Comments

• Jose_X

  2009-02-18 14:36:36

  Now imagine Novell Linux [hurray Linux!] taking over Red Hat's and every other Linux vendor's share through special leveraging of Monopolysoft.
  
  Bad Linux! Down with that Linux!
  
  What will customers think of Linux if the experience is terrible? What will happen to the size of the general Linux user and developer community if ever Linux should be looked upon so negatively by the majority? Will hardware be supported? Will jobs be found? Will it keep up with WinCrap in advances? Will any given person be more or less likely to use it with each passing day once it starts stalling and losing ground on WinCrap? Will the monopolies be broken?
  
  There is a very real reason to shun Opensuse or any other assets that might help Novell/Microsoft displace healthy Linux from the marketplace. Opensuse can fork and diverge significantly so that eventually gains to it don't help Novell nearly as much, but until such time, I shun it, along with mono and the rest of the MS-centric package.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-02-18 14:43:20

  OpenSUSE volunteers would be wise to fork it and take control.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-02-18 14:44:05

  Oh, BTW, they must then rebrand it. Novell owns the "OpenSUSE" trademark.

• Ian

  2009-02-18 15:05:28

  I shun it, along with mono and the rest of the MS-centric package.
  
  Are you saying Opensuse is MS-centric?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-02-18 15:08:24

  It's a .NET-rich distribution (Mono).

• Ian

  2009-02-18 15:13:53

  So, having Mono installed on it makes it .NET rich? That's quite a leap. I guess then having tomcat installed makes it JBOSS rich as well?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-02-18 15:20:13

  Maybe.
  
  Either way, you know who gains from having that stuff preinstalled.

• Jose_X

  2009-02-19 02:06:40

  Ian, I haven't looked at the packages of opensuse first hand. Are you saying it isn't mono-rich and rich with apps that use MS created protocols (vs. other distros)?
  
  If Novell's copyrights are represented in opensuse heavily (I expect this), then I consider that MS-centric because of the close relationship to Microsoft.
  
  Does opensuse+contents have a relatively high percentage of authors/devs/contributors in contract with Novell or Microsoft?
  
  If these things (and some others) are not really true, I would re-evaluate my view of opensuse, but given that Novell bought suse, I didn't think I was reaching too far.

• Ian

  2009-02-19 03:33:32

  Jose,
  
  If you count up the total amount of packages in OpenSuse, anything involving Mono is a probably a minority against the difference. Does Opensuse have more mono-rich apps than say Ubuntu or Fedora? Maybe, I'm not sure. Given the hundreds or even thousands of available packages on each of those distros, does mono really make much of an impact. It's like comparing two playgrounds and calling the one that has a sandbox the beach.
  
  Also, does an app built with Mono use any MS created protocols? The most heavily used "MS" protocol, which every single distro available uses I believe, is Samba.
  
  I guess my original question was driven by how I didn't understand how you can shun an entire project and pass it off as ms-centric when it's not. You can say it's ms-centric relative to Debian for instance(if that's even the case), but that doesn't make it ms-centric in its entirety. Just to make myself clear though, you and anyone else can choose whatever OS/Distro you please and you don't even need to have a good reason why you pick one over the other. That's your choice. My question was based on the stance that didn't really make sense to me. That's why I asked the question.

• HarryTuttle

  2009-02-19 11:58:35

  "MS-centric" - thats a wonderful buzz-word to label Novell-Ballnux from a marketing-perspective! One wouldn't care if it is only relative, because MS-Novells intention to spread their bullsh*t about their interop crap needs to be called and cancelled, even when the word may relate to only relatively speaking to a "pure and clean" distribution, which shuns anything MS-related like Mono...
  
  Suse and their kinds are MS-centric by default and intention...
  
  I think the term "sticks" wonderfully and should be promoted over and over again to manifest as long as this relationship with Novell/MS keeps on going and used as marketing-bs from their perspective...
  
