I would be lost without Microsoft products!! 2

[Kallen]

I have been brought up using Microsofts for the past 10 years. I bought my first PC when I was unemployed, unhappy, and uncertain what to do with the rest of my life. With my computer I found my answer!!!!

This was in the early nineties when many people in Corporate America did not know the power of computers and what they could do. I went out and bought MS Office applications and started out learning the operating system and word. This landed me a job as an AA. I took this time to also learn Excel and Powerpoint, got promoted and used those skills. Went on to learn Access, some VBA and other applications like Crystal and am now learning SQL Server. I am promoted again and making over double my starting salary as an AA 7 years back. While I cannot give Microsoft all the credit (I think I was a geek but not aware of it), they did give me the tools to get excited about computing.

I now want to learn LINUX (just to be diverse!!)

 

[fluid11]

"I now want to learn LINUX (just to be diverse!!)"

Thats a good choice Back in the early nineties when you started, M$ and Apple were the only real competitors in the desktop market. Today, in my opinion, Linux has surpassed M$ in every area except gaming. The only reason for that is because 99% of games are made for Windows.

It sounds like you do a lot of work in M$ Office, which by the way, costs around $450 for the Premium version. Sun has a complete office suite called OpenOffice that is just like M$ Office, except its free and can be downloaded from

http://www.openoffice.org.

The most popular and widely used distrobution of Linux is Red Hat. You can download RedHat from a couple different places -->

http://www.redhat.com,

http://www.linuxiso.org,

or linux.tucows.com.

If you need any Linux help, Tek-Tips has 2 great Linux forums here --> forum54 and forum619 These are the Linux Server and Linux Desktop forums.

ChrisP If someone resolves an issue for you, or was helpful, please click the link on the bottom left hand corner of their post to give them a "star" letting them know they helped you.

 

[Bullschmidt]

<<
I would be lost without Microsoft products!!
I now want to learn LINUX (just to be diverse!!)
>>

Cool, and maybe 7 to 10 years from now someone else will post that he would be lost without opensource software...

Best regards,
J. Paul Schmidt - Freelance ASP Web Developer

http://www.Bullschmidt.com

- Creating &quot;dynamic&quot; Web pages that read and write from databases...

 

[snorky]

&quot;Today, in my opinion, Linux has surpassed M$ in every area except gaming&quot; -
Please explain - I don't know anyone in business who uses Linux (except for Apache) for desktop apps. Normal , non-geeky, people don't even know it exists. Whilst Linux retains this air of &quot;needing to be a computer engineer to install and maintain it&quot; , it will never become mainstream - Bill G suceeds because of the ease of use of his products - people are used to them - they will never go over to Linux if it stays as it is now - normal users could care less that you can alter the OS - they don't want to - they just want it to work when they want to send an email or type a letter. Linux advocates seem to be stuck between liking the fact that they are into the &quot;latest thing&quot; and the fact that you can look under the hood and fiddle about with it and the fact that this is just the thing that stops it being mainstream......

Let the flames comence....

 

[HalfListener]

No flame.

Well stated, in fact. I am a big fan of MS, but like you, would like to know more about Linux. And that is the problem.

MS gives you a ready-to-run product, complete with everything you didn't know you didn't want, and don't know how to uninstall. But, for all that, a 6th grader who doesn’t know a motherboard from a floppy can install it. You do not need to know about the things that are of no interest to the average mainstream computer purchaser (note, I did not say programmer).

If... Linux would offer a 'Linux for dummies' type of version that does not have a steep user learning curve on the install, then it may start to catch on. The average non-geek doesn't want to know and cringes at the thought of learning. They are 'path' people. They want to know &quot;What buttons do I press to send an email?&quot; They learn the path in and the path out. It isn't right or wrong, it is reality.

Let's face it, how many people's solution to automotive engine knock is a louder stereo?

I cringe at the though of my system becoming bogged down with billions of lines of code that could be distilled down to millions. So I sat down and thought about it. How much actual time did I spend waiting for my computer 10 years ago vs. today. Boot times are roughly equivalent; drive access times are a little faster, I suppose; program loads start off faster, but slow with days since install. There really isn't that much difference between the time I spent waiting on a 386 (with older smaller software) and a 1 GHz (with all the new stuff). Oh well.

I'd be nice if MS made an effort to release a lean version of their OS, but I don't pretend to know how the corporate mind works.

 

[infinitelo]

Ive loaded suse linux on several machines, and it is no harder than windows, other than the ocasional driver problem. The version i purchased for $34 had six disks full of software. nice thing is i can install it on as many machines as needed and dont have to have the moral delimma i would have with windows.

Im still a huge microsoft fan, but i do like haveing a choice is very nice.

if it is to be it's up to me

 

[gwinn7]

Up until 2 years ago, I was clueless as to the capabilities of Linux. Before, Microsoft Software was all that I knew.

