Re: Linux is not Free [ e ]

Two things:

1)  Linux is Free as in "freedom", not as in 0-cost.  This point is often missed because Linux is usually very affordable.

2)  You can get all the support you need from distributions such as Red Hat. (www.redhat.com)

posted by anon_DanielCarreraJune 5, 2002 at 17:48

If it took you 3 weeks to set up an email server... [ e ]

then it was a horrible misallocation to have you working on it, as you obviously have little familiarity with linux, or unix in general.  I usually do that sort of thing in under an hour.  Exchange, on the other hand, would take me considerably longer (at least if you care about security at all); I'm not much of a Windows guy.  It's a terrible waste for a company to be paying someone who has no idea what he's doing $50/hour.  They should have gotten somebody with some unix skills to set up the server, while you stayed with your skill set.  Even if he costed $100/hour, it would have been far cheaper (and yeiled better results) than to have you screwing around with it for 3 weeks.  Or, if your company cannot find anyone with the requisite skills, at the very least they should take someone a bit cheaper than $50/hour to do the work.  If the work is going to be done by someone with no idea of what they are doing, it should at least be someone who doesn't cost much and isn't being pulled away from other urgent work.

posted by anon_MarkWilburJuly 14, 2002 at 17:06

Knowledge [ e ]

It took you 6 to 8 books and 3 weeks before you had things runnings as you would like it. That took to much of  your time, that is for sure! But what you don't see is that you are independent, because you know how to install your machine. And something which is also important is that you have gathered knowledge which will be usefull for a long time.

With the Microsoft machine, you are a 'dumb' user because you just had to click a few buttons, and that was it.

(hope my english is ok!)

posted by anon_etvanvelzenchellonlJanuary 2, 2003 at 0:38

That's a poor arguement [ e ]

By that argument you should not buy a car because then you will not know how to build one.  You should not buy shoes because then you will not know how to make them.  Don't buy a book because then you will not know how to print one.  Don't buy bread because then you will not know how to bake it.

People need to get work done.  That's how the modern world works.  I don't have to raise my own grain and bake my own bread anymore which leaves me time to program.  The same is true for setting up and maintaining a server.  That's not my job, it's not what I want to be spending my time doing.  Which is why a solution that works without having to know the details is better for most people that one which takes weeks or months to understand.

posted by greggmanJanuary 2, 2003 at 2:54

Gee where can I get a job that pays $50.00 an hour to learn/practice [ e ]

You must work for a bunch of idiots! My company pays me $65,000 a year because it only takes me a hour or two to set up a mail server on linux. Or a web server, ftp, CIFS, NFS, IRC, etc...

What used to take me long time was patching Exchange on a daily basis and scratching my head wondering why even though I had restricted relaying to my own domain people's spam were still floating through my server by the gigabyte. It took till Service Pack 4 for Microsoft to finally work this out and I'm not convinced they have it right yet.

All I heard from my users when I switched from Exchange to procmail/sendmail was "Thanks, I get so much less spam than I used to and the number of virus's has really decreased." They use window$, and I serve with Linux. My job is easy now :)

Really, let us all know where we can get a job that pays us to sit around and whine about how hard this computewr stuff is... I'd love to work their.

Sincerely,
In the know!

posted by anon_anonymous_a_real_it_adm
inistratorJanuary 6, 2003 at 9:10

FIRST time setup [ e ]

I'm sure you can setup an email server in a couple of hours now that you've done it a bunch of times.  My point was that the FIRST time I setup sendmail and nntpd it took me 3 weeks to get it working correctly.  The FIRST time I setup Exchange it took me 2 hours to get the same functionality as sendmail and nntp plus group scheduling, shared folders, shared address lists, etc, etc, etc...

As far as maintance I ran sendmail and nntp for almost a year with only one problem.  I ran Exchange server for 7 years with only 1 problem (it's still running).  So, from my experience they both seem to be pretty reliable.  But, like I mentioned above I got far more functionality with Exchange.

Obviously, if you already know how to setup linux and sendmail and you don't need any of that other functionality then that would be good solution.

If you don't know it already though and you can't afford to pay someone $65K a year for something you should only have to do once then one solution will have you up and running nearly instantly and the other solution will have searching the net for FAQs for weeks until you get it working.

posted by greggmanJanuary 6, 2003 at 18:04

Linux is really free [ e ]

Well...this is your point of view. Do you really are a software developer??? je je je.
I'm system manger of linux and I learn linux for free because (mmm too bored...I have
a very long list of reasons  to use linux).
The fact is that a lot of people can tell you that you can install linux and sendmail from
zero in only one our (including web server and a lot of things).

