NT & Linux

[mikebw at bilow.bilow.uu.ids.net (Mike Bilow)]

Peter Breton wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:

 PB> Only half-true. NT's competition is with Unix as an application 
 PB> server,  and Netware as a file and print server. (Yes, we know 
 PB> that people use  Unix to do those things also, but commercially 
 PB> Netware rules this domain,  followed by NT).

 PB> I myself don't see NT and Linux as direct competitors, in that 
 PB> they  usually do not occupy the same ecological niche. Linux is 
 PB> the premiere  "hacker's OS" in a world where freeware rules, NT 
 PB> 4 will be the  commercial OS of choice, for at least 
 PB> small-to-medium LANs, and probably enterprise-level soon as 
 PB> well. Many people who run Linux would never run NT  because it 
 PB> is commercial, and many people who run NT would never consider  
 PB> Linux because it is free.

I deal with this stuff professionally.  I can tell you what determines these
purchasing decisions, in rough order of priority.  Please understand that I am
stating this as a reflection of the conventional wisdom, not necessarily that I
agree with these statements.

1. Unix is hard to administer.  You have to be a real propeller-head.

2. NetWare is hard to administer.  You have to be a Certified NetWare Engineer.

3. We already know how to run Windows, so we must know how to run NT.

With almost absolute correlation, the desire of a business to adopt NT is
inversely proportional to the technical qualifications of the people making the
decision.  The big attraction of NT to them is that they think they will be
less in the thrall of the propeller-heads and certified engineers.

It is very rare that I hear technical grounds for an NT migration, and people
are often willing to accept significant hardware and software costs to get what
they think of as ease of administration.
 
-- Mike