LINUX SUCKS!

sprkymrk

strauchr wrote:

Some people obviously don't know Windows as well as they think they do. There is a lot of commands to know and remember as well as plenty of scripting needs for Windows.

Agreed. Between the windows shell, resourse kit, support tools, and vbscript there is a ton of scripting capability that comes with windows that many people do not realize. The power shell coming with Longhorn (and actually available for download now) will only add more.

Even still, I have scripted using Linux and it is VERY flexible and powerful. I'm not sure that Windows is equal to it yet. It's not the number of commands or what they do, but rather the whole linux envirnment is conducive to scripting. I'm talking about commands, editors, programming capabilities, etc. all together.

Tesl

Normally if I see threads like this on other forums I don't usually even reply, because I know that most users are desktop users that have little interest in an OS like Linux. And thats fine, for a desktop user it is not as straightforward as windows.

But this is a site which supposedly boasts IT Professionals and I'm amazed at the replies. One thing I will definitely say (and be flamed for) is that in all my life speaking to IT people, those who at least understand Linux and why it works so well tend to be much better and more knowledge IT people in general than those who are windows only. The reason I say that is they are clearly more flexible, and more interested in the IT world than others.

I would go as far to say, if I was running a company that had nothing but Windows servers and I was interviewing a Windows admin, If it went anything like this:

Me : What do you think about the Linux OS?
Them : Things are too difficult to install, too many distributions and I don't want to have to memorize that many commands.

I would definitely NOT hire that person. Their job may not entail anything to do with Linux, but a lack of understand and interest speaks volumes in my mind.

Now, onto more specific details.

Installations are tricky for a desktop user. They don't want to understand compiling software or anything of the sort. But for IT Professionals I think its outrageous that you can say its too difficult to install stuff. There are different ways of doing it:

By source (common)

./configure
make
make install

Difficult? Nope.

Using something like Mandrake/RedHat:

Use urpmi, install all libraries off the CD, then no problems afterwards.

Using Gentoo :

type emerge apache (or whatever)

Using Debian/Ubuntu or something

type ap-get apache (or whatever)

Are any of those difficult? For a so called IT pro, no they are not difficult. Hell, even recompiling a kernel is dead easy, and shouldn't be a problem for anyone who claims to be skilled in IT.

For those that keep talking about the Windows command line, clearly you haven't had enough experience on the Linux CLI to understand what a world of difference there is. Fact is, on Linux I can script the system to do almost anything you can possibly think of without me being there. I can then set them to run at certain times of the day, and then never have to be there. Windows cannot do the same because you can't script a graphical application, whereas with Linux GUI's tend to be merely front ends to the scriptable CLI interface.

For the guy that said he needs more Linux admins than Windows one, I would say you are probably being conned. Either that, or you have hired highly unqualified admins.

The last thing that took me any time to get working on Linux was an IPod (designed specifically for the Mac/PC of course). That still only took half an hour, no problem.

As for Linux being just a speck on the radar of Microsoft - you guys are clueless. Whereas its desktop installation rate is probably a mere 5%, Something along the lines of 70% of web servers nowrun Linux OS with Apache. Hardly just a speck on the radar is it?

Incidentally, that also blows the arguement Linux-only-has-fewer-attacks-because-no-one-cares-about-it out the water. It's design makes virus writing extremely difficult, and those that do work will only penetrate those that run all the time as root.

Finally (deep breath) someone commented about Linux users looking down on those Windows admin types. Part of me says thats absolutely true, but not because you don't use Linux, but because you as an IT Professional don't understand and enjoy using it. That stinks of the inflexible unknowledgable type that will eventually be deemed obsolete as new editions of Windows are released.

Rant over, could people who are supposedly professionals get some damn education before slating something they are apparently not capable of understanding.

End.

remyforbes777

Bravo Tesl, encore, encore. Nice way to take a stand for Linux and Linux users like me. Linux forever!!!!!!!!!

sprkymrk

Tesl wrote:

Normally if I see threads like this on other forums I don't usually even reply, because I know that most users are desktop users that have little interest in an OS like Linux. And thats fine, for a desktop user it is not as straightforward as windows.

But this is a site which supposedly boasts IT Professionals and I'm amazed at the replies. One thing I will definitely say (and be flamed for) is that in all my life speaking to IT people, those who at least understand Linux and why it works so well tend to be much better and more knowledge IT people in general than those who are windows only. The reason I say that is they are clearly more flexible, and more interested in the IT world than others.

Actually, not trying to flame at all, but it's actually posts like yours that don't deserve a reply. I get the feeling that you read some, but not all, of the posts here in this thread. You saw the ones against linux and that's all you saw. I thought the posts were well balanced and accurate. There may have been a few that were biased, but not many. I am always amazed that the "Defenders of Open Source and Choice" would then appear to only defend "choice" if you are choosing Linux. I am not saying you are one of them, but it appears that way.