Now, I would strongly recommend to any IT hobbyist or professional to rivet their attention to Linux.

Now that I have earned my Linux+ cert and spent time learning some various server technologies (i.e. Samba, Apache, PostgreSQL) that can run on Linux, I am truly amazed that Linux is not even used more.

Keep in mind the following items in Linux's favor...

- Its Opensource, and for the most part, it doesn't cost very much at all to download it or order a copy from &quot;CheapBytes.com&quot; or some company like that.

- You can install it, at will, without fear of prosecution from the &quot;software police&quot;.

- You are not limited to a single &quot;Windows&quot;-like desktop

- It is considered more secure than Windows

- It is considered more stable than Windows

- You can customize Linux to be an enterprise server, server, or simple desktop user system.

- You can customize Linux right down to the source code level, if you want, or have that skillset.

- It is actually quite easy to install and setup

- It parallels Unix (Unix clone) which means skills learned with Linux can be re-used.

- It does not require a GUI (Graphical User Interface), which means its disk footprint can be very very small.

- More and more ISVs and IHVs are broadening their support for Linux every day.

I can attest to most of the items above with first hand experience. The only downside is learning the technical basics can be a shock at first if you are only used to DOS/Windows.

I am not here to put down Microsoft, Bill Gates, etc. I am a fan of Microsoft, but the benefits of Linux cannot be ignored either especially if you are out to save yourself and company money.

Gary
gwinn7
A+,L+,N+,I+

 

[wbg34]

Linux has surpassed M$ in every area except gaming
I have to disagree with this one. Linux has made great strides in becomming a viable MS Competitor for Office desktops, but it is not there yet. The largest area where Linux falls behind is in &quot;specialty apps&quot; (i.e. Cad, ERP, Custom Databases ...etc). As a Network Admin this has been my largest roadblock to attempting a Linux overhall in the workplace.
Until larger and more popular specialty software packages such as Autocad port over to Linux, then Linux will not be able to replace MS in the office place. The current choice is that in order to enjoy the benefits of Linux you have to switch not only the desktop OS but also the specialty app. Until that changes Linux will have to wait.

 

[Golom]

> Linux has surpassed M$ in every area except gaming

... and sales.

Lets get real here. Computer software is a business ... not some invention for the amusement of us techie types. Microsoft is successful not because of the technical superiority of its products, but because they have figured out how to produce technically adequate products and sell them at a profit. I've no quarrel with Linux but I've seen too many "... gonna drive MS into oblivion ..." products come and go ... and they "go" because they couldn't market the product as well as they could build it.

 

[RiverGuy]

I agree with the sales pitch. Saying Linux has surpassed MS is like saying 3 years ago that the Camaro has surpassed the Mustang. Maybe it surpassed it in acceleration, or other nifty features, but the bottom line is that it is out of production because not enough people bought it. I too, like others, wish I knew more about Linux. If I had the time, I think it would be fun.

 

[skiflyer]

I don't know about the surpassing argument. But I think Linux has reached a mass such that any IT professional who doesn't learn it is taking a big risk. Any IT organization of significant size which doesn't employ it to some degree is wasting money and quite likely lacking some features and or stability.

It's too big to say "I wish I knew Linux" anymore, though it's probably still too small to say "everybody must learn linux"

Let's take a simple example... an organization too big to run a Linksys box, but too small to shell out for Cisco equipment... and wants a firewall/proxy setup. Windows can do it, but Linux can do it both better and cheaper and on older hardware and can all be administered from a PDA.

 

[MDXer]

Let's take a simple example... an organization too big to run a Linksys box, but too small to shell out for Cisco equipment... and wants a firewall/proxy setup. Windows can do it, but Linux can do it both better and cheaper and on older hardware and can all be administered from a PDA

Actually the MS ISAServer does exactly this. It isn't the greatest but it can do it.

&quot;Shoot Me! Shoot Me NOW!!!&quot;
- Daffy Duck

 

[skiflyer]

At $5,999 per processor license for the enterprise edition software, $1,499 for the standard. Plus it requires Windows Server 2003 at a cost $999 (I think this is per server not per processor). And if I'm not mistaken, Win2k3 Server requires a P4 and a fair chunk of RAM as well... can't find those specs, and I sold the one 2k3 Server box I won in a raffle.

Whereas, you can install Debian and Squid and IpTables on a P1 with 64 Megs of RAM (as long as you skip the graphics, which you should for this kind of box) with a couple NIC's and let it go to town. Total cost = machine cost + Linux experts time. And as an added bonus, your firewall is on a completely separate machine than your main servers, whereas if you've outlayed a grand for Win2k3 server, it seems a little silly to let it do nothing but be a firewall.