  And yes, I can see all the people here screaming are really only worried that their precious hyped MS-approved distribution is going to be finally adressed as what is going to be taken, if left alone with those overlords working to sneek that crap in: MS-centric... it won't happen overnight, but here we see the beginning and have the starting point identified: Novell and its Ballnux...

• Jose_X

  2009-02-19 18:10:07

  >> Also, does an app built with Mono use any MS created protocols?
  
  No, dotnet is not MS centric. Mono also isn't a tool used to create more and more MS centric products. [end of sarcasm]
  
  >> I guess my original question was driven by how I didn’t understand how you can shun an entire project and pass it off as ms-centric when it’s not.
  
  Given how you don't appear to see dotnet as MS centric, I am not surprised you are confused.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-02-19 18:36:54

  Ian has always sided with Novell. Newer readers may not know this.

• Ian

  2009-02-19 21:35:10

  @Jose,
  
  Given how you don’t appear to see dotnet as MS centric, I am not surprised you are confused.
  
  You misunderstand. I never said dotnot isn't Microsoft centric. It's a Microsoft product, of course it's Microsoft centric. You could say mono is ms centric insofar as it aims to allow for the use of dotnet built applications(not just written by Microsoft by the way).
  
  But that wasn't even the argument. The argument was whether or not opensuse is ms centric. I take that to believe that the majority of the distribution is tied around something ms centric such as mono, which is far from reality.
  
  @Roy
  
  Ian has always sided with Novell. Newer readers may not know this.
  
  Working with absolutes again Roy? I probably have a better understanding of Novell's overall business than most people who comment here, so my viewpoint is probably far different from your average reader. To say I always side with Novell is absolutely wrong and off base. I've actually ripped Novell here and just recently even commented on why I think Novell is struggling. Overall, I think the Microsoft deal has little or nothing to do with Novell's overall business struggles. You tend to tie their struggles directly to their deal with Microsoft and that's what I disagree about with the overall message this site seems to be sending. You're more than welcome to rip Novell over the deal but don't forgot their business woes have little to do with it.
  
  That's why you think I side with Novell always. You're dealing with absolutes in that if I'm not ripping the deal, I must be siding with Novell. To me, that either means you ignore what I write, or you don't care what I write. Either way, I don't always side with Novell. Site authors may not know this.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-02-19 21:40:46

  Fair point, Ian, but a better-phrased argument (from me) would be that your heart is with Novell.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-02-19 21:44:29

  To clarify further, I think that the statement "Ian has always sided with Novell" is an exaggeration, but you watch Novell with concern.
  
  I still insist that Novell and SUSE are responsible for the Mono-fication of Linux because they have a degree of control over GNOME (and KDE too), so they put Novell-sponsored projects in there.

• Ian

  2009-02-19 22:34:52

  Roy,
  
  Fair point, Ian, but a better-phrased argument (from me) would be that your heart is with Novell.
  
  That isn't off base. Most of my IT career to date has been working with Novell products so you could say that I have a soft spot for them. That won't, however, stop me from ripping them when I see something I think is dumb.
  
  As for mono, I don't put as much emphasis on it as you do. That's not a defense of mono or a condemnation otherwise. I think it's truly a non issue when it comes to Novell's viability in IT. Or in other words, I don't think it's as big a deal as it relates to Novell's software business. But, time will tell whether or not it ultimately becomes just that and what the implications are.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-02-19 22:41:01

  Mono is about Microsoft living on in someone else's body.

• Ian

  2009-02-19 22:41:32

  Roy,
  
  To clarify further, I think that the statement “Ian has always sided with Novell” is an exaggeration, but you watch Novell with concern.
  
  Almost forgot to respond to this. Yes, I watch Novell with concern. If Novell were to disappear today, I can almost guarantee you that I'd be planning a migration to Windows Server, Exchange, and Active Directory. Migrating to a 100% Microsoft environment would be a train I can not stop. There are no proper alternatives, unfortunately. I suspect most "Novell admins" are in the same boat.

• Ian

  2009-02-19 22:42:40

  Roy,
  
  Mono is about Microsoft living on in someone else’s body.
  
