UNIX v Win2k

[David Michaels]

Barry Margolin wrote:
> 
> In article <abo42v$ffks$1 at isrv4.isc.org>,
> Anthony Atkielski <anthony at freebie.atkielski.com> wrote:
> >This being so, why are you considering a migration in the first place?
> >
> >Unless you need server functionality that is _specific_ to Windows 2000 AND

Windows didn't invent named or any other significant Internet program.
So I don't really see this.

> >you cannot keep both the UNIX system and the Windows 2000 system, why
> >migrate your DNS at all?  No need to fix something that isn't broken!
> 
> What about personnel functionality? 

Personally, I find Unix much more flexible and functional.  Running a
wizard to set up a network is a real pain. They try so hard to make it
easy it just becomes confuseing
 

> Many sites only have Windows system
> administrators, and no Unix sysadmins.

Windows System admins are cheaper- all it requires is MCSE (must consult
someone else) instead of College. But still you get what you pay for.

> Legacy Unix servers are OK as long
> as they continue to work, but as soon as they break or need to be modified,
> there's nobody competent to do it.  I've had to talk customers through
> modifying their BIND configurations, and we're lucky if they know how to us
> "vi" enough to perform the editing.

Perhaps you should be given a remote acount so you can correct their
files for them. Might be easier than trying to explain it plus you can
obviously charge.

> 
> It may not be broken now, but I think that companies that think ahead are
> being prudent.

Prudent by using a propriery product run by monopolist. Prudent by
paying thousands of dollars for licensing? Prudent by hiring MCSE
instead of people that know whats going on? 

Microsoft could be wipped out in a relativly short time provided the
right virus or a new function in unix that provides for the a killer
app. Hopefully a app that they won't be able to steal the way they did
Java