Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Heres a Challange

Last response: in Linux/Free BSD
Share
April 16, 2007 3:18:50 AM

Getting Linux to work on a Palm Tungsten C. Any ideas? Distros? Methods? If this works out, I could do an article...

More about : heres challange

April 16, 2007 5:27:50 PM

Yes, yes, thats it exactly. Muchos Gracias.
April 16, 2007 10:07:00 PM

Now I just have to overcome that feeling I get when I know I'm going to screw up expensive hardware...
Related resources
a b 5 Linux
April 16, 2007 10:30:08 PM

** Passes Geeky his penguin wings **
a b 5 Linux
April 25, 2007 9:58:06 PM

Here is the order of "rushes" I've seen in regards to OSS


    [*:4936f06ae6]Installing Linux and having it work on your home machine for the first time
    [*:4936f06ae6]Getting all of your hardware working under Linux(1)
    [*:4936f06ae6]Running into the first problem where you find the solution yourself online
    [*:4936f06ae6]Running into the first problem where you find the solution by checking your logs
    [*:4936f06ae6]Running into the first problem where you make the solution by writing a script/code
    [*:4936f06ae6]Giving back to an OSS project
    [*:4936f06ae6]Giving back to an OSS project and having your patch/code accepted
    [*:4936f06ae6]Writing a kernel module for your own purposes
    [*:4936f06ae6]Releasing the code for the above

    (1)The new distro releases have largely mitigated this issue, however there still are the occasional piece of hardware that need a little manual setup.

    I really do enjoy the community feeling here, good to see that while I was away things didn't go down the tubes, but then again I wasn't expecting them to either, the caliber of the group here really makes me enjoy coming on here and helping where I can.
a b 5 Linux
April 26, 2007 6:19:51 AM

Fine points, however I think that many of the points that I made cane be mirrored for Windows or Mac "power" users, and given the continually improving quality of releases and (as you stated) OEM support, I feel that, as in the Windows or Apple realm, there's an ability to avoid the levels discussed here unless you really want to delve into them.

Only my $.02
April 26, 2007 7:13:29 PM

I read through stuff on setting up Linux for things like this. People say we should use Linux instead.. and they have no background on it. I tell them to go ahead, install it at home and let me know when they have it fully working, figuring it will take them 5 days to get it working properly without having a clue what to do. :) 

I'm thankful Microsoft doesn't let you do this stuff with Windows. :)  Linux is great for people doing all these little projects, but think about it.. would you really want to work in an IT where people wanted all this crap? What if your CEO came down and said you have to do this to all upper management? Do you really want to sit there doing that tedious crap? :) 

For that, I am thankful for the limitations set forth by MS. I already hate all these small projects that users find and convince management they need.. its such a waste of my time. :roll:
April 27, 2007 2:17:01 PM

Ability is great, bu its limited in the business world unfortunately.
April 27, 2007 2:58:43 PM

Perfectly clear in what you state....

But mind you, you're buying Windows. As a business, I don't need to change select things. If I go into an agreement with MS, I can make those changes.

Microsoft is really basing their business on corporations and figuring home users are going to continue learning Windows and such at home.

I can't think of anything in Windows that I would like access and modify to better suit the demands of my company.. or even at home. If I want to change stupid little things like the Logo, eh.. Its a waste of time. By MS standards, changing that could be infringement on their business and might be a marketing trick or lying.. so reactivating makes business sense.

The guy who created SSL came out and said that businesses should not rely on Open Source because often the community screws up big time. I believe he said maybe 8 or 10 out of 100 Open Source programs submited to him, of the same thing, were worth working with as the others were heavily flawed.

The other thing he stated is that business driven software will be more reliable in a sense that a business is at stake. Whereas Open Source isn't business driven.

If Linux wants to take off, they need to package a well rounded system, remove the elite lines, create tools to remotely admin the desktop and lock it down, and form a business around it. It never makes sense to put this much effort into something that doesn't have a business behind it.

As least with MS, you know they will be releasing new products and trying to stay innovative because they have shareholders, etc. That's why MS is taking off, they've built a business around their software, whereas Linux doesn't have that business and Macs don't have the business because they're too proprietary.

Linux is too customizable in my opinion, whereas Macs you can't customize enough. Windows sits in the middle.

Now, based on my ignorance of Linux.. which I dread learning and supporting in all honesty.

I'm aware of Novell's step to help get Linux into a companies via a domain, but Novell died because it was tedious and expensive to implement.