Oh, I forget that I never buyed any book of programming or linux or sendmail...
Becouse internet offers you an incredible ammount of manuals, tutorials and guides,
and of course: man is your friend  .

posted by anon_LinuxsystemmanagerMarch 19, 2003 at 11:29

Linux is getting better but... [ e ]

man doesn't help if you don't know which command you need to run to do what you need to do.

I installed Red Hat 8.0 about 2 months ago. Clearly it's gotten easier than it was even 8 months ago.  This time the networking stuff, at least some of it, worked without having to search the net for hours to figure out how to configure it as there are now control panels for them.

Also, other relatively easy to find manuals actually had relavent information this time (vs 7.2 when many FAQs, MANs etc were out of date or wrong).

Still, it took about 2-3 hours of searching the net to get NAT working, something that takes about 30 seconds to do in Windows or Mac OS-X.  Now that I bought a router it's going to take me another 2-3 hours to figure out how to turn NAT off and get Linux to run like a normal inside machine again.  Again, something that took about 30 seconds on the other machines.

(I'm sure some Linux guy will tell me I should have installed some other distro, that only points out the basis of the problem which is how many hours of research you need in order to know how to do stuff in Linux or which package to install or which desktop to use or which distro to install)

posted by greggmanMarch 19, 2003 at 18:08

Linux [ e ]

He doesn't get paid $50/hour to sit around he gets it to develope software.

posted by anon_JoshMarch 26, 2003 at 11:19

[ e ]

if your neighbor gives you a perfectly working chain saw for free.

and you spend three weeks reading books on clipping hedges and chainsaw art.

would you complain about the price of the chainsaw to your neighbor?

hahahha you really did not think about this quite clearly.

posted by anon_believerApril 30, 2003 at 4:08

You're not thinking clearly [ e ]

No, I would not think about the price of the chainsaw.  I would think that it would have been a lot better to pay some gardener $50 to deal with it and instead spend 3 weeks doing stuff I actually WANT to do instead of 3 weeks reading chainsaw books.  I would value those 3 weeks much much higher than $50 therefore to me the $50 spent on getting someone else to do it would be far cheaper than giving up 3 weeks of my life.

posted by greggmanApril 30, 2003 at 11:34

Windows Learning Time? [ e ]

I understand your frustration.  However, in your equation you are discounting the learning time and books needed to understand the Microsoft Product line.  Don't forget... you had to start somewhere and all that time learning DOS, Win 3.1, Win95/98/ME, WinNT/2000, XP, Exchange, etc.  (Not to mention the million or so reboots you had to perform to get there...)  are the valuable skills needed to implement Microsoft Exchange in the relatively short time you did.  Now that you've implemented Linux and Sendmail, how long would it take you to implement another Sendmail server?  I suspect it would be a lot less time.  Anyway, I just wanted to get my 2 cents in.

Take care

posted by anon_HeathMay 16, 2003 at 6:24

That wasn't my experience. [ e ]

I didn't have any Exchange experience when I installed it.  I just installed it and it worked, all of it.  Insert the CD, it autoruns, it asked me a few questions like our domain name and news server and BANG, we had e-mail, shared folders, group scheduling, usenet, etc, etc.

posted by greggmanMay 16, 2003 at 18:09

Wish someone would pay me?! [ e ]

Gee I wish someone would pay me $300 to learn a new skill.

posted by anon_JerryClarkJune 13, 2003 at 9:33

Pure bullshit [ e ]

Your statement is pure bullshit.  MS isn't even close in cost to linux.  Once setup, Linux runs, runs, runs, and runs without you having to do even the slightest maintenance to it.

MS requires constant maintenance, tweaking, changing, rebooting in order to keep it running at peak efficiency.

Those books you bought are worth more than you spent and saying that they are a "COST" shows the mentality of someone who only believes in MS's bullshit

posted by anon_BullshitJune 29, 2003 at 17:09

Exchange and NT [ e ]

Ran for me for 4 years without a single problem.  Linux crashed (when the server got full) and took 3 days to recover.  I haven't seen this MS maintenance issue.  As far as I can tell its Linux FUD.

I have seen MS be unstable if you treat it like a desktop machine and install thousands of games, plugins, net apps, active x downloads etc but if you treat it like a server and install just a few things it runs as well or better then Linux or at least it did for me.

