Windows or UNIX

[otheracco]

Does the Windows world have too much competition?
Is it easier to have job security with UNIX/LINUX?

Microsoft has some server side programs that are extremely powerful and scalable (like Exchange). This makes it
possible to earn six figures in specialising in one of those Enterprise Class packages.

Does UNIX really have anything like that?
Is there a cap with UNIX/LINUX in how far you can really go?

 

[kmcferrin]

I'm not sure where you're looking, but I've yet to see an Exchange/Messaging Engineer who is making 6 figures. Not to say that it isn't possible, but usually the people making that sort of money are architects, PMs, managers, consultants, or Sales Engineers.

Regarding which has a better career path between Unix and Windows, I would say that they're about equal. I work in Central Ohio, and there are far more companies looking for Windows Engineers than there are looking for Unix/Linux engineers. However, those companies that are looking for Unix/Linux guys usually have a hard time finding qualified candidates, so that can increase the pay scale.

So there's a bit of a tradeoff there, you might make more money in the Unix/Linux world, but you'll probably have fewer employment options. Personally, I prefer to have a little bit less earning potential if it means I can more easily find work when times are tough or if I am unhappy with my employer.

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCP, MCSA 2003

 

[Sympology]

I may be wrong on this, but I would think that UNIX people can command far more cash than Linux. Unix is usually used in the big corps with lots of money to spend, Linux at the moment, in business is classed as it's poor (read free) cousin. Of course in 10 years this may of completely changed.
As for the Window side the above comment pretty much nailed it.

You also need to look in about 51- 10 year cycles, as this is what happens in the real would. Yes, the may switch the front end between XP/ Vista / Linux in a year or so, but the back office has a much more stable lifecycle. How many businesses are still running Windows 2000 server and 10 year old Unix systems? Millions.

I'm going to get flamed by Linux fanboys, but I really don't care. Although it is making in roads, it is no where near a critical mass yet. But in 5 years, who knows?





Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[kmcferrin]

In my experience Linux and Unix are similar enough that the same guys are managing both systems (at companies that use both). In fact, if you look at the big Unix vendors (HP, IBM, Sun) they all sell and support Linux-based systems as well, so it's a bit of a natural fit.

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCP, MCSA 2003

 

[jaggerd]

Really, if you know a major portion of one of the UNIX O/S's, you're going to be able to figure out most of the other UNIX flavors. Each has it's own little quarks, but there are products coming out which more or less standardize the way that you carve up the storage or create the volume groups, logical volumes and filesystems.

Speaking from experience, I've been doing UNIX in one form or another for a little over 13 years now and I want to move to a smaller area, but in order to do that, I'll have to find a large to medium sized company that allows for telecommuting or take up Windows. I can't really complain though, if it wasn't for the little hurdles that Windows has, then there wouldn't be a need for professional admins.

 

[damber]

Linux at the moment, in business is classed as it's poor (read free) cousin.

I would say that's not entirely true.. it has been growing quite steadily over the last few years to be the preferred server platform of choice for quite a lot of companies. It is preferred because of it's comparable security, reliability and most importantly performance to a Unix environment whilst using *much* cheaper (commodity) hardware. Most of the big Software vendors are recommending Linux over Unix (and of course windows) for their apps these days.. even people like IBM who have been known to pimp their version of Unix a little in the past! You'll also find that most "appliances" use a customised version of Linux. When looking to save money one of the first considerations is the option to move to linux, though mostly because of the price/performance gains, rather than the OS licensing/support costs.

I wouldn't therefore consider Linux a poor relative at all.

And no, Linux is not really free for businesses - most will buy an enterprise prepared version with all the support & maintenance - e.g. RHEL. And these costs pale in comparison to the hardware, hosting, and app license costs anyway, so it's not that relevant in most cases.

If you want to work in a *big* corporation as a sysadmin, then you will find a lot of Windows servers doing everyday workgroup stuff (Active Directory, Exchange, Sharepoint, SQL Server/ASP.NET), but you will find more of their key applications are based on a *nix environment.

Depends which you find more interesting - all are important in some way, and I don't think you're going to find you lose out big time if you decide one way or another.. however, I think that having *nix experience is a *safer* bet - there are a lot of *nix environments out there, and not as many that can administer them. The windows side of things is IMHO quite flooded with variable quality talent, so getting heard in the noise might be difficult.