If you're aware of Active Directory and Console1 with Novel, what does Linux have that would allow a single Administrator to handle 500 PCs remotely and very simply?

I'm not aware of any features like this with Linux.. which is a major downfall to companies using the system outside of 2 major factors:
1) Isolated use where a few machines are manually locked down for security
2) small companies trying to curb expenses, fly cheap.

MS has an excellent product to market towards companies, I wish Linux would go this route. I dread the day I have to work with Linux, Windows workstations and servers, email, etc.

Its becoming overwhelming and that I believe is another factor. Linux has a lot of elite stuff to learn. Its... hodgepodge at learning and relying on individuals and the community is not something most companies are willing to stake their investment and future business on.

Businesses strive by charing money.. and using that money to develop more software. I strongly believe that if Linux did this, they would be able to take a stronger market share.

As Linux's market share increases though, the demands of the software, technology, and business use will increase.

Overall, here is my main thought on Linux:
Linux's market share is directly driven by the amount of available open source community. Should Linux's market share grow, you would have to see a larger growth in open source community, which is unlikely. So, in theory, Linux's market share will only gain as the open source community expands exponentially.

Should Linux take a larger market share, business demands will increase ten fold and the open source community and any small business would not be able to effectively meet the demands of the market.

Thus, I truly believe that Linux needs to form as a business, charge for its product.

I'm not aware of a single open source program that has a large market share and is a staple of a business.. because the community can not support it.

Google for example runs Linux servers and desktops because its cheap to do and they do inhouse training. Awesome, right?

Wrong.

Google employs Linux developers to create what they need. They don't touch the Open Source Community (OSC) for what they need. They inhouse develop what they need. Sounds good.

But those developers are getting paid $80k and higher (Google is opening an office 45 minutes from my house and heavily marketing for Linux people which they're struggling to find in this area and my friend's boyfriend's sister has the cleaning contract for her business to clean the office).

Google is fronting the cost of the developers, whereas you would pay MS more money to develope a program for you.

Would you rather pay $400 for Vista, or would you rather pay a developer $80k a year for years to come to modify and create programs for your software?

In truth, start up costs with Linux are low, but over time it will become far more expensive to run than against Microsoft.

I can purchase 4000 OS licenses with software assurance for the next 3 years for $122k. After 3 years, the cost reduces to $41k over 3 years. I get all new software as it comes out, its created for me, I don't need to employ anyone to create this or troubleshoot as I have a business who is doing it for me.

While Linux may be extremely reliable.. Windows is reliable enough to do the same job just as effectively and at a lower long term operating cost.

That's my book. :p 
a b 5 Linux
April 27, 2007 5:26:09 PM

You mean your glad they have a product range that matches your ability :wink: Google show us that Linux CAN scale to the enterprise, they show us you CAN make innovative systems and products without limiting yourself to the solution one vendor pushes.

I really don't think you understand where Linux already is. I also don't think you understand just how much money companies spend on in house developers to tweak MS products or to tie them together in the way they really want. You will tweak SQL Server as much as MySQL. I have never had a 'complete' MS solution anywhere I worked, just a lot of frameworks we built on top off.

Windows took the home market by grabbing the workplace. Linux seems in some of the more recent distributions to be taking the fight the other way. More and more of my customers are using Linux at the edge of their networks and slowly creeping it toward other more traditionally Windows based roles.
April 27, 2007 5:56:47 PM

Everything I see for Linux domains mentions Samba and integrating into Windows Active Directory. Next generation Samba will have Active Directory support.

Still, you're in a mixed environment.. which is something I prefer to avoid.

But at this point, you don't have full control over a Linux box in a domain as you would in a Window environment.

I admit, I don't know much about Linux because the majority of my computer ability is based on working in large company networks with software that generally won't run on Linux.

We mention using Linux at work but it would be a headache trying to figure out where we can use it and where we can't as so many of our software vendors are only capable of providing for Windows platforms. There is no other competitors out there.

I much prefer the ability to lock down Windows in a domain and from what I see, isn't as easy or feasible currently with Linux. Thus, a major setback as Windows has had this feature since AD came about with 2000.
a b 5 Linux
April 27, 2007 7:13:42 PM

Everything is a file in Linux so everything has permissions. Everything is scriptable and you script to your hearts content. It is a different mindset and I can see arguments for the windows way of the world but the building blocks are all there. Linux works quite nicely as a network boot or with /home shares used in the same way as roving profiles, remote graphical connections are a breeze be they to Windows or Linux servers.

