>I think they're insane. It cost me out-of-pocket ZERO dollars for the operating system ... I just downloaded the images from the LinuxISO site overnight and burned them the next day. Yes, it has taken me a couple of days to get the thing going but I'm working here anyway and I would have had to spend the same amount of time (or more!) working on a Windows box so the time is not an issue. I can already tell that the performance of the database apps on the SAMBA share is MUCH faster than the NT 4 box!!! Now, if I had a big network, I would use something like Norton GHOST to replicate the configured hard drive images to a CD and then I could go around and install the complete Linux image in a few minutes on each computer. I'd have to make some tweaks to change the machine name each time, so add a couple more minutes each.

We use Norton Ghost to backup our SuSE 6.4 production box. Works great. But, SuSE has up 24/7 for 18 months and has not crashed once and we haven't lost any data, so the Ghost hasn't been needed... Believe it or not, tar-ing to a second disk is a nice backup method too.


>
>Another thing that needs to be taken into account is the complexity actually introduced by the Windows API itself. On what menu choice is the necessary option located? It can take more time traversing a GUI than typing a command.

As Linux distros become more newbie friendly that is becoming a KDE and GNOME problem too.


>Once you get the hang of Unix-like commands, it's like greased lightning. I'm just totally tripping over the performance of my new SAMBA server. The only drawback is that your average mental midget "networking expert" can't do it, so you need someone who can do more than run a graphical installation wizard, but Linux has that, too!

There's always a HOWTO somewhere close by! ;-)

>
>And lets face the facts: WHY WASTE PROCESSOR CYCLES RUNNING A GUI IF THE SERVER IS SITTING IN A CLOSET OR RACK?

So a GUI drone can bring it up and take it down, and click some other buttons? ;-)

>
>I now have a server running an OS that cost nil and -- as evidenced by the performance of the database -- it's running circles around the NT 4 server for which we paid several thousand dollars to get the OS and license packs.
>
>If only I could spend the same amount of money I just saved for a party, I'd be pretty darn popular!
>
>But it doesn't stop there.
>
>I pointed a browser at the new machine's IP and the Apache server came right up to the default page and it just works likity split ... I seem to recall it was a booger getting IIS going on the NT box and after we got it installed, ASP was broke. Seems if you install IIS from the NT CD that is already in the drive from installing NT you will install ASP version 3 which is broke. You have to take the NT CD out and install IIS from the companion CD if you want to get version 4 of ASP which works.

And, if your NT was connected to the web it is like dropping your draws and hanging your backside out a window for anyone to do anything they please to it.

>
>Apache ... free ... and it works.
>IIS ... doesn't work. Vulnerable to attack. Hmmm ...decisions, decisions.

Some are very hard to make, arn't they? Chocolate or vanilla? Blue tie or red tie ;-)
Others have become drop dead easy: WinXX or Linux.

>
>I haven't EVEN had time yet to mess with mySQL, but I will ... and just how much does Microsoft SQL Server cost, anyway?

I haven't kept up with MS app prices for a long time. But, a recent article in The Linux Journal shows how to use GPL Perl scripts to create an interface to MS SQL Server from a Linux box, if you have to.


>
>I can understand why people might spend money for a desktop OS that is easy for users to operate. I don't want to mess with that anyway. Just let the users be able to run the programs I write and they can have whatever desktop OS they want.
>
>Sorry for blabbing but I am just astounded when these people talk about the cost of Linux. I think they're brain dead.
>
>But that's just my OPINION... ;)


And mine.