution in contrast to a Windows NT solution? You might find that depending on your needs Unix (not Linux/OpenBSD) cost of ownership might be more expensive than a Windows solution regardless. And exampe would be a small buisiness.

Jim

Where are you located? I work for a public school system and if you are close I will do the initial consult FREE.

I dont have extensive experience in "migration", and I never claimed to have had it.

You state opinions, well so have I.

I may not have as much experience as say the_hitman, but i do have enough to see a good os from a bad one. I have run/administered servers with a variety of OS, i know what i like and what works.

I don't know everything, never did I claim to either. (And in case you didn't know, you don't either)

Simple fact is whether they stay with nt or go *nix, they are in for some trouble. Whether it be for licensing (ala M$ new BS) or an *nix migration (which is bound to be a bumpy path)

Which is better? I don't know. In this situation sticking with NT makes sense (to me anyway) for the costs involved (and I have stated as much) and the overall situation.

Is unix right for everyone? No (i mean look at all these fools afraid of a CLI)

I'm joining the thread a little late but I have a question:

Who is the network admin for this school network? Does he/she know Unix? If not, then that pretty much answers your question on whether you should make the change or not.

quote:Originally posted by RangerBFK:
I dont have extensive experience in "migration", and I never claimed to have had it.

You state opinions, well so have I.

I may not have as much experience as say the_hitman, but i do have enough to see a good os from a bad one. I have run/administered servers with a variety of OS, i know what i like and what works.

I don't know everything, never did I claim to either. (And in case you didn't know, you don't either)

Simple fact is whether they stay with nt or go *nix, they are in for some trouble. Whether it be for licensing (ala M$ new BS) or an *nix migration (which is bound to be a bumpy path)

Which is better? I don't know. In this situation sticking with NT makes sense (to me anyway) for the costs involved (and I have stated as much) and the overall situation.

Is unix right for everyone? No (i mean look at all these fools afraid of a CLI)

I don't claim to know everything. I am very ignorant on allot of things. I just find it interesting how people degrade Windows NT and promote Unix on what other people have claimed, but not on personal experience. Personally I have administered AIX, RedHat Linux, SCO, Solaris, OS/2, Novell, and Windows NT in a corporate environment and I found each platform to have its strengths and weaknesses. I know for a fact, by looking at reply's to those who promote/defend Windows NT, that majority of the users here are not Unix knowledgeable, yet they blindly promote it and half of those users could not tell you the difference between Unix (AIX, SCO, Solaris, etc..) and Linux. I have one question to ask those that promote Unix over Windows NT, would you put a $60,000 RS/6000 to serve file and printers to 200 workstations? If you would, then you have no idea of cost of ownership. The reason I pointed you out was the remarks you, and others, had made regarding C opinion. You guys blindly attacked him when he made some valid points. Why do you do that? He wasn't degrading Unix, he was just pointing out the TCO with this project regarding Unix and Windows NT.

Like I said before, I am not a Microsoft promoter. Heck, the platform that pays my bills is OS/2 WSEB. I will take it over Windows NT any day Unfortunately, my company feels different.

Later,
Jim

quote:Originally posted by jimmt:

I don't claim to know everything. I am very ignorant on allot of things. I just find it interesting how people degrade Windows NT and promote Unix on what other people have claimed, but not on personal experience.

Not true.. I have over a decade of Fortune 50 IT experience.. nd I degrade Windows NT and promote UNIX... EXACTLY OUT OF YEARS OF REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE WITH BOTH...

BTW, this thread needs to die... its getting sucktackular.

Nevermind.... thread needs to die.....

EDIT:1 had smart azz remark...
EDIT:2 decided to agree with HitMan and let thread die...

Jim