Re: How To Abandon Microsoft

tomstdenis@gmail.com wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>Hugo writes:
>>
>>
>>>Just wait untill you have a few hours without much of a workload, and give
>>>the instruction; no exactly hard ...
>>
>>Sounds like you've never had 40,000 desktops to upgrade worldwide.
>
>
> If you have 40,000 desktops that must all be live and mission
> critical... then you have a lot of thinking about past mistakes.
>
> If they're just say, oh I don't know, work stations then you upgrade
> one department at a time. Keep cross-platform tools up e.g. samba
> shares for instance and go on your way.
>
>
>>Upgrades can take many months in production environments.
>
>
> Because you don't have enough staff. That's like saying it could take
> a month to clean an entire 60,000 sq.ft complex ... if you only have
> one janitor.
>
>
>>>You must run a LOT of old out of date software then.
>>
>>No. I just have actual experience running large and small computer
>>systems and networks in real production environments.
>
>
> Running windows? Yeah no wonders you're so negative.
>
>
>>>I work in the the telecommunications / carrier industry, in our industry
>>>upgrade is essential for production environments.
>>
>>Upgrades are essential at some point in every production environment.
>>But you do not perform them if they are not essential, and you spend a
>>tremendous amount of time testing them and rolling them out when they
>>are. Telecommunications is a special flavor of production
>>environment, so the rules are slightly different in the details, but
>>the same principle applies.
>
>
> Granted and agreed. You don't need to update boxes for trivial fixes.
> Though a careful [clonable] design lets you get away with quite a bit.
>
>
>>>But what sort of person would run a single user operating system in a
>>>network environment?
>>
>>A single-user OS makes sense on the desktop, even in a network
>>environment.
>
>
> Spoken like a true Windows pre-NT advocate.
>
> single-user does NOT make sense. Think "user" + "root".
>
>
>>>In Microsoft systems a end user can change the operating system itself,
>>>just load some program or virus and suddenly the machine is destroying
>>>data or some such nonsense ...
>>
>>Not when the machine is locked down. NT-based operating systems can
>>be tightly secured.
>
>
> And this is through ... MULTIPLE USERS.

No through User *ACCOUNTS*.

Users are apes with two arms. Most modern computers only have one user.

An administrator account that allows the loading of software and a
network administrator account that allows a centralised administrator to
remotely upgrade the computer are very useful.

Note home users need the ability to load games from normal accounts.

Andrew Swallow
Received on Thu Sep 29 21:58:01 2005