  Whether that's the case or not, I still don't think it factors much into Novell's overall software business at present or the near future.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-02-19 22:45:55

  it's mostly a problem when it comes to companies that are not Novell.
  
  In a sense, Novell is like that prisoner who the guards are using for pressure through peers in a prison (I suppose you know the psychological theory about these things).

• Ian

  2009-02-19 23:05:47

  But ultimately, they're all screwed regardless because they're all in jail! :D

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-02-19 23:12:01

  I don't remember which part it's in, but the video is a multi-part one. One of the parts has the prison scenario.

• Jose_X

  2009-02-20 00:14:02

  >> You misunderstand. I never said dotnot isn’t Microsoft centric. It’s a Microsoft product, of course it’s Microsoft centric.
  
  I use "dotnet" sometimes to include clones (it depends on context and I don't pretend to be unambiguous every time I use it). That was the intention here.
  
  >> You could say mono is ms centric insofar as it aims to allow for the use of dotnet built applications.
  
  Well mono supports standards controlled by Microsoft and provides nearness to a large amount of Microsoft investments. It gives those using MSdotnet some excuse to believe there is a second source to Microsoft's lock-in. It follows API created by Microsoft which presents patent issues favorable to Microsoft over everyone else. [ http://boycottnovell.com/2009/02/04/the-api-trap-part-1/ ]. Mono apps are easier for Microsoft to leverage on their system to help add value to their locked system. Through partnerships with Novell, they very likely have greater access to these applications' source (when owned by Novell) for proprietary use.
  
  >> But that wasn’t even the argument. The argument was whether or not opensuse is ms centric.
  
  That is the latest argument but not all of it. The part you didn't address (which is fine if you agree) is that (open)suse is the distro most able to help Novell (through copyrights and through control over its direction).
  
  To return to the MS centric point, it seems neither you nor I have measured the amount of mono in Suse vs all other distros. I find it likely Suse will be among the worst.
  
  My main issue with (open)suse is that it helps Novell. This would be the case even if they dropped mono. There would still be MS centricity because of Novell's close relationship with Microsoft (including selling their customers on the value of MS products). If you help opensuse you are helping Novell (and Microsoft) more than if you help (eg) debian or fedora. Novell is very MS centric in their push, whether or not they sponsor a distro. In short, I shun opensuse to the extent it gives preference to MS centric technologies (like mono) AND is a Novell asset.
  
  >> I take that to believe that the majority of the distribution is tied around something ms centric such as mono, which is far from reality.
  
  I already explained. That mono has not reached a large volume of the usable apps at this point doesn't diminish the threat. It's like a small network of thugs. Yes, the situation is not critical at this point in time, but the steps are being taken by them so that tomorrow the situation is critical.
  
  >> If Novell were to disappear today, I can almost guarantee you that I’d be planning a migration to Windows Server, Exchange, and Active Directory. Migrating to a 100% Microsoft environment would be a train I can not stop. There are no proper alternatives, unfortunately. I suspect most “Novell admins” are in the same boat.
  
  Any insight into why this is the case for you? Clearly many high powered and low powered users find Linux sufficient, or, surely, for much more than 0%. The needs you just mentioned aren't typical.
  
  Microsoft is after Novell's customers (embraced Novell), so I definitely expect there to be Microsoft advocates on this and other sites looking for opportunities to suggest as you just did, that the only real option to Novell is 100% Microsoft.
  
  Any reason why you think your hand would be forced into 100% Microsoft? Your case might offer lessons to, eg, people that have grown to depend on closed source locked in systems.
  
  And if you make your needs known, open products will come around that will not try to tie you back into the closed products ..at least if you are willing to change protocols. The first step to free from lock-in is not to upgrade further with the lock-in vendor.
  
  Wait... how much Windows are you using now?
  
  In this day and age, moving to a 100% Microsoft solution (locked) makes very little sense, especially if you aren't currently locked in.
  
  The trend is to open and away from costly and inflexible lock-in.
  
