Well I am not going to turn this into a politics disscussion but here is
somethings
that is needing some clearing up with Corporate Execs.
1. Not tested ---- Hum , N.A.S.A. , Burlington Coat factory , AT&T ,
Boeing AirCraft , Raytheon , Verizons , and Home Depot use
Linux. These are Multibillion dollar companys. Burlington Coat Factory,
and Home Depot are doing Sales , Inventory , and Networking all on Linux.
In fact Home Depot just dumped over $10,000,000,00 into Linux based system
because Microsoft could not come up with a solution that would work for
them.
2, New?--- While the advances is not new Linux has already been around
for a long time. It is now starting to show companys that they can make
a sucessfull bussiness model with it. Also note that most popular
applications are porting to Linux, S.A.P. and Oracle. These are two
very high standard Database companys who are industry standard.
S.A.P. will be only supporting Linux in less then 1 and a half years.
3. Security oh boy. Just today on ZDnet the oh mighty Microsoft has yet
another security flaw with IIS. Every version of IE, Windows , or Windows
products has been found with a security flaw. In fact you can research this
by going to any search engin and typing the product name and security.
4. Cost of training well this is with any new technology. For instance. at
my
work we have Novell engineers who blasted Microsoft all the time.
Well they dd not know the product. Then they were told hey you have to learn
Microsoft well they had to be trained. So this does not hold water.
5. Most of the Internet Servers run Linux with Apache.
6. Security - if you are not root most time you can not damage a system,
also security patches are out in hours not days weeks and months.
7. Development- applications come out in months versus years.
MS-Side of the Coin that most take who are non-Linux Users.
1. The name has gotten big cause of their marketing tactics. Thus most
feel safe with their products cause they are familiar with that name.
2. Most software that you see retail is Written for their platform.
3. They feel it is a breeze to use and easy to get productive in the
shortest time.
Thus the ole desktop. The wonderfull world of point click.
4. They can get training in more locations.
5. Most systems sold come with Microsoft WIndows. This is again because of a
marketing stradegy.
6. Microsoft offers alot of solutions support.
7. Only Microsoft makes Windows. So there for they claim it is not
fragmented.
You see you can go back and foward. As for not being ready for the desktop I
have to say that
that depends on what you call ready. If you start out only using Linux not a
problem. Same holds the
same with any Os. You can ask Robin 'ROBLIMO" Miller and Tina you can work
and use Linux.
Ed can say this his Wife fianlly agreed to change to Linux.
While I still have to use Windows for Work to run the apps we have at home
and learn with I have to use it.
Other wise if we had a Linux solution in place or they would let me use it I
could perform my same task
that I do every day.
It is a hard sell so I will say this in short come to our show on the 30th
and 31st. So that way they can see the
strong points while Microsoft is showing off Office Xp.
-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Hires <rhires@earthlink.net>
To: slug@nks.net <slug@nks.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 9:17 PM
Subject: [SLUG] Linux vs FUD
>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 - 18:26:57 EDT