> What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly > averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.
> If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.
> I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than > adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are > receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.
> i
I strongly agree with your last paragraph above. It generalizes to any large organization, because they have the economies of scale to learn to administer Linux efficiently and to finance the migration. Best is schools, as there is little or no data to migrate.
Advocate to the guy next to you for practice and support.
If you want things to change, advocate to the guy who has the power to change things.
On 2009-11-03, Ignoramus13931 <ignoramus13...@NOSPAM.13931.invalid> wrote:
> What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly > averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.
Many never were. Don't forget Unix was a major player long before M$ came along. Our company only dabbled in M$ networking when I was there. Not sure what happened after I left, but know many people who remained despised M$/Oracle in favor of the HP-UX environment that existed before the advent of PCs, which adapted quit nicely when they did appear. No doubt the big reel-to-reel mainframes have been replaced, but with what I don't know. Linux would be a shoe in. BTW, IBMs biggest cash cow remains their mainframes. I doubt anyone is running Windows on them and IBM is a major promoter of linux.
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:00:42 -0600, Ignoramus23290 wrote: > On 2009-11-04, smr <stevie.r...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> My post doesn't go quite full circle, my point is that companies that >> gradually adopt into Linux need to start with a single installation - >> "that first box". Eventually this leads to companies with a huge >> installed base of Linux that really like it but initially it's lots of >> machines running some other operating system and one running Linux.
> And what really helps is if there is someone at that company, who > knows Linux and wants to make it work.
> i
It helps if they are on the management side of the shop. The tech side has little influence and in management's eyes are "replaceable".
> Ignoramus13931 wrote: >> On 2009-11-03, Matt <m...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote: >>> Ignoramus13931 wrote: >>>> As Windows jobs decline 8% from the beginning of the year, Linux >>>> postings grew 6%.
>>>> What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly >>>> averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.
>>>> If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.
>>>> I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than >>>> adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are >>>> receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.
>>>> i
>>> I strongly agree with your last paragraph above. It generalizes to any >>> large organization, because they have the economies of scale to learn to >>> administer Linux efficiently and to finance the migration. Best is >>> schools, as there is little or no data to migrate.
>> Economies of scale is where Linux shows its excellence, as you can >> automate most system related things in Linux in a straightforward >> manner.
>> So you can have one Linux system admin who knows scripting, administer >> many more machines than a comparably intelligent Windows admin.
>>> Advocate to the guy next to you for practice and support.
>>> If you want things to change, advocate to the guy who has the power to >>> change things.
>> I think that what happens in corporations, such as some I have >> observed, that Linux appears and begins to metastacize,
> It attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it > touches.
Not as much as some think.
Example: I have a "DVR" at home. This is a video recorder box supplied to me by a satellite TV company. It is completely proprietary, at least as far as the video technology is concerned. (that is, they may have put up some trivial source code like busybox on their website, but not anything video related).
I had a hunch that it ran Linux. (because what else could it run)
The only way to find out that it was Linux based, was to open it up, take out the hard drive, and insert it into my Linux PC. Even then, the hard drive contained only data and not executables.
I believe that what the TV company did (provifing a DRMed product based on open source) was distasteful, but it probably did not violate any Linux intellectual property.
> When one organization adopts Linux (or about any technology for that > matter) the individuals in the organization become accustomed to it so > that when they go home for the day or move to a different organization, > they bring Linux with them.
William Poaster wrote: > Above the wailing & moaning of the trolls, Aragorn was heard to say:
>> On Wednesday 04 November 2009 21:20 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody >> identifying as dennis@home wrote...
>>> "Aragorn" <arag...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:hcrvkj$h1c$1@news.eternal-september.org... >>>> On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:25 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody >>>> identifying as dennis@home wrote...
>>>>> Of course there is another explanation.. >>>>> windows is getting easier to administer so you need less admin >>>>> staff. >>>>> Blame M$ for making it too easy. ;-)
>>>> This is true. Botnets are very easy to administer. You can control >>>> hundreds of thousands or even millions of Windows PCs from a single >>>> other Windows PC these days. <grin>
>>> Botnet controllers are usually hijacked unix/linux systems..
>> Actually, this is not true. The purpose of a UNIX(-like) machine in a >> botnet is usually to run either an official or a covert IRC server - >> i.e. in the event of a rooted UNIX box - so that the botnet members can >> communicate with eachother via an IRC client. I happen to have been >> running an IRC network for many years - it's currently down for >> technical reasons - and we've seen such botnet IRC clients come online >> and gather in a number of awkward channels, even spitting out weird >> messages. Of course, they don't need to do that, as they can use the >> simple "/PRIVMSG" protocol, but having them in a channel might make it >> easier for a controller to index them.
>> The software that controls the botnets is usually readily made and >> freely downloadable Windows software. That's how come the scr1pt >> k1ddi3s get to play with it as well.
>>> they are too important to be windows machines as the user might load >>> AV software or just turn them off.
>> The botnet controller is not a part of the botnet (although it may >> inadvertently be a member of another botnet). It is not a hijacked >> home or office PC. It's the black hat's own personal computer - >> generally a laptop with a wireless NIC so that he can make use of >> unprotected wireless LANs to gain access to the internet and remain >> untraceable himself - and so he's in charge of what gets installed >> there and what not.
> So dennis@home showing that is something else he knows nothing about, > botnets. What a surprise.
Well, knowing absolutely nothing about MD5 isn't his only goal, it seems. Although in that case he has succeeded just fine. He truly knows *nothing* about MD5 It seems he is now on to new frontiers. Why not botnets? It seems a worthy cause for MD5-dennis to know absolutely nothing about those, too -- Only two things are infinite, the Universe and Stupidity. And I'm not quite sure about the former. - Albert Einstein
|