As for desktop stability, the only thing that keeps linux more stable (if in fact it is) is that there is so little software for it.  If the base of software was as big, linux (and the mac for that matter) would have just as many problems.

posted by greggmanJune 30, 2003 at 0:25

Microsoft vs Linux - Mail Servers [ e ]

[ Trackback Comment ]

OK, so we are Microsoft adovates, but recently, I have been exploring Linux and open source implmentations of new products/devices we are currently developing. While surfing, I found a post claiming Linux costs more if not the same as a Windows OS. I keep the my opinion to myself, but I seriously believe that quantifying hours on learning Linux [a free OS] is unreasonable. Yes time is money, but the sometimes the objective is to find the best solution, and sendmail is another quality software evolution that has stood the test of time. See for yourself GMAN: On Linux...

posted by www.rjsnetworks.comJuly 16, 2003 at 13:25

[ e ]

hmmm, add one, or two more servers, and you'll see the cost's :D the first time i've installed a sendmail i took one day, now it's only five minutes :) you've spent $6000 dollars in the first time, now you know, and in the second time, your charges will be much minors ;) hmmm, and for groupware, take a look at www.opengroupware.org callendar, schedule, etc... for free ( damn the plugin for M$ is still paid ) hehehe, sorry for my poor english.

posted by anon_FelipeAlencastroAugust 12, 2003 at 7:40

[ e ]

Linux is not free, but linux is your future freedom; It's because many guys like you think like you that microsoft has reached the position it keeps.

I also do not like your post, because it is so american minded: money money money ! To install linux, you had to learn concepts, so it's not only lossed time. If you has decided to search doc on the internet, you'd saved $.

And finally, you have to know that in europa, where the manpower is more affordable, the total cost for your linux box should be lower, while the MS licenses stay the same !

posted by anon_ThomasAugust 12, 2003 at 12:08

Linux is good [ e ]

I' am not yet a software developer but iam doing my masters in computer science in us, iam from india, and there everybody knows linux they only know how to use ls command, i think the person who wrote the article is of that kind, who knows how to execute ls or pwd command and says he knows linux. When i came here i got some info about free software and open source and now i think the way to go is open source, to get better products and free software and open source is the key.

Dude who told you to buy books for linux, don't you know how to use the internet and the groups. Why do you want to pay $200 for a call that shit.  I did install in linux 9.0 and its very easy now, but i would still like to learn more by knowing who to use my saw, this is not about a saw this is about millions of dollars that your company spends depending on you to make the software and to use it as well, don't compare this thing by a saw.

People linux is here to stay... and iam a mcp and i kinda hate microsoft now... 15 years in software still the buffer overflow works...

posted by kevinAugust 28, 2003 at 16:57

programmer and network support [ e ]

I have a couple problems with your statements.  First off, Linux shouldn't have crashed.  Linux is known for its stability--like Unix.  Microsoft products are very well known for instability.  At my office, we were on a Unix OS for 15 years and crashed once because of disk failure after moving the box in the back of a truck.  We've had the new Windows system for 4 months and we've crashed 8 times so far.  And I'm not talking little crashes.  I'm talking big crashes that take the entire system down for at least a day at a time.  And let me tell ya, when people can't get to their cash with an ATM card, or can't deposit money, they pitch a fit.  And rightly so.  We're now looking at switching over to Linux.  For one thing, I've been using it for a few months now and am very comfortable with it.  For another, we've spoken to other companies in the Atlanta area who have switched over to Linux and they're all very very happy with the results.

Second thing--be happy that you learned something new.  Life is boring when you quit learning.  My advice is that you learn even more about Linux, and maybe someday you'll join the rest of the world in thinking that it's a great product with tremendous potential.

posted by JenSeptember 23, 2003 at 10:47

the learning argument [ e ]

is such BS.

Gee, next time your car pings I think I'll tell you, "ya, know, if you'd learn how to disassemble your engine and re-hone the cylinders you'd have learned something and wouldn't that be great"  No, it wouldn't.  I don't want to have to learn how to hone my cylinders just to drive my car and I don't want to have to learn how to configure the arcane syntax of sendmail just to be able to server mail.

As for Linux being stable, it's a lie!  My current installation of RH9.0 crashes almost daily and I'm not running anything on it except Apache, Gnome and VNC.  It *feels* like it's running out of memory even though I'm running almost nothing and that machine has 512meg of ram and yet at some point the interface just stops responding and I have to power down to get it to work again.

posted by greggmanSeptember 24, 2003 at 9:29

the learning argument [ e ]

Is correct.

