Re: IT and UNIX

[Michael Katz <MKATZ@novell.com>]

  It is obvious that Microsoft's efforts to control the browser are a thinly
  veiled effort to control the lucrative server market.  Many of these
  discussions have centered around NT vs. Unix and the application server
  battle.  There is another important battle for the network infrastructure
  and network services.
  
  Microsoft markets that NT is easy to administer and highly scalable, but the
  fact is that domains do not scale, especially with respect to critical
  network services (file, security, messaging, etc.).  I am not doing a
  commercial here, but Novell Directory Services is a cross platform directory
  service for NetWare, HP-UX, SCO UnixWare, OpenLinux, (and soon NT, AIX,
  S/390, and others) that offers true scalability.  Check the following
  document for a throroughly researched discussion of what it takes to manage
  NT as a network and network services platform:
  
  http://www.novell.com/corp/offices/wash_dc.us/info/downloads/gonovell.pdf
  
  Check this site to read about the fun Microsoft is having "eating their own
  dog food" with NT and Exchange:
  http://www.upside.com/texis/features/companies?UID=97110110014
  
  For all of the OS/2 fans out there, here is an interesting article about
  what happened to the technical staff when non-technical executives blindly
  mandated an NT migration:
  http://www.aberdeen.com/secure/onsite/case1/body.htm
  
  I am participating in this forum as an interested individual in the IT
  community.
  
  Michael Katz
  
  >>> David Dunn <david.dunn@vc3.com> 11/07/97 09:31AM >>>
  There were a several emails countering my suggestion that NT
  is easier to support.  Since everyone (including me) seems to
  be basing their claims on personal experience there is really no
  winning this argument.  I have no doubt that there have been
  efficient UNIX environments set up that have a low overhead.
  We have UNIX servers in my company and at our customer sites
  (all of which run a mixed-mode environment) that take little to
  no overhead so I completely believe some of the claims made.
  However, the nubmers I gave in my original response reflect
  our experiences and I stand by them.  I do not think that
  my company is alone in these experiences.
  
  On the salary issues: some people pointed out that I was incorrect
  in my statements about relative costs between NT and UNIX
  administrators.  I found this interesting.  I guess one point I
  should make is that we don't user MSCE's to admin NT.  We find it
  to be such a no brainer for most NT admin tasks (such as
  install and update of OS and spplications) that I can't justify
  paying for all of the training it takes to pass the silly tests
  to get the certification.  That said, it generally costs my
  company less for NT talent than UNIX talent.
  
  David
  
  Hans Reiser wrote:
  > 
  > Unix, especially Solaris, scales better than NT.
  > It takes less time to support 100 of them than 100 NTs, and when you get
  to
  > 10000 of
  > them....
  > 
  > Hans
  > 
  > David Dunn wrote: 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).
  
  -- 
  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