|
|
Login/Become a Member! | 32 Comments
|
| | Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Re: Part II: Corporate Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth
(Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Feb 16, 2005 - 09:32 AM
|
"I am arguing that your argument is based on poor management of your environment."
Unfortunately this can not be said for every environment - it depends on how 'plain vanilla' your environment is. For dynamic environments where significant numbers of users need to run more than the 'standard' suite of vanilla applications it is still very difficult to do proper enterprise style management of the environment. In our case we use Tivoli to push patches to the enterprise - however - this only works for about half the patches on maybe two thirds of the machines - software interactions and dependencies require touching individual machines to get many patches to install - and some patches break some software functionality which causes an order of magnitude or more increased time to resolve.
So for a cookie cutter, plain vanilla environment you are absolutely correct - enterprise style, draconian control with a minimum of applications outside the corporate standard - can work wonders - but in a complex, dynamic environment it very often just isn't possible -- SMS, SUS, Tivoli and the like just aren't flexible enough or smart enough.
|
Re: Part II: Corporate Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth
(Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Feb 21, 2005 - 06:07 AM
|
Yes, but Sun != Linux. Sun is is the Microsoft of the Windows world as far as patch handling is concerned. You have to reboot Sun boxes a lot of time after doing maintenance work, whereas you wouldn't after the same task on a Linux box.
Still, I'd have to say that the same argument that you apply to the above poster (bad management on the Windows side, which I basically agree with) could also be applied to you and the management of the your Unix side. You don't mention what the 50 Sun Servers are doing, nor the 500+ Windows machines.
Also, as far as the poster who has the bad windows management, I'm not at all surprised based on his comment of management/windows, and unix/grunts. The "grunts" are no doubt the technically adept of the group, while management, and I'm sure that includes secretaries, loading dock personel or whatever. Sounds like the managers need some policy applied to them.
This all comes around to one of the article writer's main points, that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence around going one way _and_ the other as far as TCO. You guy's points of view are classic examples because there is a temptation to infer that one platform is better than the other over these personal experiences, which is wrong, because it matters so much what exactly you are doing with all those computers and there are so many variables involved in analyzing each situation for the cost benefit.
dz
|
|
|