If you are installing and administering the server, you are not the car's driver.  You are the mechanic, and with open source software, if you feel you have the oopmh, you can be the engineer, as well.

We don't need any more button-pushers in technology.  Sorry you feel that's your role in IT.

posted by ptietjensOctober 3, 2003 at 8:25

Are you all just religious zealots? (Linux vs. Windows?) [ e ]

Jeesh, you'd think that the Greggman just pissed on your sacred diety's effigy or something.  Get over it!

LINUX IS NOT THE SECOND COMING.  IT'S  A TOOL.

WINDOWS IS NOT OF THE DEVIL.  IT IS A TOOL.

#1 Rule in computing:  Use THE RIGHT TOOL FOR THE JOB.

Now if you want to make a political statement about your tools (open source software vs. the unloving uncaring mega-corporational American hegemonistic monopolies), then fine, state your argument in political terms.  Just DON'T PRETEND THAT LINUX NEVER CRASHES (News: There are times when it does) and WINDOWS ALWAYS CRASHES (News: Most of the time it doesn't).  *Sheesh*

No, setting up an email server is not like being a cars driver or being a car's mechanic.  IT'S LIKE BUYING AND INSTALLING A FREAKIN' PIECE OF SOFTWARE!  Damn!  Imagine that!

Pretend that you are a Photographer and you want to do some (digital) photo touch-up, restoration, and printing.  Some of you would go right out and download and learn to use GIMP (an open source image manipulation package).  Me, I'll go out and buy Photoshop.  With Photoshop, I don't have to worry about installing the right packages, or re-compiling the source code, or things just not plain working.  If I am a photographer, I HAVE A JOB TO DO, AND IT's NOT TO FUTZ WITH TEMPERMENTAL SOFTWARE.

As for "Americans always thinking about money", how about this:  what we REALLY are talking about is *TIME*.  Time might equal money to some (nothing wrong with that).  However, I am married and have children.  If I'm given the choice between fuzting around with some software, spending hours trying to get it to work correctly (SAMBA?  OpenSSH?  NAT via IPChains?) or spending time with my WIFE AND CHILDREN, guess what I'm going to pick?  Maybe you're single.  Would you rather futz around trying to get something to work, or spend time with your friends?  Or volunteering for charity work?  Or riding your motorcyle down a desert road?  Or doing your actual job (in Greggman's case, creating games)?  Or SOMETHING OTHER THAN FUZTING AROUND WITH SOME DAMN SOFTWARE THAT SHOULD INSTALL WITH 3 CLICKS OF THE DAMN MOUSE?

   - anonnanana

posted by anonnananaOctober 3, 2003 at 15:55

Where do these Linux freaks come from? [ e ]

It's like they sit on google all day looking for new hits on the "Linux vs Windows" topic then head on over like some mind-hive collective (Borg sounds about right)...

Show me a company that makes money and uses Linux *exclusively*.

posted by LinuxShminuxOctober 5, 2003 at 3:23

Linux Shminux Indeed [ e ]

Greggman,

Can't believe you started up this feud.  Anyone knows you can't start up this thread without having to deal with the unwashed Euro-Linux-Borg.  They will complain about the anti-american theme, security, expense, yadda yadda yadda.  You can read it anywhere on any board this gets started on.  I agree with the last poster.  I have Linux on a box at home to play with, but other than that why would I use it.  No company that does any real business runs it.

posted by DerekOctober 5, 2003 at 10:54

[ e ]

You are a friggin' Lamer if (1) it took you three weeks to set up Linux for your business, (2) You couldn't set up the email, (3) Your employees are desprate enough to use your computers for PORN!, (4) You should have general knowledge about how to configure and install shit for it anyway, dumb ass!

That's all I wanted to say...

posted by anonymous_man_1203October 9, 2003 at 21:10

hmmm [ e ]

Wow, you really showed me.  You can call people names and some how make illogical connections about employees reading porn and the difficulties of configuring linux.  Pure genius.

First of all, I doubt you read the date on the article, 6 years ago, second, not printed in the article, I had this experience in 1995.  8 years ago, back when there werer very little docs for linux, no companies to call for support, no standard sendmail scripts. Third, at the time I had to set it up for UUCP support over a modem which as far as know doesn't even exist anymore.  This is before TCP/IP was common through a dialup ISP and before ADSL or Cable modems.