LDAP / Kerberos were both out there before Active Direcotry hit the streets. As you note SAMBA v4 wil greatly improve integration but the present solutions do support using Linux systems in service domains. If you want active directory then it makes sense to stick with MS as it's their baby, maybe if they were a bit more open we could build a better matching product...

Personally I think Linux is getting darn close. From an end user install point of view Ubuntu beats Vista and the single update system for ALL software on your system added via repositories is another area you could say is better. It depends how you look at it and what your priority is.
April 30, 2007 2:48:36 PM

Psst. It'll be here for a while. Read a paragraph a day. :)  I was bored at work. haha
April 30, 2007 2:53:05 PM

On my lack of knowledge with Linux: Assumption everything is Linux based, no MS OS, etc.

Can you publish/push software out via Linux as a domain server?

Does Linux have any compatible programs like SMS?

Can you publish printers to PCs via a central Linux Server?

Can you remotely remove a PC from a Linux domain?

How would you lock down 500 PCs from a Linux server?

Will a Linux Server track all your users and attached devices (computers, printers, etc.)


Those are a few benefits with Active Directory and group policies.. along with SMS which is an awesome program and reasonably priced I'd say compared to competitors software - Alteris.

Just curious because I never hear of anyone using Linux on the same scale of a MS network. I blindly believe its due to the fact that Linux itself is unable to do the same features of a MS network? Maybe you can provide me with some clarity on the matter. :) 
April 30, 2007 8:57:08 PM

Yes, they are. They're also heavily recruiting Linux administrators and developers in my area.

As my argument previously was, maybe in another thread, that Google is also fronting the cost of having their own developers and paying them well.

I know my company wouldn't want to pay a handful of people to develope software for our company to use. Google makes enough to be able to afford this, most other companies probably can't.

Take a company like a hospital. They generally use IBM mainframes and MS solutions because of the security required.

I don't believe Linux can do what MS can currently do for security and administration and ease of use.. unless someone can prove me wrong. :) 
May 1, 2007 5:00:42 AM

I know that for my own use, setting up a file/media server using linux (gentoo) was easy enough. A friend of mine even built an html application that allowed me to conveniently browse my media files. The media was streamed, often across platforms to Windows comptuers, using VLC.

Other friends of mine use linux boxes as routers/gateways/servers combinations. They generally have either XP or dual-boot systems on their networks.
May 2, 2007 8:54:09 PM

1) I haven't seen anything to support the claims of either OS being cheaper to run. I personally know that Google is spending a lot of money to maintain Linux servers. Server Admins are getting paid $75k, developers start off at $80k. This would be on par with a MS server admin or programmer I suppose.
To each their own though - MS markets their products and makes people aware of their options, whereas with Linux, if you need a product but don't already know about it, you have to research it and download it. Well, in reality, not a lot of people working in the field have time to go out researching little products.
In the end, productivity would factor in. Overall, I would say neither OS has a true Cost of Service factor that is a significant factor.

When you speak of unlimited Security with Linux.. here is where the issue stands.

MS isn't allowed to do certain things with their OS because it would infringe on other company rights. With Linux being free, that is helpful. But, Open Source software also will help someone learn the holes and get around it.

In all honesty, we probably won't know how secure Linux truly is until it has the sheer amount of people attempting to hack it like Microsoft does.

While you are supporting Linux, neither of us are able to easily answer a few questions I had about managing a network. That is a problem as I don't know if it will support my needs, whereas I know Windows will.

Does Linux support anything like RIS (Remote Installation Service) via PXE booting?
Does Linux have automatic update services, or anything like Windows SMS (Systems management software) where you can monitor individual computers, push out software, uninstall software, change settings, etc?

I don't believe it does.. Linux will be successful when combined with MS.. but then you start moving into more skilled technical workers, who will start costing more because they know multiple OSs, plus many other factors.

In my company, we can use Linux, but it doesn't make sense because a lot of our software doesn't work on it. But, the small cost that we pay for Microsoft products and the lack of training we have to do because of it.. really is a huge benefit to us.
a b 5 Linux
May 3, 2007 5:09:03 AM

My University has a few hundred machines, all Linux, that allow for at some measure of the features you discussed.

Often, I will show up and various software has been installed or updated (and sometimes the entire OS has been updated), this happens sometime overnight, so unless they have a squad of techs descend upon the machines to do all of them manually, there must be some mechanism for pushing out updates to all of the machines. I do not know what they use, but it must be something.

