<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/25/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">John Esak</b> <<a href="mailto:john@valar.com">john@valar.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
...snipped....<br><br>Silas,<br><br>I can see that you are a Unix zealot. :-) And, I can appreciate that stand<br>entirely. I used to be of the same mind as you. Not any more. </blockquote><div><br>
Actually, I do come from a strong unix background. But I like to think
that I try to choose technology based on what is the best fit for the
need, rather than what *I* prefer - for example, we now run Exchange
2k3 on Win2k3 servers with a full active directory installation. It is
a pain to keep the server patched and secure and virus free - it takes
up way too much time - but the exchange server fits our specific needs
for now, in terms of ease of use for end users, etc.<br>
</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Windows 2003<br>Server is plenty stable enough for my home system. This has always included
<br>and previously been based solidly on a Unix core. Things have changed over<br>the past 5 years. I now rely strongly on various Windows platforms. As for a<br>production server as a virtual system... I don't think I would ever do that
<br>either... with *nix guesting under Windows. While I totally trust 2003 these<br>days, my uptimes with Unix hover in the hundreds of days, and I like it that<br>way. I have 2003 servers staying up that long now also... so, things *are*
<br>changing. </blockquote><div><br>
They may be changing, but recently I made the simplest network
reconfiguration - simply changing DNS servers on a win2k3 server that
acts as gateway for some of the machines in one of our offices - and I
was shocked to get the 'windows must restart to apply your changes'
message. For DNS servers. *sigh*<br>
</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">In any case, virtual pc does put the guest system at the mercy of<br>the host system, and why do this under any circumstances for a producton
<br>system?</blockquote><br>
I think I covered the reasons I've considered running a sort of virtual
machine - sandboxing/firewalling (I had a web application that, the way
it was originally coded, needed to run as a more trusted user than
'nobody'. I ultimately rewrote the application rather than compromise
on security there.).<br>
<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">As for running Linux... We kind of do things the other way around in our<br>sites. The data is all stored on Unix, but everyone has the benefit of a
<br>full Windows environment as their desktop. We manage to keep the systems<br>free from virus's and security problems... No, it isn't easy, but it is our<br>job to do that. </blockquote><div><br>
The powers that be (read as Upper Management) have deemed that it is in
the best interests of the company to run with a skeleton IT crew -
myself, and a couple of assistants - despite our strongest objections.
For a network consisting of over 120 users spread across two countries
and four states. I simply don't have the resources to manage a bunch of
windows boxes, particularly those laptops that spend significant time
in the field.<br>
<br>
However, by running linux on workstations that are in untrusted
situations (the laptops we send out to do on site calibratios) I can
have it run linux natively. This allows me greater security (in my
opinion of course), and the peace of mind of knowing that our techs are
less likely to be able to break something. In addition, it lets me run
filepro for linux on them and greatly automate the processes that
synchs the data gathered on the mobile system into the divisional
filepro server.<br>
</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Our needs are too widely varying from place to place, office<br>to office to limit ourselves and our users to only those things that Linux
<br>(or Unix) offer. In the end run, the rationale for doing this may be that it<br>is just _easier_. This may not be a _good_ reason, but it allows us much<br>more time to write applications if we are not constantly trying to figure
<br>out how to do on Linux what is dead simple on Windows. For example, me<br>writing this email with the benefit of a full screen reaer that works<br>perfectly. Not yet a reality for Linux.</blockquote><div><br>
I agree that when windows makes things easier, it can often actually
enable things that wouldn't otherwise be possible. Many, many of my
users run windows as their core workstations - the vast majority of
them. For that matter, I run a windows workstation at home for gaming -
I'm by no means blinded by my linux bias. That being said, every
machine running filepro here is a *nix based box. Actually, every
machine running filepro here is running linux. The windows workstations
use procomm, putty, or both. Because that is what is most productive
for us at this point - it is what is /easiest/ for our users. But it is
easiest for me, as a server admin, to manage my filepro system from the
command line - I dread the day I have to open up remote desktop to
reset a printer for filepro.<br>
</div><br><br>
</div><br>