  Tiemann is correct here, though Asay seems to me to possibly be confused (and creating excuses for Microsoft): http://www.linuxtoday.com/it_management/2009021902435OPCYDV

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-02-20 00:27:40

  Ian,
  
  Microsoft is not immune to collapse, either, so it's not a safe bet (especially given the stubborn lock-in). Ask Ballmer who said something along those lines in October when he lobbied for bailout.

• Ian

  2009-02-20 14:37:00

  Jose,
  
  My main issue with (open)suse is that it helps Novell. This would be the case even if they dropped mono. There would still be MS centricity because of Novell’s close relationship with Microsoft (including selling their customers on the value of MS products). If you help opensuse you are helping Novell (and Microsoft) more than if you help (eg) debian or fedora. Novell is very MS centric in their push, whether or not they sponsor a distro. In short, I shun opensuse to the extent it gives preference to MS centric technologies (like mono) AND is a Novell asset.
  
  I won't tell you to think otherwise. I merely thought calling Opensuse MS centric was somewhat misleading, even taking Novell's relationship with Microsoft into account and given the overall Mono entrenchment as it relates to the entirety of the distro. Or in other words, people work hard on Opensuse and I see mono as a minority of their efforts.
  
  Any insight into why this is the case for you?
  
  This is an area I'm more comfortable with. Keep in mind this isn't an exercise I've sat down and really done my complete due diligence as far as alternatives and pricing.
  
  Our data center is a mixed environment. I use SLES where ever practicable for things such as our website, smtp server(groupwise internet agent), spam filter, and groupwise webaccess. We use Netware primarily for network storage, groupwise domains and post offices, print services, dhcp services, dns, and edirectory replication. We use windows servers for our financial and student accounting along with a windows box for our backups and virus scanner deployment. The applications on the windows servers do not have proper alternatives on Linux, unfortunately. I'll get into the virus scanner shortly The plan moving forward is to migrate the Netware services over to OES on Linux. I've already begun phasing out Netware for some periphery services on SLES such as those I listed above.
  
  The real issue is the workstations. The educational software that we use on the desktop in large part dictates that we use Windows. Some of the web based tools that we use require IE6, which means Windows(although this is becoming less of an issue over time thanks to Firefox and 3rd party developers getting away from the IE only mentality). A large part of our computer related education is centered on MS Office. I'm not even sure if you can get textbooks for Open-Office.
  
  Seeing as we're jammed up on Windows, we need to be able to manage those Windows workstations from the server room out. We're running the virus scanner I mentioned above, and a centrally managed solution on Windows seems to often be tied to the domain/Active Directory. Aside from Zenworks, I'm not aware of any tool outside of Microsoft that will allow us to remotely manage workstations via policies. The only other viable option that I can see is Windows Server. In terms of a directory service, which is a must have, is there anything else available that wouldn't require custom scheme extensions and serious hand holding to do the job that eDirectory or even *shudder* Active Directory does right out of the box?
  
  On the collaboration front, there's some wiggle room there. For the students, I can get away with using a product that only sports a web based front end. However, for the employees, we need to run a rich client with all the bells and whistles. Other than GroupWise and Exchange the only other option, that I know of, is Lotus Notes/Domino. From what I've been able to gather, that's a pain train I don't think I want any part of! :) You also have to consider 3rd party integrations such as Blackberry's BES server which doesn't support anything other than the big three I believe.
  
  I'm sure free solutions could fill in some of the gaps, if Novell disappeared into a black hole, but I believe there would have to be a hefty amount of customization to get most of the functionality needed. Also, heaven forbid I were to have a piano fall on my head from the sky, it's more likely you can find someone who understands Microsoft technologies than Linux.
  
  I try to deploy free solutions where ever practicable, but it's not always practicable for our situation, unfortunately. As far as associated cost goes, I can't answer that or address it honestly without licensing fee quotes, migration costs, maintenance costs and so on.
  
  Hope this explains a bit of the environment I'm in and some of my thinking.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-02-20 14:49:29

  Ian,
  
  For collaboration, see some of the applications assembled here as a list. With a bit of effort, it's likely that you can customise a solution.