Also a mild word of warning (as jaggerd notes above), AIX vs Solaris vs HP-UX vs BSDs vs Debian derived Linux vs RH derived linux etc etc can be quite different at the sysadmin level - don't assume when you master AIX that you can successfully administer HP-UX at the same competency. Even the little differences like the default shell in AIX being ksh and Linux being bash can make your initial transition interesting, let alone the different filesystems, memory management, security and tools for things like Clustering etc. It's not like Windows vs Unix different, but the differences shouldn't be understimated when your trying to be a specialist in this area, as you'll need to know the system inside out.



A smile is worth a thousand kind words. So smile, it's easy!

 

[linsysadmin]

My answer offhand would be UNIX. Or, more properly POSIX-compliant systems, like Unix Linux CentOS z/OS etc., in the server room.

Why:
A. Scalability (Exchange server? Scalable? Failover? Fast? Really?)
B. Diversified code base and (mostly) open source = more streamlined code and 100x the testing and customization
C. Different philosophy: every-program-will-exapnd-until-it-reads-mail vs. many small, neat apps that do one job right, and are totally customizable.

Equals RELIABILITY. Someone did an average minutes of downtime per annum survey for servers with the various O/Ses: 30 minutes vs. 9 hours? Let's see, I guess I would pick 30 minutes? (don't quote me on this - look it up)

BUT - try telling a windows user that Linux is better. Microsoft may have weak points but as far as interface and ease-of-use, this is an area in which Windows is far ahead, surpassed (arguably) only by Apple. (Wait! That's UNIX!).

Windows on the desktop is kinda cool, for all it's flaws. So is Mac, for that matter. But just TRY understanding all of the options and intricacies of the server menus you pay so many dollars in CALs to operate. Now it's my turn to laugh. Do you get a config file or two? Right - how about a labyrinth of menus instead. Menus are cool in Word. They suck in Exchange. How many places can you tell this thing the default route for mail? Like 20. I long for the return to postfix.conf.

Word vs. Open Office? Word. Definitely. (sorry Sourceforge)

Windows 2003 Server (wait, which one? Enterprise? Datacenter? SBS? SBS R2? and per-user or per-seat licenses?) vs. RHEL (to pick just one)? RHEL.

Vista vs. anything? Anything. Oh god, please, anything else but Vista.

The truth of the matter is that administration of a computer system (not apps on a computer or a single computer but a network or a set of servers or business-line apps) requires certain expertise. There are people out there who think that shortcutting this with ever-increasing piles of complexities will reduce the human-resources expense of operating a network. Dead wrong. There is a certain technology to computers, and one needs to learn it in order to make them work. It is actually just additional wasted time to write enormous and lengthy guides on how to navigate all of these server menus and controls, which then need to be memorized. How about learning how it works and checking that it does so.

Example. Boss: I need to increase the central data storage on the internal LAN to 2TB. I have urgent projects going so no downtime during working hours, understand?

Windows Admin: uh, ok. Let's see. I have one 750 GB HD on my server, formatted NTFS. I need to add 1.5TB. Boss, can you buy me three 750 GB HDs, please. Ok, now honey, don't be upset, but I need to work late tonight since I cannot have downtime during the day and I need to turn off my server, add these hard-disks and then copy the data while no-one is accessing it. OK.
So kick everyone off the system when it's closing time. Shut down. Add disks. Boot up. Plug into external HD (borrowed from friend). Copy all data to external disk. Change partitions on all 4 drives to dynamic, make raid 5 partiion. Format NTFS. Copy data back. Re-share folder to the network. Go home and shower, show up to work and drink a liter of coffee. Now, boss, here is your bill for my overtime hours. It took me two days to add your storage.

Linux admin: OK. Buy me my drives, please.
Opens case while server is running.
Hot-plugs HDs into SATA ports.

fdisk /dev/sdc

fdisk /dev/sdd

fdisk /dev/sde

(formats disk to linux raid autodetect type)

mdadm -create /dev/md0 --auto=yes -l raid0 -n 4 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1 missing

pvcreate /dev/md0

vgextend main /dev/md0

(extends the logical volume main to include new raid partition, in addition to the current 750GB disk)

pvmove /dev/sdb1

(moves logical volume data off the original physical drive /dev/sdb1 - users working on in meantime, no change in service status)

fdisk /dev/sdb

mdadm --manage /dev/md0 --add /dev/sdb1

cat /proc/mdstat

(waits until array fully sinc'ed)

resize2fs /dev/main/online

(filesystem grows while it is online, with users working on it, distributed on the raid 5 array)

Admin: I want more fault tolerance...

