[aklug] Fwd: Re: MS wipes out Linux installation for savings

From: Robert Crowe <crowe.robert@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Jan 20 2009 - 12:18:06 AKST

Yeah? Well this little tidbit will probably left out of the M$ fud report:
Newstradamus Reports: Navy Nailed By
Virus<http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/newstradamus-reports-navy-nailed-virus>January
19th, 2009
A few weeks ago, *Breaking News* brought *LinuxJournal.com* readers an
unusual story, entitled "The Blue Screen of Megadeath," which we described
as "scar[ing] the living daylights out of us." The story revealed that, in
an effort to cut costs, all submarines of the UK's Royal Navy ¯ including
her four *Vanguard*-class subs armed with some 4,800 kilotons of nuclear
weapons each ¯ had been fitted with a stripped-down version of Windows
XP<http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/blue-screen-megadeath>.
Now, just weeks later, fresh news out of the Admiralty suggests we were more
on target ¯ no pun intended ¯ than even we knew.

We would be fibbing if we denied that we here at Breaking News are prone to
a bit of hyperbole ¯ quite a lot, even ¯ but the story of the
blue-screen-boom-boom-boats drew more than a few chuckles from our readers.
We were prepared to admit that perhaps our crystal ball had a crack or two
in it, until this morning, when we ran across an item out of Portsmouth,
Hampshire (UK) ¯ a traditional stronghold for the Senior Service and home to
such distinguished naval relics as HMS *Victory*, Lord Nelson's flagship.
According to Portsmouth's *The News*, the Royal Navy ¯ the same one we were
assured was safe with Windows ¯ has come down with a virus, leaving up to
75% of the Navy's ships with crippled
communications<http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Chaos-for-navy-as-virus.4879984.jp>
.

Click the title to read the rest.

I know everyone-especially those who administer Window$ knows about all the
supposed strengths and weaknesses. To put a system in place over something
that has such mission critical criteria knowing those strengths and
weaknesses only reinforces my opinion that M$ has created a culture of
sheeple. Even scarier than the FUD being shoved down our throat is the State
and Federal agencies embrace such a seriously defective O$.
My hope is our IT guys come to their senses when it comes time to overhaul
the State and Federal mainframes. Granted Windows 7 is still beta but it
looks like it still has some of Vista$ fallacies firmly in place-so their
may come a day of reckoning anyway.

Yeah? Well this little tidbit will probably left out of the M$ fud report:

Newstradamus Reports: Navy Nailed By
Virus<http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/newstradamus-reports-navy-nailed-virus>January
19th, 2009
A few weeks ago, *Breaking News* brought *LinuxJournal.com* readers an
unusual story, entitled "The Blue Screen of Megadeath," which we described
as "scar[ing] the living daylights out of us." The story revealed that, in
an effort to cut costs, all submarines of the UK's Royal Navy ¯ including
her four *Vanguard*-class subs armed with some 4,800 kilotons of nuclear
weapons each ¯ had been fitted with a stripped-down version of Windows
XP<http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/blue-screen-megadeath>.
Now, just weeks later, fresh news out of the Admiralty suggests we were more
on target ¯ no pun intended ¯ than even we knew.

We would be fibbing if we denied that we here at Breaking News are prone to
a bit of hyperbole ¯ quite a lot, even ¯ but the story of the
blue-screen-boom-boom-boats drew more than a few chuckles from our readers.
We were prepared to admit that perhaps our crystal ball had a crack or two
in it, until this morning, when we ran across an item out of Portsmouth,
Hampshire (UK) ¯ a traditional stronghold for the Senior Service and home to
such distinguished naval relics as HMS *Victory*, Lord Nelson's flagship.
According to Portsmouth's *The News*, the Royal Navy ¯ the same one we were
assured was safe with Windows ¯ has come down with a virus, leaving up to
75% of the Navy's ships with crippled
communications<http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Chaos-for-navy-as-virus.4879984.jp>
.

Click the title to read the rest.

I know everyone-especially those who administer Window$ knows about all the
supposed strengths and weaknesses. To put a system in place over something
that has such mission critical criteria knowing those strengths and
weaknesses only reinforces my opinion that M$ has created a culture of
sheeple. Even scarier than the FUD being shoved down our throat is the State
and Federal agencies embrace such a seriously defective O$.