• Jose_X

  2009-02-22 22:15:18

  >> it’s more likely you can find someone who understands Microsoft technologies than Linux.
  
  There are a lot of cases where you can find more people that can do X, but that is hardly a reason to hire those people or not re-train those you have. You should have noticed that in many respects Linux is similar enough to Windows, for example. It is much much cheaper to license yearly and per user, however.
  
  Most people that know Linux also know Windows decently and likely are above average among their peers in technical know-how. To know Linux is like the next step above learning Windows. That's how it was for me and many others have gone through that same transition. Ultimately, when you learn to tap into Linux' unique points (unique wrt closed proprietary software), it is very difficult to go back.
  
  You are aware, as well, I am sure, of cases where people migrated to Linux and learned a few new tricks and saved a lot of money, right?
  
  People are trained on the job on new and different technologies all the time in all industries, presumably in order to improve something [investments].
  
  I think more today than in the past at any point in time, more people can handle themselves with Linux acceptably (and they may not even realize this if they haven't tried Linux recently). Yet, "hand-holding" is not a sin. In fact, it's encouraged to the degree it's necessary.
  
  Besides no licensing costs, Linux' transparency implies many positives that Microsoft's products can't match.
  
  Your spiel did help, but there are obviously many many details missing.
  
  The main point I was making is that there are many people that have succeeded with Linux significantly. Linux is not marketed nearly the way proprietary solutions are. It's also negatively marketed by these proprietary competitors.
  
  Even Microsoft is moving to Linux in various ways. Google certainly loves it, as do many others. Etc.

• Ian

  2009-02-23 01:14:28

  Jose,
  
  You don't need to tell me the benefits of Linux. I use it where ever I can. Unfortunately, for the reasons I listed above, I can't always get away with it.
  
  Also, using a commercial Linux solution does cost money. Red Hat and Novell both charge money for their enterprise server offerings. Does it cost as much as Windows Server? Probably not.
  
  Finally, what details are missing? If I can't support product X on Linux then I can't support product X on Linux. What you don't understand is that the people support these operating systems and related software aren't always the ones making the decision to use product X or product Y.

• Jose_X

  2009-02-23 02:00:43

  >> You don’t need to tell me the benefits of Linux. I use it where ever I can.
  
  Well, we might have different standards. It's not as if all companies in the same market are mirror images of each other. For example, some would not invest in MSware (maybe they discovered Linux long ago) or else they stop continuing deployments and investments in MSware as soon as they hear about Linux (FOSS) and sample it.
  
  I really doubt you value Linux as much as I do. I actually can't stand to work in an MS environment (except doing work tangential to IT). I also can't stand coding for proprietary software houses. I couldn't possibly feel I was being fair to customers, and I couldn't stand to have others leverage whatever I coded to be used against customers when you can in fact develop advanced code working in FOSS fashion.
  
  >> Also, using a commercial Linux solution does cost money.
  
  You know that the focus of the payments there is for support, not the software.
  
  You like the support, pay. You don't like the support, don't pay. The licensing is zero for the software and can be gotten and used for $0 (the very same software packaged by Red Hat). You have the source code, so you don't need the vendor if you don't like their support. Your data won't be locked in.
  
  >> Finally, what details are missing?
  
  You must be kidding.
  
  I'd love for a consultant to come visit your shop and be forced to find cost-effective smart solutions for you based on the comment you wrote up on this thread.
  
  No, I don't expect you to go into detail here, perhaps to protect company secrets or because you lack such knowledge, but to wonder what details are missing is a...
  
  You were joking, right?
  
  >> What you don’t understand is that the people support these operating systems and related software aren’t always the ones making the decision to use product X or product Y.
  
  In other words, I would be making the sales pitch to your boss.
  
  Sure, that makes sense. Clearly, if the boss insists on using a specific product that is closed source, then it's pretty tough to find a replacement.
  
  OTOH, if they are willing to substitute for comparable functionality (to gain other benefits), then your answer above doesn't apply, since, in that case, you would not have the product dictated to you but simply the need.
  
  So I am puzzled by this response from you.