I got to learn all the fun joys of multiple unixes since the Oreilly sendmail book and the Oreilly UUCP book didn't match whatever linux I was running.  Probably slackware at the time since most of the other distros didn't exists then.  On top of that the distro at the time had UUCP configuration files in 3 different places.  2 matched descriptions in the UUCP book but it took several tries to figure out the reason there was no response was because those 2 were not the ones being used.  Then, once I got that working I had to setup NNTPD to work over dialup.  And, when it was all done, I didn't have 1/6th the features of Exchange.

All that futsing with shit is about all I ever get out of linux.

posted by greggmanOctober 10, 2003 at 5:39

Linux vs. Microsoft [ e ]

Yes, I can imagine that someone who has never been on Linux before might take 3 weeks to install sendmail.

I installed sendmail for 560 user's in my company in 1 day.  I only make $16 an hour, so I guess your getting way over paid.  I can imagine you having some problems on 386 with email, that is very surprising to me.

Maybe you should stick with microsoft, because any software that actually doesn't setup themselves for you, is just for you and your $50 an hour.

posted by JohnnyApril 2, 2004 at 8:24

Linux vs Microsoft [ e ]

Sorry,  you had no right to install linux or to write this letter. 

First, you do not install on a 386 machine for anything other than windows 3.1 or 3.11.  Two years ago you should have used a 500Mhz or better for the server.

Second, I have linux for years and I would not set up an sendmail box.  If you had done your research you would have used postfix or qmail then it would not have taken you three weeks to get a box up.

Third, if you are making 50 an hour then your company could have spent the money for you a good box for that linux server.

People like you who do not do there research and think it is just an easy task to install the linux on first run are crazy.  Windows does that because people are not smart enough to do the research and set the system up with what they need.  Instead they choose to install everything and have to worry later about turning off what they dont need or forget about it an cause security holes for the company.

posted by ChristopherDBellApril 6, 2004 at 8:13

The Date [ e ]

That article is from 1998!!!

The actual installation was in 1995.  9 years ago.  I had to use a dialup account (as an full time net account back then was $1500 a month). Getting a PPP net account was still not 100% sure.  I had to use UUCP make the setup more complicated.  A 386 was not uncommon then and in fact one of the common claims from Linux advocates is that Linux runs on less hardware than Windows supposedly saving you money.

I'm sure things have changed.  All net accounts now are PPP or better.  Getting a full time connection doesn't cost so much and Linux has had 9 more years of development so I'm sure it's easier to setup now.

Still, Exchange still wins because with almost zero step it provides tons of features.  Features that on Linux would require you to learn and install 5 to 7 separate pieces of server software and require the clients to run various apps to access the data were as Exchange + Outlook gives you all those features instantly and integrated.

Of course I wouldn't expect a Linux advocate to understand that since they generally don't have any experience with all the features it provides that a simple mail server doesn't.

posted by greggmanApril 6, 2004 at 20:57

my 2 cents [ e ]

Over the last 6 years I have run the following in a professional environment (I run a small hosting business of something like 30 sites, as well as doing other stuff like software development):

1. Linux (Redhat 8 and 9)
2. Windows 2000 Advanced Server
3. Windows Server 2003
4. FreeBSD

I have used all of these extensively for email, web hosting, FTP, and quite a few otehr server related tasks.

Windows 2000 and Windows Server 2003:
Both ran pretty well, but were costly and questionable in terms of privacy intrusion (too much information sent out).  Both of them tended to have weird problems occur regularly with patches and upgrades, and both were quite difficult to secure properly.  I found reboots necessary at least every couple of months with both of these due to memory leaks.  They both have a couple of features that were easier to work with than either FreeBSD or Linux, such as bandwidth throttling and load balancing.  I found the installtion of Exchange under Windwos 2000 Server SP4 and under Windows 2003 Server really crappy, and wasted many hours of my time.  Attacks were common on IIs and the risk of virus infection constant.

Redhat Linux 8 and 9:
I found far superior to either Windows Server offering in terms of stability and speed.  Once I developed a reasonable familiarity with the UNIX type OS, maintenance and installtion were far simpler, stable and less problem prone than Windows was.  The up-front learning time was considerable, though - developing and understanding (a "feeling" if you will) about how UNIX the UNIX file system is organized is pretty confusing at first (/etc, /var, blah, blah).  Once this part is out of the way, though, there is no comparison in terms of professional level stability and general operation between Windows and Linux in my expereince - Windwos is almost a toy by comparison.

