[TriLUG] microsoft ad

[William Sutton]

How familiar are your associates with setting up Linux?  Seems to me if 
you have a familiarity with it, a standard patch process, and/or a 
standard install (a la a kickstart disc), you could set up a Linux server 
in considerably shorter time than a Windows server, not the least of which 
reasons is that Windows has a pathological need to reboot multiple times 
during the install process.

-- 
William Sutton


On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, Jim Ray wrote:

> i define "there" as taking less time to set up for operation for the 
> customer and, therefore, costing less money due to less labor.
> 
> using my own production rate, i can load a linux desktop will all 
> patches and applications in an hour.  it takes at least twice as long to 
> do so with winders.
> 
> using the production rate of two different experts who have loaded 
> servers for me, they take longer to get a server functional in linux 
> than it takes me in winders.
> 
> so, from a cost point of view, desktops in linux are ready to go.  the 
> server side will probably come along in the near future.  it has come a 
> long way yet still has a ways to go.
> 
> now, when the law of large numbers kicks in (ie a thousand desktop PCs), 
> the extra server labor amortized by the number of desktops makes it a no 
> brainer.  for the small business environment, though, extra server labor 
> is a bad thing.
> 
> seeya,
> 
> jim
> 
> ps i hope all is well at yonderway :-)
> 
> Magnus wrote:
> 
> >On 3/4/06, Jim Ray <jim at neuse.net> wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>key word is yet.  desktops are there.  when the server side comes
> >>around, microsoft had better look out...
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >Actually I think you have it backwards.
> >
> >Server side has been "there" for some time with Linux.
> >
> >Desktop is more painful for non-geeks.  Heck, desktop is painful for *geeks*
> >but geeks seem to be masochistic when it comes to Linux desktops.
> >  
> >
>