Hot plugs another drive and uses mdadm to add it to /dev/md0 as a spare.

** END EXAMPLE **

This may be a bit long, but I think it illustrates the point. Just my two cents...

 

[tfg13]

linsysadmin,
I don't know how many windows systems you have administered in the past, but you are a little off. I know I've been able to add 1.5 TB of storage with a simple plug in of a cable. Oh, wait, some Linux/Unix systems don't like that.....

 

[strongm]

I was going to make a similar point

 

[linsysadmin]

Point taken

 

[Sympology]

Shame Lin, because otherwise it was a pretty balanced post..





Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[MasterRacker]

@damber,

The US Marine Corp is running their entire supply chain on Sharepoint. It think that's beyond "workgroup" level. Historically, Windows has been upsizing into the larger size corps. but today, is now a full player in the market. I think jobs, such as they are, are available in any platform, but I would agree that you'll see less *nix as you go down in employer size.

I think the larger concern is a continuing contraction/consolidation in the IT field in general compounded by a slowing economy.

_____
Jeff
[small][purple]It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day
"The software I buy sucks, The software I write sucks. It's time to give up and have a beer..." - Me[/small]

 

[damber]

@MasterRacker,

Sharepoint is for 'workgroups' - I mean that in the sense of 'groupware' rather than 'small office' hence my examples, which included Sharepoint as well as other enterprisey tools for groups to work together. (you'll notice I describe it in the context of a *big* company).

By the way... I wouldn't boast about the US marine corps running their Supply Chain on Sharepoint... there are tools that are dedicated to managing complex supply chains very well. Sharepoint is not one of them.

Windows has made headway into SMB's and even some enterprise environments (in terms of core app server usage). There is this 'buzz' that Windows is becoming more Enterprise worthy - and it may be getting there, but I work for a large enterprise, and with plenty of others, and linux is certainly the more promising of the two in the app / database server space (except sql server of course), and as I said, MS is still more on the workgroup stuff - of course, that's just my observation.

I know I've been able to add 1.5 TB of storage with a simple plug in of a cable. Oh, wait, some Linux/Unix systems don't like that.....

tfg13, some windows systems dont either. Most linux systems (any desktop version) will act similarly to *working* windows xp+ with auto recognition etc (except it will recognise a windows fat or ntfs filesystem, unlike windows recognising ext3, rfs, xfs etc). And 'just plugging in' 1.5TB by cable is not the same as creating a raid 5 array whilst the box is online - I can't remember if windows will allow that, it rebuilds ok from what I remember, but it's been a long time - I assume it can (and why you wouldn't be using a SAN, iSCSI or at least a hardware RAID controller in that scenario, I don't know!). I suggest we don't get into drivelly linux v windows nonsense (I have plenty of 'oh waits' regarding windows too, as I would about linux if your statement was reversed) - windows does some things well, other things not so well - same for linux.

I think the larger concern is a continuing contraction/consolidation in the IT field in general compounded by a slowing economy.

This is an important point for the OP to consider - System Admins are easily outsourced to service providers... if it's a passion, then go for it.. but big enterprises like to reduce costs and simplify their work.. that means outsourcing (whether onshore or offshore), so it's the smaller companies that are likely to be the ones hiring (not strictly the case of course, but it's getting that way)... maybe it's worth considering if this is the right career path after all..?



A smile is worth a thousand kind words. So smile, it's easy!

 

[kmcferrin]

linsysadamin,

I think that your long post there was pretty heavily slanted towards linux, and while it brings up many of the traditional arguments against Windows and Microsoft, they tend to be outdated arguments filled with more hyperbole than fact. Look into Windows 2008, Exchange 2007, etc. I think that you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I don't get the comment about system admins being easily outsourced. I guess if you're talking about the people who do the daily grind of creating user accounts, shares, and resetting passwords then it might. But if you're doing any sort of design or implementation you'll have a nearly impossible time doing it from overseas (or without a good idea of how it fits into the overall company).