• Jose_X

  2009-02-23 02:10:44

  >> You don’t need to tell me the benefits of Linux. I use it where ever I can. ... >> > I couldn’t possibly feel I was being fair to customers, and I couldn’t stand to have others leverage whatever I coded
  
  To add..
  
  A more general reason is that I can't possibly imagine trading my ability to access, for all time, however I want, the code I wrote.. in exchange for some dollars when clearly there are other models of payment possible.
  
  I do not seek out Linux employment, but if I were going to do a part-time job developing software or supporting it, it would have to be for FOSS or something every much like it (or at least not working against it).
  
  I am describing my personal views. I don't pretend they are shared widely. What I feel fairly sure about is that we (Ian and I) don't see vendor lock-in the same way. We don't see the values of Linux the same way.

• Ian

  2009-02-23 03:09:02

  Jose,
  
  What the hell are you going on about? No, I'm not joking. Do you think having the source code means anything if you don't have the knowledge base or talent to do anything with it? Sure, Google can support their own free software because they have an enormous talent base to draw from. I work for a small School District and engineering talent isn't something that's readily available. I'm not a developer.
  
  I'm sure that whatever wonderful organization your work for has tons of developers ready to fix bugs at the drop of a hat, but unfortunately I can't get away with that. Not paying for support is not really an option. "Sorry boss, we can't process payroll because FinanceApp is kicking back some error" is not an option. Have you ever dealt with a scenario like that?
  
  No, I don’t expect you to go into detail here, perhaps to protect company secrets or because you lack such knowledge, but to wonder what details are missing is a…
  
  You were joking, right?
  
  I have no idea what you're asking or suggesting. But to clear something up, I don't work for a company and I don't have any secrets to protect because we're a public, not for profit, organization. Everything we do can be scrutinized, on TV to boot.
  
  Sure, that makes sense. Clearly, if the boss insists on using a specific product that is closed source, then it’s pretty tough to find a replacement.
  
  OTOH, if they are willing to substitute for comparable functionality (to gain other benefits), then your answer above doesn’t apply, since, in that case, you would not have the product dictated to you but simply the need.
  
  So I am puzzled by this response from you.
  
  Why do you assume there is always a free substitute? Care to point me to any free student management and financial systems that adhere to rapidly changing local state/province and federal changes in laws and tax forms? How about an email retention system that covers government mandates?
  
  To sum it up, sometimes you have to go with a proprietary vendor, and sometimes that proprietary vendor only supports Windows. I'm happy for you that you can work in an environment where you can support every piece of software you might have to run all by yourselves, but I don't have that luxury.

• Jose_X

  2009-02-23 03:10:24

  This story is a nice onehttp://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/interview_bringing_community_together_free_software . A person that wasn't a whiz in Linux took to it and decided to try to solve problems with it because of the low costs to experiment. Users did not really know the difference. End result: a satisfactory product at low cost and lower maintenance time/cost than with Windows.
  
  In terms of near-term issues for a business.. Linux will look and act almost the same as Windows at least to the degree people write their custom apps with it in mind (eg, web apps). [GUIs can be made to look and behave almost identically to a Windows version.]
  
  The main difference is to admin and to developers accustomed to writing only with Microsoft's tools for any of Microsoft's closed platforms, but there are a ton of free software from which to borrow for use on Linux. There are many tools and approaches (for Linux) which do include some superior methods than what you find on Windows. In short, there is a learning curve, but it should be manageable. If you are admin/dev then presumably you make a little more money than the average employee and you are expected to be a little more competent around new technology.
  
  Tomorrow's generation is more likely to know and prefer Linux than those in the field today. For those starting off and having no emotional or professional attachment to Windows, Linux is a more natural choice of study because the capabilities are similar but it is more transparent, cheaper, is modifiable, etc.
  
  Yes it's true, you *can't* tap into the benefits of Linux+FOSS if you only or mostly know Windows. [Some will claim they know Linux, of course.]

• Ian

  2009-02-23 03:17:44

  That's a nice story. If I was in his position I would have gone with Linux as well.
  
