Is Linux Ready?
Lockergnomie Bil Jeschke on a recent article:
I have no idea what you are talking about. We have a mixed office of Mac and Linux and adding new clients and servers is much easier then with MS. With a CUPS print server the clients need zero configuration. Built-in tools like ssh make remote configuration very easy, and with the ability to display X sessions remotely you can even get a graphical remote session without the need to first run a different program that precludes someone else using the system at the same time.
Your article has only one true point. That being that Linux is not a drop-in replacement for a MS server, and is not as easy to add to Active Directory, but it can be done. I keep seeing competing stories saying migrating to Server 2003 from NT4 is either too expensive and complex for people not wanting to use Active Diretory, or they are saying how great Server 2003 is and talking about all it's new features.
Using Linux to replace NT4 makes sense from the point of view that it is less expensive then Server 2003, does not force a complete technology upgrade on the company, and that the admins of thoughs machines are not IT experts and do not have the time to learn the new skills that Server 2003 demands. Of course switching to Linux forces new skills also, but some people see more value in learning the Linux skills when combined with saving money on hardware, software, and licenses.
Linux is about choice, and you are free to not choose it. For my company the free cost of it is a valuable asset since we can repurpose old machines for no cost with a brand new OS with up to date software. That is something no MS shop can do unless they have a site licenses and how many small business have that?
True enough. I'm installing the latest version of Ubuntu right now – upgrading from the most recent official version. Ain't no Windows Update, that's for sure.
Recent Comments