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCSE:Security 2003
MCTS:Active Directory
MCTS:Network Infrastructure
MCTS:Applications Infrastructure

 

[damber]

But if you're doing any sort of design or implementation you'll have a nearly impossible time doing it from overseas (or without a good idea of how it fits into the overall company).

Designs tend to be done by technical/infrastructure architects - sys admins are the daily grind people - they "administer systems". Of course there's always the 'jack-of-all-trades' that does everything with the systems.. but rarely in big companies (at least not well managed ones). Even for basic design, yes, that can be done offshore, but don't assume "outsourcing" is "offshore" - that's silly media fud.

The reason companies outsource basic functions like finance admin, payroll, hosting, etc is because there comes a point when it's cheaper for someone else who specialises in that field to do it for you.. and come with all the regulatory stuff if necessary - as companies and business models mature, this becomes more the norm. You will see more of this as time goes by and companies and service mature to a level where these basic functions are essentially utilities. Again.. don't think outsourcing means offshore - the outsourced datacentre could be just down the road from your office. Which is still a place the OP can go and work if they choose - but there are less of those companies than all the other companies combined.. which limits location and job availability etc..



A smile is worth a thousand kind words. So smile, it's easy!

 

[kmcferrin]

I wouldn't always assume that outsourced = offshore, but someone above did specifically mention offshoring. In the IT world that's a big part of the outsourcing that is done. If you're going to outsource your IT staff to someone in town (as per your example) you're going to end up paying at a minimum as much as you would if you hired directly, though most likely more.

There are two chief reasons to outsource. The first is to save money, which tends not to work well with domestic outsourcing. The main reason is that an engineer's or admin's salary is going to be roughly the same within a certain geographic area. Going from New York City to somewhere in Iowa you'll see a big change in pay, but from town to town within Iowa you're going to be paying roughly the same amount. So in order to save money you have to get outside of your geography usually.

The other chief reason to outsource is because you need a certain level of expertise that you can't afford to have on staff 24/7. Usually this outsourcing is done on a short-term, project-oriented basis.

At any rate, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the larger companies are outsourcing and the smaller companies are hiring. I'm actually seeing the reverse. Why? Because there is a shortage of skilled IT talent which drives up salaries, and the larger companies can actually afford to hire full-time staff.

Right now (at least in the US) there is a serious IT brain drain. Lots of baby boomers are retiring. In the IT sector a lot of the people who built their knowledge and experience in the 80's and early 90's are retiring, while at the same time the number of people graduating from universities with IT-related degrees is shrinking rapidly. All of this is going on while businesses are further embracing IT, and the overall lack of expertise has dramatically affected salaries. Without significant upgrades in my IT skills, my salary has increased by 75% in the last 4 years. That's nearly 15% year on year, and I still work for the same company that I worked for 4 years ago.

I also disagree with the notion that design is only done by technical architects. Usually there is another tier in between called engineers who do a lot of solutions design. Typically you only see an architect when you're engineering solutions on an enterprise level, rather than just engineering a particular solution.



________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCSE:Security 2003
MCTS:Active Directory
MCTS:Network Infrastructure
MCTS:Applications Infrastructure

 

[damber]

At any rate, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the larger companies are outsourcing and the smaller companies are hiring

In all fairness, I don't think I was excluding small companies from outsourcing - there's great benefit for them there too; but I predominantly have experience of large companies - and the majority of them outsource a lot of their datacentres (which is really the sys admins too) - so I'm not assuming, I'm talking from experience.

Both of your reasons for outsourcing are actually about cost - and outsourcing to a specialist company for something can often be cheaper than doing it yourself, simply due to the economies of scale (which you imply somewhat with your second reason), again it seems simple economics have slipped through the fingers of the media when it comes to this type of thing, so everyone believes that outsourcing is bad for the country's economy.

Architect / Engineer / etc are not = sys admins (though as I said, there are those that do everything and anything). The point I made, which you were quick to challenge was regarding sys admins - these are the readily and easily outsourced people. Just as developers, support staff, call centres, etc are all easy (probably too easy) to outsource, so are sys admins.. after all, for most companies what do you want ? a box of standard spec that runs your application - HA, Load Balancing, DR, Virtualisation, Storage Networks, Component Redundancy etc are coming more as standard options, so for a lot of companies with standard needs, it's easier to get them to offer a standard package and have their sys admins manage it (Not even considering the more forward thinking cloud computing, which has a long way to go for enterprise buy-in). For more complex requirements, the likes you get from bigger companies, they will usually have in house specialists who will design the solution.... but they don't usually get their hands on the actual box. that's the difference. For someone who is starting out and asking for advice, I think this is an important point to understand.