Tesl wrote:

I would go as far to say, if I was running a company that had nothing but Windows servers and I was interviewing a Windows admin, If it went anything like this:

Me : What do you think about the Linux OS?
Them : Things are too difficult to install, too many distributions and I don't want to have to memorize that many commands.

I would definitely NOT hire that person. Their job may not entail anything to do with Linux, but a lack of understand and interest speaks volumes in my mind.

Yup, that guy is an idiot when it comes to linux but how about interviewing a linux guy who knows nothing about Cisco routers? You might get a similar response. Would you hire him? Not everyone is an expert at everything. Why judge a guy's skills based solely on his familiarity with your own personal bias in Operating Systems? Doesn't that say volumes about your own views and flexibilty?

Tesl wrote:

Now, onto more specific details.
{snip}
Are any of those difficult? For a so called IT pro, no they are not difficult. Hell, even recompiling a kernel is dead easy, and shouldn't be a problem for anyone who claims to be skilled in IT.

You are correct. I bet you learned how to do all that in a week. I personally like linux, but I get sick and tired of linux advocates belittling everyone who uses Windows. Not all Windows admins are point and clickers. If a guy wanted to diversify his skills and learn linux, that's great. He can do all the stuff you mentioned and more. He can also learn Cisco and become a 4-time CCIE. Then he can learn engineering and build sky scrapers. Then he can learn how to fly jets and maybe even become an astronaut. Why not bash those guys who settle for linux and don't bother to delve into SQL, C#, Exchange, Active Directory, and all the other IT technologies that are out there? I realize how easy it is to become defensive about linux when people start to complain how difficult it is, but the key is balance. Read what you write from the view of someone who doesn't know linux or windows. To quote Mike Saunders of Linux Format magazine (issue 82, Aug 2006) he writes:

When regular Windows users see snide remarks being made by Linux users, they can take it the wrong way and assume that we're all bitter.

That's how your post looks to me, and I like Linux.

Tesl wrote:

For those that keep talking about the Windows command line, clearly you haven't had enough experience on the Linux CLI to understand what a world of difference there is. Fact is, on Linux I can script the system to do almost anything you can possibly think of without me being there. I can then set them to run at certain times of the day, and then never have to be there. Windows cannot do the same because you can't script a graphical application, whereas with Linux GUI's tend to be merely front ends to the scriptable CLI interface.

Read my post above. I do understand. Oh and by the way, you obviously don't understand Windows because I certainly CAN do all the things you mentioned in a Windows OS. That wasn't the case a few years ago, but we aren't using NT4 and W98 anymore in case you haven't noticed.

Tesl wrote:

As for Linux being just a speck on the radar of Microsoft - you guys are clueless. Whereas its desktop installation rate is probably a mere 5%, Something along the lines of 70% of web servers nowrun Linux OS with Apache. Hardly just a speck on the radar is it?

Actually, it's more like 60%/20% for Apache/IIS. I couldn't find stats on OS's. Your point is taken though. The server market for the Internet belongs to Linux. It has a great TCP/IP stack.
Let's not call MS guys clueless though. How many actual DISTRIBUTIONS of linux can amount to the same number of Microsoft OS's out there running servers? Let's see, you've got your Red Hat's, Debians, SUSEs, Fedoras, Ubuntus, etc. etc. I would be curious to see if any single distribution has a lion's share as opposed to any "linux".

Tesl wrote:

Incidentally, that also blows the arguement Linux-only-has-fewer-attacks-because-no-one-cares-about-it out the water. It's design makes virus writing extremely difficult, and those that do work will only penetrate those that run all the time as root.

Here is my favorite argument. Among the top Internet vulnerabilities year after year are things like Apache, BIND and various Linux flavors of FTP. Most of those vulnerabilities are due to misconfigurations (ie admin mistakes). Yet you so easily dismissed the comments about linux being hard to configure? I guess all these configuration errors are made by Windows admins running linux servers. Additionally, many of the worst Windows vulnerabilities exist because of clueless users always running as admins. So if these same folks started using linux and always surfed the Internet as root, guess what? Linux gets bashed as an insecure OS too.

Tesl wrote:

Finally (deep breath) someone commented about Linux users looking down on those Windows admin types. Part of me says thats absolutely true, but not because you don't use Linux, but because you as an IT Professional don't understand and enjoy using it. That stinks of the inflexible unknowledgable type that will eventually be deemed obsolete as new editions of Windows are released.

