Hey Everyone,
I had the opportunity to speak with one of the corporate IT guys (you
know, the one that just flew in from out of town, because he's so high
up in the corporation that he doesn't really have time be at the one
site all the time?) about a simple request: can I have a newsreader as
part of my MS Outlook so I can participate in the Linux discussion from
another, completely separate part of the corporation? Naturally, the
answer was no, but in the course of my conversation with him, he asked
me why do I want to be involved with something that is not my primary
function. I gave him the basic speel about Linux and Free software, and
how it's open source.
Somewhere in there he mentioned that being Open Source is actually a
security risk. He also said something about "rigor" when it comes to
dealing with security issues, and stability. Naturally, this is a guy
who could be my boss some day (or not, seeing as how he trusts all
mighty M$) so I didn't want to be too vigorous in my defense of Linux.
I'd like to have an honest appraisal of Linux from you guys and gals. I
saw that from his point of view Linux is untested, and new (even though
it's based on Unix, which paradoxically he was okay with). So, how
stable is Linux? How does that compare with NT? And the same thing for
security. Is there any rigorous testing process that goes on? And what
about cost? He mentioned that if Linux were to be deployed, there would
have to be a new person who would have to be responsible for the Linux
part of IT (but that's just the Big Company I work for). I know we've
been over this turf before, but a refresher is in order. I'd be
interested to see if anyone can take the side of M$ and defend
NT/2000/ME/98...
Thanks!
Russell
-----------------------
I don't care if you're going nowhere,
Just take good care of the world.
-- Depeche Mode
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:56:16 EDT