  But, is your post solely directed at me?

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-02-23 03:28:28

  Jose_X: That's all great and wonderful but it doesn't help Ian *at all*.
  
  And unfortunately, it's not likely that *anyone* in the FLOSS community will ever write the software that Ian needs. For Ian to be able to switch, it'll require that the software companies that *do* make the software Ian needs decide to add support for Linux. That doesn't even necessarily mean that the software will be FLOSS either.
  
  You guys seem to think that the only software that businesses/organizations need are mail servers and office suites.

• Ian

  2009-02-23 03:38:01

  For Ian to be able to switch, it’ll require that the software companies that *do* make the software Ian needs decide to add support for Linux. That doesn’t even necessarily mean that the software will be FLOSS either.
  
  This is pretty much dead on. If I can have software product X run equally on Windows or Linux, I'll take Linux. That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not I can get it to run on Linux. There isn't always a *free* alternative regardless of the platform it runs on.

• Jose_X

  2009-02-23 03:39:17

  >> Why do you assume there is always a free substitute?
  
  Ian, I didn't imply that every problem has a solution that will work for everyone. You started this by saying that if you didn't have Novell, you'd go 100% Microsoft. ["If Novell were to disappear today, I can almost guarantee you that I’d be planning a migration to Windows Server, Exchange, and Active Directory. Migrating to a 100% Microsoft environment would be a train I can not stop...I suspect most “Novell admins” are in the same boat. "] This is a far cry from "Why do you assume there is always a free substitute?"
  
  I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. I've gotten the impression you've gone from talking as if likely there are no non-100% Windows alternatives for any Novell admin (if Novell goes bust), to now essentially saying that, in your particular case, you don't know how to replace some components with Linux versions.
  
  I don't admin. It's difficult for me to get into specifics without getting more info about what just makes the product you use be so wonderful. Then I'd have to research to see what part of that already exists and what parts don't. Have you called up Red Hat or asked about their partners to compare prices and offerings? Red Hat is a FOSS company. Novell is still vastly a closed source company.
  
  >> Not paying for support is not really an option.
  
  In general, picking and choosing what gets supported and to what degree is something most customers would consider a good thing.
  
  If you pay for support, then you can judge on support. When you pay for both support and licenses, you likely pay more and or get shoddy support you can't avoid because you have a package reduced cost deal (license+support).
  
  >> I have no idea what you’re asking or suggesting.
  
  You didn't name specific applications (except in some case), needs, pricing, network setup, staff details, existing contract terms, user details, etc. You were missing many details. That's what I meant. If someone was going to see if they could help you, they'd want to know more.
  
  That's not to say that over the course of this discussion you haven't given important info to get started. If I were more aware of products I would have suggested more (Roy provided a particular link that might have been useful).
  
  Honestly, what got me upset was what appeared to me to be inaccurate generalizing about Linux. Many people use Linux and have limited expertise.
  
  Consider getting a second opinion from someone that works in this industry and specializes in FOSS. [I don't work in any IT-related field. This is pure hobby for me.]

• Ian

  2009-02-23 04:13:38

  I’m sorry if I misunderstood you. I’ve gotten the impression you’ve gone from talking as if likely there are no non-100% Windows alternatives for any Novell admin (if Novell goes bust), to now essentially saying that, in your particular case, you don’t know how to replace some components with Linux versions.
  
  It's really more along the lines of me not being able to replace some components with free options(on windows or linux) rather than not knowing how to replace those components.
  
  In general, picking and choosing what gets supported and to what degree is something most customers would consider a good thing.
  
  No argument. I didn't explain it in any depth, but we don't pay for support on any of our Microsoft licensed products because we've never ran into an instance where we have needed it. We pay for support on our mission critical apps.
  
  Honestly, what got me upset was what appeared to me to be inaccurate generalizing about Linux. Many people use Linux and have limited expertise.
  
  I wasn't talking about users, I was talking about supporting the environment. Nobody who has limited expertise with any platform, Linux or Windows or Solaris or whatever can properly support that environment.