And through this entire rant you have showed your bias and a lack of understanding of Windows. That is inflexible, and I hope it won't keep you from gainful employment as Microsoft gains market share in all areas of the IT world.

Tesl wrote:

Rant over, could people who are supposedly professionals get some damn education before slating something they are apparently not capable of understanding.

And can you please read the whole thread before you assume that all professionals on this forum are against linux?

Tesl

Thanks for your reply. I should have been more explicit, that post was really aimed at perhaps at 2 or 3 people who have posted on this thread, and not everybody. I still stand by more or less everything I've said though.

Example in point. I'm off out now to watch the US Open at a friends house. I want to host a website on my laptop (whilst im building it) and have entered the command:

emerge apache && emerge php && emerge mysql && emerge phpmyadmin && emerge --update --deep --new use world

It may look complicated, but whilst I'm out my system is going to install all those applications with all dependencies, compile each application and tweak it to my own system settings (making them execute unbelievably quickly) and include support automatically for pre defined settings (such as unicode, ssl support, ssh support etc)

The last part will make it up date every single library and application I have on this system, and compile it with the new settings. I won't even be at home whilst any of this happens.

If its possible to do something like that with Windows, then great. But I certaintly don't believe it is possible.

I might go through your post in more detail when I get home later tonight, but thanks fo the reply.

blackzone

I hope window dies, but it's not because it's bad.

If window dies, and everyone use Linux, almost all drivers and games will be forced to be Linux compatible.

I like window, it's very convenient. But I just don't like to pay Microsoft money.

sprkymrk

Tesl wrote:

Thanks for your reply. I should have been more explicit, that post was really aimed at perhaps at 2 or 3 people who have posted on this thread, and not everybody. I still stand by more or less everything I've said though.

Fair enough.

Tesl wrote:

Example in point. I'm off out now to watch the US Open at a friends house. I want to host a website on my laptop (whilst im building it) and have entered the command:

emerge apache && emerge php && emerge mysql && emerge phpmyadmin && emerge --update --deep --new use world

It may look complicated, but whilst I'm out my system is going to install all those applications with all dependencies, compile each application and tweak it to my own system settings (making them execute unbelievably quickly) and include support automatically for pre defined settings (such as unicode, ssl support, ssh support etc)

What, no --pretend first? That will tell you of any blocking packages that you will have to rectify. Are you running Ubuntu or Gentoo by the way?

The && (or &) work in Windows also. Plus, in Windows if a guy wanted to install IIS it only takes a couple of clicks, no Internet connection and 3 minutes to install it even using the dumb GUI. One commercial break and it's done. And yes, there are command options to install and configure IIS now too.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/iissdk/html/5e7f8cde-4a01-42bd-acaf-f8f7d091ef7c.asp

Tesl wrote:

I might go through your post in more detail when I get home later tonight, but thanks fo the reply.

Enjoy the US Open.
Personally I can't stand watching tennis or golf on TV.
Now football is a different story! Hooray for football season!

sprkymrk

blackzone wrote:

I like window, it's very convenient. But I just don't like to pay Microsoft money.

I don't like paying my mortgage either. Or paying Dell either. I do like getting paid for my job as a LAN Admin though.

TheShadow

Looks over at SuSe server, looks at FreeBSD desktop, looks at Apache, MySQL webserver on WinXP. Looks at apparently bitter "you windows guys are all alike" Linux user, sticks fingers in pocket for minutes, sees sprkymrk' excellent rebuttals, decides all quiet on western front and goes back to watching holiday bar-b-que. Thanks sprkymrk

blackzone

sprkymrk wrote:

blackzone wrote:

I like window, it's very convenient. But I just don't like to pay Microsoft money.

I don't like paying my mortgage either. Or paying Dell either. I do like getting paid for my job as a LAN Admin though.

Except if window dies, I'll finally be able to do everything windows can do except it's on Linux. And I don't need to pay.

Because every piece of hardware will come with a Linux driver CD and every single game will be Linux compatible.

sprkymrk

blackzone wrote:

sprkymrk wrote:

blackzone wrote:

I like window, it's very convenient. But I just don't like to pay Microsoft money.

I don't like paying my mortgage either. Or paying Dell either. I do like getting paid for my job as a LAN Admin though.

Except if window dies, I'll finally be able to do everything windows can do except it's on Linux. And I don't need to pay.

Because every piece of hardware will come with a Linux driver CD and every single game will be Linux compatible.

Roger that, blackzone. Hardware/driver support in Linux is getting better, but since most linux boxes are used to run enterprise servers for web/mail/dns and not home user desktops, the vendors of gaming hardware/software don't provide the best support for linux. Maybe some enterprising individual will start a linux service that writes drivers and ports for the gaming community at a nominal charge?