As you mention in your first post, and I think others have alluded to - if you want to make good money, have good prospects etc, you need to be looking at things outside of this 'utility' market - there will be some premium jobs out there for this, but a diminishing number, likely strongly fought over. That will be the first to go when companies feel the need to cut cost, improve performance and/or mature enough to do so - unless of course that is your company's specialty/differentiator - e.g. if you're a google or a microsoft, I would be surprised if outsourcing the infrastructure was on the cards... but ya never know... ;-)

I don't think that devalues the technical expertise of people in this environment, instead I think it strengthens their opportunity to work more at the design level. But as advice goes, it depends on the perspective of the OP and what they want to actually do - it's just worth noting that some functions will become pure utilities.. maybe in the US this has not yet emerged as much, but across Europe a lot of people I know who have contracted in that space have found the market has changed considerably over the last 5-7 years, and they've had to move on.



A smile is worth a thousand kind words. So smile, it's easy!

 

[Sympology]

Personally, these days I recommed NOT working in IT to people.
It is assumed that you are some sort of miracle worker at times, and the job has very little rewards for the amount of work you put in (Our team even has a drinks round, where if someone in mamangement or above thanks you for a good job, you have to buy the coffees for the day). It doesn't work out to much a year!
The next issue is stress levels. As I type this we have a lull, but people are being layed off around us. Although I'm pretty safe, in two years time? I'm such a specialist, I worry about what would happen if I did lose my job. Yet often I'm in very late, very early or both. I've often worked 16 hour days / weekends, bank holiday and even done 24 - 48 hours shifts. It isn't good for your health.

So what is this rambling about?

I'd say, if you want to go into IT, make sure your not to specialised as to be unemployable so you need to move on, but not so general anyone can do your job. Make sure your willing to accept crap hours with little or no thanks.

However, sometime, just sometimes, when you pull off a huge project and it all goes right, if noboby moans, you know you did well, even if noone else notices...

Anyone know next weeks winnning numbers?




Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[MasterRacker]

Stu,
I know where you're coming from. Watching economic swings there's insecurity everywhere from time to time, but for reasons like those you mentioned, I don't think IT again if I could do it over.

_____
Jeff
[small][purple]It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day
"The software I buy sucks, The software I write sucks. It's time to give up and have a beer..." - Me[/small]

 

[kmcferrin]

Interesting. I've worked at companies where the attitude was that working in IT always meant working long hours in a thankless job. I've also worked at companies where the attitude towards IT was the same as towards any other employee/department. IT can be a very rewarding job, and it doesn't have to mean high stress and long hours. The problem is that people come into it expecting it to be high stress and long hours, then they start working the long hours, and it becomes the expectation. If you don't paint yourself into a corner to begin with, you won't have that problem.

For example, I'm working at a customer site on a project where the manager told the project team "It's IT, that means long hours. If you have a problem with it then you need to find another profession." Nobody in the team questioned the comment, so I spoke up. I asked him why working in IT means working long hours, and the only thing that he could tell me was that our systems have to be up 24/7 and most maintenance has to be done during the off hours. My response was that the support group is staffed 24/7 and the engineering group has a designated on call staff member if there needs to be an escalation. If we know that there's maintenance to be done during off hours then it's easy to compensate for it by working a short day the preceeding/next day. No other department of the company expects their people to work 60+ hours a week as a matter of course, and there's no reason for IT to have to do so either. If the cleaning crew has work that needs to be done at night, do they hire a night shift or do they make the janitor work 12-hour days? Nobody had a response to that.

In the overwhelming majority of cases there is no justification for IT staff putting in ridiculous hours on a regular basis, they just choose to do so. For a lot of professional geeks, they look at it as a badge of honor to have worked 80 hours in a week. Most people look at it as a badge of stupidity.

This isn't to say that some overtime isn't justified. I once had to work 24 hours straight with the rest of my team to do an emergency migration for 60,000 users, but that was the very rare exception. We also each took a 2 days off during the next week or two to compensate for it.

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCSE:Security 2003
MCTS:Active Directory
MCTS:Network Infrastructure
MCTS:Applications Infrastructure