Dimdows Mentality In A Linux World

So Symantec has released a Linux version of its “Backup Exec System
Recovery� product <http://lwn.net/Articles/360221/>. Big bloody deal.
They’re still thinking in terms of features that are hard to do in the
Windows world, but Linux already deals with as a matter of course:

* “Bare-metal� restore. Can already do that, just boot up with a Live CD/DVD
and you have the full power of a full OS to hand, with all its file-
manipulation tools, scripting tools, network stack etc, as opposed to some
some proprietary vendor’s limited toolset.
* “... new support for backing up and restoring entire server images
including operating system or individual files from Red Hat or SUSE Linux
servers won't be generally available until December�. But who cares? I can
already do this. The OS is already just a bunch of files, that I can backup
and restore individually using standard file-manipulation tools provided by
the OS itself. There is no complicated, fragile “Registry� to baby-sit, no
deep filesystem voodoo involved that only an elaborate image backup/restore
can safely handle; it Just Works.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> So Symantec has released a Linux version of its “Backup Exec System
> Recovery� product <http://lwn.net/Articles/360221/>. Big bloody deal.
> They’re still thinking in terms of features that are hard to do in the
> Windows world, but Linux already deals with as a matter of course:
>
> * “Bare-metal� restore. Can already do that, just boot up with a Live CD/DVD
> and you have the full power of a full OS to hand, with all its file-
> manipulation tools, scripting tools, network stack etc, as opposed to some
> some proprietary vendor’s limited toolset.
> * “... new support for backing up and restoring entire server images
> including operating system or individual files from Red Hat or SUSE Linux
> servers won't be generally available until December�. But who cares? I can
> already do this. The OS is already just a bunch of files, that I can backup
> and restore individually using standard file-manipulation tools provided by
> the OS itself. There is no complicated, fragile “Registry� to baby-sit, no
> deep filesystem voodoo involved that only an elaborate image backup/restore
> can safely handle; it Just Works.

As usual you're just convincing those of us who can *choose* to use
Linux not to make that choice.

It suits us to use one backup product throughout the datacenter, with
one central server running the backup tasks and writing the data to one
tape robot. It also suits us to be able to shut the auditors up by
saying "We have the <insert name of choice here> back agents and system
recovery product deployed across all the servers".

It suits us not to have to justify ourselves to some member of
manglement who has read some piece of FUD put about by trolling linux
sealots like yourself. Given that the FUD never stops, we find it
easier to just ignore linux as a platform. For example we have just
migrated a database from MySQL/Linux to MSSQL/Windows. Sure, the
licensing has cost a bit, but the reduction in external bullshit we have
to put with more than justifies the expense.

EMB

In message <hctmvc$f33$>, EMB wrote:

> As usual you're just convincing those of us who can *choose* to use
> Linux not to make that choice.

I’m not here to convince anybody.

> It also suits us to be able to shut the auditors up by
> saying "We have the <insert name of choice here> back agents and system
> recovery product deployed across all the servers".

Ahh, now we’re getting to the real reason for buying such a useless product:
it’s because a bunch of PHBs further up in the pecking order than you have
been preconditioned with kneejerk brand-recognition reflexes that you have
to pander to in order to maintain your job security.

It’s all about big corporations selling to other big corporations. People
seem to think big corporations are really important in the world, but in
fact they only account for a minority of world GDP. The backbone of the
world economy is small businesses, not big ones.

The only thing big businesses account for a majority of is business news
headlines. It’s all a big corpora-wank, really.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:14:50 +1300, EMB wrote:


<snip of larrys troll bait>

>
> As usual you're just convincing those of us who can *choose* to use
> Linux not to make that choice.
>
> It suits us to use one backup product throughout the datacenter, with
> one central server running the backup tasks and writing the data to one
> tape robot. It also suits us to be able to shut the auditors up by
> saying "We have the <insert name of choice here> back agents and system
> recovery product deployed across all the servers".
>
> It suits us not to have to justify ourselves to some member of
> manglement who has read some piece of FUD put about by trolling linux
> sealots like yourself. Given that the FUD never stops, we find it
> easier to just ignore linux as a platform. For example we have just
> migrated a database from MySQL/Linux to MSSQL/Windows. Sure, the
> licensing has cost a bit, but the reduction in external bullshit we have
> to put with more than justifies the expense.

Is that trend of moving to microsoft solutions fairly wide spread here in
NZ emb ?


Biggles..