Please don't misunderstand me, I definitely don't consider Linux to be the answer to everything, or even most things... but there are just some areas where it shines, and I intentionally chose on of those areas for my example.

 

[RiverGuy]

skiflyer,

Your examples are good. However, I don't find it a "big risk" as you state for not knowing Linux because you are an IT Professional. Sure, some jobs may eventually migrate towards having to know it. Many jobs it would be risky to never take the time to learn it.

But many, many jobs will never require the worker to know it. For example, an SQL Server DBA or an iSeries administrator wouldn't be expected to know how to set up a Linux firewall unless they wanted to change job titles.

 

[skiflyer]

Perhaps, but I would expect a DBA of any sort to be knowledgeable in many different databases, and would expect them to be familar enough with Linux to at the very least provide a solid argument why a Windows solution is better in a given case.

I guess that's what I'm talking about... not necessarily knowing it because you'll need to use it on a daily basis, but because you need to know about it, and where it may or may not be the proper tool.

 

[Golom]

skiflyer,

I do understand the financial arguments about relative costs of Linux Vs. Windows solutions. Here's a slightly different twist on the discussion.

Most large companies spend 1% - 3% of their budget on IT (unless they are in the IT business.) Their concerns about IT are centered around:

[li]Can we support it?[/li]
[li]Can we run the applications that we need?[/li]
[li]Is the vendor stable and do they provide support?[/li]
[li]Is there a clear upgrade path for the product?[/li]
[li]Over the product's lifetime, what's the Total Cost of Ownership?[/li]

Note that only one question relates to cost directly and we are talking about a fraction of 1%-3% of the corporate budget. In short, "Who, in the executive suite, really cares what it costs?". Not that cost is completely irrelevant but "good" answers to the first four questions will probably make the TCO answer interesting but not decisive.

 

[RiverGuy]

skiflyer,

I do agree with needing to know about a product, but not neccessarily know how to use it. I also agree that DBAs are better off knowing many DBMS's on different platforms. But I don't see it as absolutely neccessary.

For one, what good is it going to do a DBA to mess around with Linux at home when the objective is to provide an understing of DBMS's that can rely on the Linux platform such as Oracle? This would require either A.) the DBA would have to shell out money to purchase another DBMS for "learning.", or B.) receive some education. Receiving the education is great--but in the case he was laid off, I would expect the DBA to find another job that requires him to use his technical skills he already has--rather than starting at the bottom because he is trying to learn a new product. All MS people can't "learn" Oracle on their own and expect to get the same level of job in Oracle just because they've learned it.

But, it is also not always up to the employee to inform people about the strengths and weaknesses of a platform. A video game programmer doesn't need to know why video games are made and coded for Windows and Mac. He just needs to know how to do his job well. A .Net or MFC programmer doesn't need to know why his company hired him to program on Windows. He just needs to be able to do his job for them.

Granted, a large portion of these workers will know many different systems--but a job advertising for a .Net programmer likely won't-and shouldn't-require someone to be able to throw together a Linux router--unless the job is half MS programmer and half network admin.

The TCO Golom brings up is a great point. Its a great argument, especially when considering systems designed around a server OS. It doesn't make as much different when talking about little things, such as ONE firewall from a Linux box. That said, I think the arguement is really two-faced--Linux as a cheap way to fill a couple holes, and a Linux-centric information environment.

 

[skiflyer]

Exactly my point. And that's why Linux is often the right answer and Windows is often the right answer... each one answers those questions differently for different topics.

I would have worded the questions differently, but I think we'd both boil the idea down to...

List for me the products which do exactly what we want.
Ok, now how much do these cost and what are the differences?

 

[lring]

I have been supporting computer applications for over 25 years in the IT industry. I can recall a time when we had nightmares with all these different word processors, spreadsheets, graphics programs, etc... and they were all by different companies and incompatible with each other. We also had to contend with different incompatible O/S(s) and media. Microsoft brought standardization to the industry and in a large part I don't think the internet would be where it is today without the common tools that users have to access it.

So I will continue to tolerate the occassional blue screens and numerous patches in exchange for that ability to easily share information between users and applications.

 

[skiflyer]

I think Microsoft has actually done more to hinder the acceptance of standards in the industry over the last 10 years than any other single company. Certainlly, they've attempted to make themselves the defacto standard, but that's hardly the same thing.

The web is a prime example, ask anyone who's designed anything significant for it, MS has hindered it's development greatly by pushing it's non-standards compliant browser out to so many users.

Word processors, another great example... at a time when many others are publishing their document formats so alternate programs can read and write them, Microsoft keeps its document format closed and secretive to maintain product lock-in.

I'm a firm believer that there are plenty of reasons to use Microsoft products here and there, but I think conflating standardization and market dominance is not the best place to start.