Question: How much training is necessary with Linux as a gui to do the companies work as opposed to Windows ?
Using an application such as Excel on Windows versus Openoffice OOCalc
Question: How much training is necessary with Linux as a gui to do the companies work as opposed to Windows ?
Using an application such as Excel on Windows versus Openoffice OOCalc
Those who do not understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it poorly.
1 day for the basics - in the new version 2.0 the menu-structure should be the same as in M$-OfficeOriginally Posted by Gillion
maybe interesting for this discussion but unfortunatly without "real" facts
http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/news/milano.shtml
About less hardware for linux or not, let`s compare service vs hardware , not minimum requirements. This is the interesting point - and - how many server do i need to get this services stable.
I heard, that windows gets very unstable if you try to run e.g. a proxy, webserver, mailserver, db-server, dhcp-server, version-management, dns-server and file/print server on one server. This told me an friend who is a real M$-Freak - but please tell me if it isn`t true.
We have realized this on a primergy L200 running under SuSE linux 7.3 (ca. 50 clients) with an uptime over 750 days without an crashed daemon.
greets MOses
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Home
I can say for me this has never been a problem. We run all the above and more and they are rock solid. We have File and Print server with terabytes of data, DHCP server with hundreds of scopes, DNS with over 10,000 hosts.Originally Posted by M0ses
Most people think you can just take an old machine and through up and server in a business and everything is ok. Servers do not crash from OS failure only, hardware failure must be taken into consideration.
I mentioned earlier that I installed a MS cluster which cost about $50,000. This cluster is a replacement for a previous one. The old one started out in 1999 with NT 4.0, 2 550 Mhz Compaq server, 2 Fibre hubs and 768 GB of disk space; currently the old cluster is on Win2k. It's been rock solid, when I say rock solid I mean rock rock solid.
Couple of reasons for the upgrade are to add more disk space and the hardware is out of warranty for a long time. Remember this is an old machine with old technology, it would not make sence to spend money on old hardware to add more disk space.
The new servers are ~7 times as fast and twice the amount of memory and 5 times the amount of disks space (~4 terabytes).
Please do, show me the obvious flaw as I fail to see it.Originally Posted by Gillion
Really now, would you put win2k3 on that setup?Originally Posted by juba
That is why I generated a specific scenario to show a singleOriginally Posted by juba
situation where the costs would be less. At no point in time I put forward the
statement that the TCO for linux is less than a microsoft solution in general.