FreeBSD:
Almost as much better in terms of stability and maintainability from Linux as Linux is from Windows, in my expereince.  FreeBSD is really great for those that are very serious about running a server full-time and not having to fuss around with it constantly (once set up).  The port system for retrieving system and software updates is really refreshing and functional, once I understood it properly.  Last time I checked, FreeBSD is the OS of choice for Yahoo and quite a few other companies that have server strain issues I have difficulty even imagining, so don't just take my word for it!

Windows systems, followed by Macintosh systems, make better workstations than UNIX variants - they have more software available, they are fast and easy to use, they handle video and media really well, and so on.  I think Linux and FreeBSD are still trying to catch up - Linux has by far the edge over FreeBSD as a workstation.

Linux and other UNIX variants make better servers - in my mind there is really no question about this since I have used them all for years.  MacOSX (with its FreeBSD infrastructure) is really nice too, but I haven't used it extensively.

Theres my two cents!

Jeff

posted by buehlertechMay 17, 2004 at 15:40

Linux is indeed free [ e ]

Anyone who says Linux isn't free is doing it all wrong. Here's why:

Most Linux operating systems are available for free to download and install. I know, because I downloaded it myself. The install took me 30 minutes and was error-free - and I didn't have to "activate" or "register" anything.

When I found that I could do everything with my new Linux OS that I was doing with WindowsXP (and more), I promptly threw my WindowsXP disks in the trash and have never looked back.

Linux is easier to run and use than WindowsXP ever was. Linux is faster as well. And I can install my new Linux OS on thousands of computers, give away copies to my friends and family, get into the source code and change things around to suit my needs, write my own programs, etc., and no one is going to care.

That was last year. Since then, I have been running Linux, setting up and running servers and firewalls, writing my own apps, and am learning how to create my own Linux distro. My total expense to-date has been $20.00 US for blank CDR/RW disks which I use to keep my source code on the Linux OS was free.

I had been using Windows since Windows 95 came out and I upgraded to Windows 98 and Win98 SE and then to WindowsXP when those operating systems first appeared to the public. And it cost me a fortune.

I have learned more about computers and software since I installed Linux than I ever learned while using Windows OS's.

Total Costs:

with Windows OS: $500.00 + continual problems due to virii/worms/trojans/etc. + upgrade costs for new versions of the OS.

with Linux OS: $20.00 (never had a virus/worm/trojan/etc. problem and OS upgrades and enhancements are free for life)

Anyone who says that Linux costs more to own and operate needs to have their head examined. I can see now why Microsoft is starting to fear Linux.

I predict that Microsoft products aren't even going to be in demand in a few years.

   * How many active virii/worms/trojans/etc. are there for Linux?

   * How many Linux machines have been zombied by Netsky, Sasser, MyDoom, or similar worms? Do Windows TCO estimates include administrator time spent cleaning up after these infestations?

   * Can you explain why Windows IIS websites are cracked or defaced more often than Apache ones, despite the fact that IIS runs less than a third the number of sites Apache does?

   *Is Microsoft willing to add a hold-harmless clause to Shared Source licenses that protects shared-source licensees against being sued by Microsoft for alleged IP violations related to the software? If not, then please explain again how Shared Source is just the same as open source?

Sincerely,
Ex-Windows User that has turned to Linux.

posted by IanMacGregorJune 23, 2004 at 12:16

Linux is not even close to free [ e ]

Haven't you ever heard the term TIME = MONEY?

So you are learning to write your own apps.  On Windows that app would probably already exist so instead of having to write it you'd have whatever you are trying to accomplish finished.  Even if it didn't exist develop tools on Windows are better than Linux (even Linux advocates know this) so getting your app finished would have been faster on Windows again saving you time.  That time could have been used for all kinds of things.  Making more money for example or enjoying your friends for family.  Very high cost indeed to use Linux.

I have Linux running both at home and at work and it is almost always nothing but a time sync.  Yesterday I decided to setup movable type and invisionboard at work for an internal team website.  I have the same stuff running at home on my Windows machine for working on this site.  Setting it up on Windows was painless and instant.  IIS is go to the control panel and turn it on.  PHP installed painlessly,  MySQL installed painlessly, Perl installed painlessly.  I copied both Invisionboard and Movable Type to the proper places and they came write up.