My hope is our IT guys come to their senses when it comes time to overhaul
the State and Federal mainframes. Granted Windows 7 is still beta but it
looks like it still has some of Vista$ fallacies firmly in place-so their
may come a day of reckoning anyway.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Arthur Corliss
<acorliss@nevaeh-linux.org>wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009, James Tweet wrote:
>
> > Ok, where should I begin. Let's start with the article's author. Did
> anyone=
> > else look at his profile? He is "Originally a Math/Physics graduate who
> co=
> > uldn't cut it in his own field." From reading this article I think it
> was =
> > the math that gave him problems. To properly write an article like this
> you=
> > should have a degree in finance, business or accounting.
>
> Eh? That's like saying you shouldn't have an opinion on anything you don't
> have a degree in. Hell, I'd never speak again. Hold on... I think I just
> gave everyone here incentive to by in on that line of thinking. <G>
>
> > =0A=0AArticle Quot=
> > e:=0A"As far as I know the only way to make sense of this is to assume
> that=
> > =0Ait took at least eight more people to run the 30 Linux servers than
> it=
> > =0Adoes to run the 12 Windows ones -after all the money didn=E2=80=99t go
> f=
> > or=0Areinvestment, it didn=E2=80=99t go for hardware, third party
> support, =
> > or=0Asoftware, so what else is left?=0A"=0A=0AI can easily see how 8
> people=
> > would be needed to run 30 Linux servers. There would be 2 people per
> shift=
> > just to deal with any problems on the Linux servers or network. Then you
> w=
> > ould have a manager and an assistant manager. That would constitute the
> e-c=
> > ommerce department.=0A=0AArticle Quote:=0A"As they found out, however,
> Linu=
> > x isn=E2=80=99t Windows and changing to Linux on a one to one OS
> replaceme=
> > nt basis only because it=E2=80=99s cheaper is about as dumb as it
> gets."=0A=
> > =0AIf you can't replace Windows machines on a one for one basis. Then
> Linux=
> > will never be a major competitor to Microsoft, period. =0A=0AIf using
> Linu=
> > x would require a major infrastructure change in most I.T. departments.
> The=
> > n most I.T. managers would not opt for a Linux solution.=0A=0AJames
>
> Eh (Part II)? But he's right. Linux can certainly provide long term
> savings, but your costs don't drop as soon as you overwrite a Windows
> partition with a Linux partition. Linux expertise is more expensive than
> Windows expertise, hands down. Unless you're real loose with your
> definition of expertise, and since we've included Windows in this, perhaps
> I'll have to concede that point. But the fact is that in general that more
> expensive expertise gains you not only that knowledge, but a significant
> increase in employee production, meaning that one Linux/UNIX admin can
> typically manage many more servers than a Windows admin can.
>
> On top of that, Linux provides savings by extending the life of your
> hardware. But we're not talking by factors of a magnitude, in my practice
> only by about 60%. So, that server lasts two more years, perhaps. You
> still have to wait until *after* the normal lifespan expires before you see
> any real savings.
>
> I could go on, but this is the simple truth: regardless of what platform
> you're going to or from, you will almost *never* see instant savings for
> infrastructure *replacement*. In fact, the transition usually costs you a
> pretty penny *above* normal operating costs, but you get to amortize that
> over the lifespan of your platform and contract lifespans. With the
> lowered
> *future* operational costs you can end up ahead. But not out of the gate.
> And that's where the math of the case study is severely
> ethically-challenged
> and misleading. It presents the numbers as if you can make a clean,
> zero-cost break from one platform to another. And to that I say bull
> puckey.
>
> Now, you can make a case for one-for-one benefits when you're talking about
> new infrastructure, but then that isn't remotely what the basis of this
> case
> study was about.
>
> That said, all the assertions that Paul makes are reasonable assertions.
> The server "consolidation" is really a red herring, since the same
> consolidation could have easily been achieved by upgrading the existing
> platform's hardware running Linux, since they're comparing computing
> capactiies that are magnitudes different. That alone wipes out the
> majority
> of the cost savings. The remainder is easily eliminated as well once you
> factor in OS licensing and uptime availability *if* you're comparing the
> latest generation of MS software to the latest Linux.
>
> The point Paul ulimately was trying to make, which perhaps could have been
> made better, is that Linux itself isn't a panacea. If you're going to
> chart
> a course into unknown an unfamiliar waters with no plan you're going to
> shoot yourself in the foot. It doesn't matter what the numbers say on the
> paper.
>
> End sum: Linux can be done poorly, and for the wrong reasons, and it can
> cost you. It's not the fault of Linux (normally), but the fault of
> non-planning PHBs who don't know the right way to implement new/different
> technology. And those morons gave MS the opportunity to spin the facts to
> make an inferior product look good.
>
> --Arthur Corliss
> Live Free or Die
> ---------
> To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
> with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
>
>

-- 
ØÖ!
"Listen to me! When you die in Alaska you die in real life!"
"Change before you have to"
"If you want to build a ship
don't herd people together to collect wood
and don't assign them tasks and work,
but rather teach them to long for the
endless immensity of the sea."
Antoine-Marie-Roger de Saint-Exupery
Powered by Ubuntu Studio 8.10 encrypted sda Ultra fast and lean-never phear
the Penguin ;)
-- 
ØÖ!
"Listen to me! When you die in Alaska you die in real life!"
"Change before you have to"
"If you want to build a ship
don't herd people together to collect wood
and don't assign them tasks and work,
but rather teach them to long for the
endless immensity of the sea."
Antoine-Marie-Roger de Saint-Exupery
Powered by Ubuntu Studio 8.10 encrypted sda Ultra fast and lean-never phear
the Penguin ;)
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Tue Jan 20 12:18:21 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 20 2009 - 12:18:22 AKST