BigglesZz

On Nov 6, 2:26*am, BigglesZz <n...@nowhere.co.co.nz> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:14:50 +1300, EMB wrote:
>
> <snip of larrys troll bait>
>
>
>
>
>
> > As usual you're just convincing those of us who can *choose* to use
> > Linux not to make that choice.
>
> > It suits us to use one backup product throughout the datacenter, with
> > one central server running the backup tasks and writing the data to one
> > tape robot. *It also suits us to be able to shut the auditors up by
> > saying "We have the <insert name of choice here> back agents and system
> > recovery product deployed across all the servers".
>
> > It suits us not to have to justify ourselves to some member of
> > manglement who has read some piece of FUD put about by trolling linux
> > sealots like yourself. *Given that the FUD never stops, we find it
> > easier to just ignore linux as a platform. *For example we have just
> > migrated a database from MySQL/Linux to MSSQL/Windows. *Sure, the
> > licensing has cost a bit, but the reduction in external bullshit we have
> > to put with more than justifies the expense.
>
> Is that trend of moving to microsoft solutions fairly wide spread here in
> NZ emb ?
>
> Biggles..

I wouldnt think so....our trend is (slightly) to Linux....on Vmware
ESXi in fact just about everyting goes on ESX (240 guests and
counting)...we'd do more but lack the Linux staff..

Ive used mysql and like it, but I have MS SQL for the virtual control
centre(s) and SQL is pretty easy to do...however we pay peanuts for a
MS SQL licence, a few hundred $ per CPU...which nakes the cost uplift
from Mysql negligable.

The area to watch is how Govn (if it does) moves to OSS now MS's
overall licence is no more....

regards

Thing

thingy

On Nov 5, 6:14*pm, EMB <emb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> > So Symantec has released a Linux version of its “Backup Exec System
> > Recovery” product <http://lwn.net/Articles/360221/>. Big bloody deal.
> > They’re still thinking in terms of features that are hard to do in the
> > Windows world, but Linux already deals with as a matter of course:
>
> > * “Bare-metal” restore. Can already do that, just boot up with a Live CD/DVD
> > and you have the full power of a full OS to hand, with all its file-
> > manipulation tools, scripting tools, network stack etc, as opposed to some
> > some proprietary vendor’s limited toolset.
> > * “... new support for backing up and restoring entire server images
> > including operating system or individual files from Red Hat or SUSE Linux
> > servers won't be generally available until December”. But who cares? I can
> > already do this. The OS is already just a bunch of files, that I can backup
> > and restore individually using standard file-manipulation tools provided by
> > the OS itself. There is no complicated, fragile “Registry” to baby-sit, no
> > deep filesystem voodoo involved that only an elaborate image backup/restore
> > can safely handle; it Just Works.
>
> As usual you're just convincing those of us who can *choose* to use
> Linux not to make that choice.
>
> It suits us to use one backup product throughout the datacenter, with
> one central server running the backup tasks and writing the data to one
> tape robot. *It also suits us to be able to shut the auditors up by
> saying "We have the <insert name of choice here> back agents and system
> recovery product deployed across all the servers".
>
> It suits us not to have to justify ourselves to some member of
> manglement who has read some piece of FUD put about by trolling linux
> sealots like yourself. *Given that the FUD never stops, we find it
> easier to just ignore linux as a platform. *For example we have just
> migrated a database from MySQL/Linux to MSSQL/Windows. *Sure, the
> licensing has cost a bit, but the reduction in external bullshit we have
> to put with more than justifies the expense.

One of my clients is moving off MS and SQLServer to IBM iSeries and
DB2-400! That's my two biggest customers now on that platform now. So
I'm swimming against the tide a bit having moved from mainly *nix to
mainly MS to mainly iSeries (but they all run windows clients). 10
years ago if you asked me if I would be using a 5250 green screen on
an IBM mid range box I would have laughed out loud.

But the really surprising thing is the cost savings these customers
are achieving by switching to these gold plated 400kg servers. I'm
always urging other suitable clients to consider this move.

Hoodathunkit?

JohnO

EMB wrote:
>
> For example we have just migrated a database from MySQL/Linux to
> MSSQL/Windows. Sure, the licensing has cost a bit, but the reduction
> in external bullshit we have to put with more than justifies the
> expense.
>
What do you mean?

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.

Enkidu

Enkidu wrote:
> EMB wrote:
>>
>> For example we have just migrated a database from MySQL/Linux to
>> MSSQL/Windows. Sure, the licensing has cost a bit, but the reduction
>> in external bullshit we have to put with more than justifies the
>> expense.
>>
> What do you mean?

The auditors understand and *like* MS environments and seem somewhat
allergic to linux. They also like seeing one backup solution applied
across the enterprise. I don't necessarily agree, but if it means I
have a quiet life an everything runs smoothly I'm unlikely to rock the boat.

EMB

In message <hd0ucc$9s7$>, EMB wrote:

> The auditors understand and *like* MS environments and seem somewhat
> allergic to linux. They also like seeing one backup solution applied
> across the enterprise.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <hd0ucc$9s7$>, EMB wrote:
>
>> The auditors understand and *like* MS environments and seem somewhat
>> allergic to linux. They also like seeing one backup solution applied
>> across the enterprise.
>
> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

That's a very good point. However the decisions about auditors are made
at a level above the IS manager so all we (the IS department) can do is
meet the audit requirements in a cost effective and efficient manner.

EMB