Linux on the other hand I spent 4 hours trying to get MySQL and PHP installed MySQL support installed on Redhat Fedora Core 1 and it's still not working.  If I had left that machine running Windows I'd have saved at least 3 of those 4 hours (and how knows how many more still until it starts working).

About 2 weeks ago I tried to installed Fedora Core 2 at home.  It installed without problem but the samba networking is still not working at all.  Why?  Both Windows and a Mac would work out of the box.  Linux doesn't.  I don't feel like spending another 2-4 hours figuring it out I've got better things to do.

To give you an analogy, which would you rather have?  All the raw materials for a house for free but you have to built the house yourself OR a finished house for $300.  It will take you at least 4 months of full time work to build the free house.  Unless you are living off your parents money most people don't have 4 months.  They need to go to work.  I would gladly pay the $300 and start living in house today.  Sure you could say that with the raw materials you could build any design you want but the truth is more likely that you will build crap because you are not a house builder nor an architect and your skills at building are not that.  Sure you could hire those guys but hey, now your house isn't free is it?  In fact it's not free in the first place since 4 months of not working means you lost 4 months of salary.  Sounds like it would have been much cheaper to by the finished house.

Not paying for Linux does not make it free.

posted by greggmanJune 23, 2004 at 19:14

[ e ]

u must be really bad with computers if it took u 3 weeks to get it set up, wot were u doin? my brother is 16 and can get it workin in two days on the server, 3 weeks? thats the computer, not linux, it is free, some people just dont like change

posted by gregggirlSeptember 10, 2004 at 11:43

Its funny.. [ e ]

Its funny how crazy people get over the Windows VS Linux topic.

generally (not always), People on the pro-linux are LIARS. they exxaggerate truths and make things up so that you think Linux is super easy to install, super easy to run, super easy to costumize, super easy to maintain, etc.. so easy a monkey could do it! The sad truth is that despite Linux's advantages, theres a shit ton of disadvantages. Like the steep learning curve. The unproffessional feel to it. The Users. The Hardcore Linux users are pretty lame.

Being serious, a majority of Linux Kids are people who do it for the image. They like the computer scene thinking they're '1337'. They install it, and the next day, they're already telling all their friends "OMFG I GOT LINUX N0W". its retarded. Then, they take the money they saved and buy transparent cases with lights on the sides.

I swear, if these linux kids got into Cars instead of Computers, they'd all be driving Honda Civics with neon lights, spoilers, and a muffler that sounds like a revved up lawn mower.

posted by GarretSeptember 11, 2004 at 0:40

[ e ]

yeah....linuxshminux...i think you need to do a little bit of research yourself.  Cause i don't really think that novell and xandros and red hat etc. are poor.  
and seeing as they make linux distros they probably don't use windows.  But of course if you continue to be dumb you can always just check their websites.  And no, Linux is not free.  It isnt supposed to be free, that is one of the many things that you will see about linux.. visit the debain website to see (www.debian.org)

posted by JohnnyRamoneApril 14, 2005 at 19:01

3 weeks to setup email server [ e ]

Is it possible that your linux and sendmail skills are just lacking? I've set up many email servers with linux, and it never took me 3 weeks!!!!!

posted by Sph3r32August 18, 2005 at 8:10

[ e ]

Well basically you  have to look into 2 things

1) How much would be to hire a good tech support person to do the installation for 300-500$? probably a good solution.

2) Why beeing a manager you started installing and tickling with Linux?
Linux is for sys admins and power users, you should not be dealing with this issue yourself.

3) Why have you chosen an almost obsolete hardware ? why not P2/p3 with 128RAM to at least get some good performance ? why 386 ?

So from these points if you'd done them properly I dont see an issue with Linux.

posted by anDecember 12, 2005 at 19:37

FUCKEN BITCH [ e ]

UR FUCKEN ASS HOLE SON OF A BITCH .... DICK HEAD

posted by DICKHEADNovember 16, 2006 at 7:33

Err [ e ]

"As for desktop stability, the only thing that keeps linux more stable (if in fact it is) is that there is so little software for it"
That is what you wrote in an earlier entry and after I read that I didn't need to read anymore to see that you are an ignorant, ignorant man. How dumb can you get? Honestly making statements like that it really makes me wonder why you get $50 a hour. America must have to much money to pay idiots like you that much.
How sad.
I'm my company if my co-workers had no email for 3 weeks I would be looking for a new job. You say that you are a Software Developer?
And it took you 3 weeks the first time? What do you work a hour a day and drink coffee the rest of your time?
Damn. How ignorant.

