Re: IT and UNIX

[Paul Ingels <ingelsp@initco.net>]

  Please visit the following site:
  http://www.aberdeen.com/secure/onsite/case1/body.htm
  This is on a Fortune 100 company's server and talks about the nightmares
  of switching to NT.  50% increase in department funding, more servers
  while less users, 1/3 increase in trouble tickets..... I could go on, but
  like I said, this is posted on the company server, on a fortune 100
  company that was forced (management) to switch to NT.  All this "it's
  cheaper" talk is disputed almost directly by this post.
  
  Besides, what is this switch from UNIX to NT.  That is like going from the
  top of the line to the bottom.  What happened to OS/2 and Novell.  Both
  are much better then NT.  NT 5.0 (due out in about 2 years) will finally
  catch up to Novell 4.11, but where will Novell be by then!
  
  Paul
  
  David Dunn wrote:
  > 
  > Mark Hinds wrote:
  > >
  > > Corporate wide the plan is to dump UNIX servers and get latched up with
  > > NT servers. The necessity of doing this is unclear to me. The process
  > > of changing ordinary people over from Win31/pcnfs to WinNT/SMB/Wins
  > > has been very costly and disruptive. The drive seems to have come
  > > from above.
  > >
  > 
  > Here's some theories on why they may be doing it:
  > 
  > 1) It's tremendously easier to find NT administrators than UNIX
  > administrators.  If you can't find them you can train them to
  > reasonable proficiency in about a week - contrast that with what
  > it takes to get someone proficient at supporting a UNIX system.
  > 
  > 2) NT administrators cost a lot less than UNIX administrators.
  > 
  > 3) It takes more time to support a UNIX box than an NT box (my
  > estimate is about 2x the amount of time and that's probably being
  > generous to UNiX).  Granted, the UNIX box can handle more load so,
  > theoretically, you need less of them.  But the reality of most
  > of today's corporate compute environments is that systems become
  > application centric with each system servicing one application
  > (i.e. one database server for your accounting package, one for
  > your human resource package, etc.) so whether your using UNIX
  > or NT you end up with the same number of systems (just more excess
  > bandwidth on the UNIX side).
  > 
  > 4) The Win31/pcnfs to WinNT/SMB/Wins switch is probably also being
  > made to cut support costs.  We've seen as much as 2x decrease in the
  > cost of client support in some customer environments with the move to
  > Win95/WinNT from a Win31/nfs environment.
  > 
  > The bottom line is costs.  If there is no compelling reason to
  > stick with UNIX for a given application or service, then it's
  > cheaper to switch to NT.
  > 
  > Of course, there is absolutely no technical reason why a strain
  > of UNIX cannot be developed that would be just as easy to use
  > and support as NT.  But UNIX system vendors and system developers (a
  > group which I was a part of for the first 8 years of my career)
  > spend so much time working on creating technological superiority
  > in certain areas (i.e. extremely fast database performance,
  > configurability to the nth degree, etc.) that they often forget to make
  > the stuff usable by the average administrator.  Even when they
  > do try to "dumb-down" the adminstration of their OS, they rarely
  > get it right (I've got no good theories as to why).
  > 
  > David
  > 
  > --
  > David Dunn                      | Email: david.dunn@vc3.com
  > VC3, Inc.                       | URL:   http://www.vc3.com
  > 712 Richland St. Suite F.       | Phone: (803) 733-7333
  > Columbia, SC 29201              | Fax: (803) 733-5888