posted by anameDecember 3, 2006 at 22:04

[ e ]

What are the specs of the Linux computer that constantly "crashes?"

posted by greggman_specsJanuary 16, 2007 at 6:00

specs [ e ]

I don't remember the specs. Except it had at least a 30gig HD and 512meg of ram. That was over 3 years ago. (and the story at the top of the page is now 10 years old)

My current installation of Linux ran mostly stable until just this last week. I few links in Firefox somehow sucked up all the CPU and after waiting 5-10 minutes for it to recover I finally just SSHed in remotely and rebooted the thing. (that itself took 3 minutes just to get a prompt). I have no idea why. It's a RH3.0 install. I'll upgrade to 6 or 7 in a couple of months.

I still don't find Linux any more stable than Windows. Like Windows it crashes on me from time to time and yet I hardly ever use it. All I'm currently running is sendmail, apache, firefox, vnc and subversion (and whatever other default packages RH decided to setup).

posted by greggmanJanuary 16, 2007 at 8:50

[ e ]

Why not just revert back to Microsoft Windows and forget about Linux entirely?  Since Linux is causing you so many problems.

posted by greggman_specsJanuary 16, 2007 at 13:01

[ e ]

For some of the same reasons many othe people use Linux. It's free. My only point in the post of 10 years ago is that time = money. Setting up 1995 sendmail with a modem and UUCP and then trying to get NNTPD to run as well took a long time. Compared to Exchange which I setup in 1997, Exchange took 2 hrs and had 3-4 times the features. It just worked. That "it just works" with a few button clicks is worth something to some people. So, just the fact that something doesn't cost money does not make necessarily make it free because it also costs time. That was my point.

I use Linux for sendmail now because I couldn't find any better solutions in my price range for Windows. 2003 sendmail is not as hard to setup as 1995 sendmail. I only need sendmail to allow me to run some scripts that post emails to blogs. Other than that I also use subversion which would run just fine on Windows but since I already have the sendmail server running I might as well run it there. Setting up subversion was also a pain in the ass compared to setting up say Perforce. Subversion was several hours (compiling apache with the correct options, compiling subversion with the correct options, learning the configuration files, figuring out the typos in the docs. Perforce took a couple of minutes. But Perforce for my hobbies is out of my price range.

Otherwise, 99% of the time I use Windows.

If I was starting a company again I wouldn't choose Linux because it's *free*, I'd choose whatever products met my needs. Most likely Exchange again because I value all the features it gives me and the minimum time it takes to set them up. Features that are a pain to setup on Linux if they exist at all. Features that are integrated in Exchange. I also wouldn't choose subversion. Having just finished a 20 person game with it I know that it sucks for game development. As support for my hobbies I'll make do. But if I have a budget then I'll choose a better solution.

posted by greggmanJanuary 16, 2007 at 23:45

[ e ]

cool

posted by greggman_specsJanuary 17, 2007 at 8:08

I made the switch... will never turn back. [ e ]

I've read many articles about Linux vs Microsof* and I have to say that anyone who is saying that Linux is a more expensive alternative because of "support" and "time" is crazy.  I installed ubuntu 4 months ago and I've only had to reboot my computer once.  I have email, I can watch a dvd, I communicate with my business clients transparently with openoffice as it is compatible with microsof* office, and I use gnucash for my accounting (it does everything quickbooks did for me).  I was surprised to find that all of my hardware worked with this os.  Based on my reading that has been the major problem with making the switch... printers, wireless cards, etc not working.  Here's my thoughts 1.) Using Ubuntu is EASY.  2.)  Ubuntu is more stable than xp was.  3.)  I have replaced all of my software for $0 and will pay $0 for upgrades in the future 4.) I am free from all this microsof* restrictive licensing crap.  5.) The only reason not to switch is if you're a gamer because of software compatibility issues or you have to use some microsof* software for your work, however, you can still  run both operating sytems on the same machine if you choose to do so... interesting!!!  I'm a new Linux convert!!!!  This is GREAT!

posted by ryanMarch 2, 2007 at 16:26

Citadel [ e ]

Compare the new Citadel exchange server for Linux to the newest MS exchange and then tell me which is faster to set up and easier to use.  I use Citadel now without a problem; took one hour to set up for new system.  That time is without previous experience.

posted by CitadelMarch 12, 2007 at 19:56