Each machine has a listing of printers around the department that is updated in real-ish time with current printer queue stats, this is likely a CUPS/SAMBA tag-team effort, but again I haven't bothered to look into how they do it.

There is some manner of centralized user/group control, as I know once I was added to a new group I was able to access a new tier of machines (simply group-based login permissions checking with a password backend)

As for your other points, I must admit I am not sure whether or not they exist, as I haven't looked into them/witnessed something like them in action.

All of that being said, for a relatively simple to administer deployment, I agree that many things that are available with AD make it very appealing and a good fit for many applications. There are other areas where I argue that a roll-out of Linux machines would be more beneficial (engineers using applications that are Unix-native, and there are a lot of them). It all comes down to using the right tool for the job (and being able to figure out what that best tool is in the first place).

My $.02
a b 5 Linux
May 3, 2007 6:04:10 AM

Greetings and salutations :-D

I better post this before someone else does :-D

http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/

direct link to PDF:

http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EMA_Levanta-Linux_RR....


A linux / BSD / Unix admin can manage 2-10+ times more servers than a windows admin.

A senior linux / BSD / Unix admin even more and a linux / BSD / Unix guru can probably manage servers in the thousands!


Linux absolutely supports PXE and network booting. In fact Linux / BSD / Unix have supported network booting for well over a decade!

Linux does support automatic updates and large scale remote management and software installation, removal, etc

In fact it is rather trivial for an admin with the correct tools to install / remove / manipulate software on thousands of servers in a matter of minutes.

Google has an estimated 450,000 or more servers running linux however it is estimated they have less than 500 administrators. Based on these estimates their admin to server ratio is 900 to 1 or even higher which is astounding.


A properly configured and managed Linux / BSD / Unix box can have better than military grade security ( B2 or higher ).

Linux with SELinux would probably qualify for B1 classification almost out of the box.

Consumer windows for many years had no security whatsoever while linux has always had C2 or better security.

Quote:

"There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory."


Keep in mind these are 2003 numbers.

I believe the numbers are approximately 80,000-120,000 for windows, about 100 of Mac, about 100 for Linux and about 5-10 for Unix as of 2007.

There is no such thing as perfect security however Unix and Unix like operating systems have a proven security record over the last 37 years or so.

Live long and prosper! :-D



Quote:
1) I haven't seen anything to support the claims of either OS being cheaper to run. I personally know that Google is spending a lot of money to maintain Linux servers. Server Admins are getting paid $75k, developers start off at $80k. This would be on par with a MS server admin or programmer I suppose.
To each their own though - MS markets their products and makes people aware of their options, whereas with Linux, if you need a product but don't already know about it, you have to research it and download it. Well, in reality, not a lot of people working in the field have time to go out researching little products.
In the end, productivity would factor in. Overall, I would say neither OS has a true Cost of Service factor that is a significant factor.

When you speak of unlimited Security with Linux.. here is where the issue stands.

MS isn't allowed to do certain things with their OS because it would infringe on other company rights. With Linux being free, that is helpful. But, Open Source software also will help someone learn the holes and get around it.

In all honesty, we probably won't know how secure Linux truly is until it has the sheer amount of people attempting to hack it like Microsoft does.

While you are supporting Linux, neither of us are able to easily answer a few questions I had about managing a network. That is a problem as I don't know if it will support my needs, whereas I know Windows will.

Does Linux support anything like RIS (Remote Installation Service) via PXE booting?
Does Linux have automatic update services, or anything like Windows SMS (Systems management software) where you can monitor individual computers, push out software, uninstall software, change settings, etc?

I don't believe it does.. Linux will be successful when combined with MS.. but then you start moving into more skilled technical workers, who will start costing more because they know multiple OSs, plus many other factors.

In my company, we can use Linux, but it doesn't make sense because a lot of our software doesn't work on it. But, the small cost that we pay for Microsoft products and the lack of training we have to do because of it.. really is a huge benefit to us.
a b 5 Linux
May 3, 2007 10:54:23 AM

Geeky_Byzantine :-D

Please be kind :-D

bmouring AudioVoodoo had great input as well :trophy: :trophy:

and knightrous and MU_Engineer in other threads :trophy: :trophy:

and everyone else I'm forgetting about -- you know who you are :trophy:


IMHO Linux, BSD, Unix and MacOS X are perfectly viable OSes. Do they have flaws? Hell yeah and so does every other OS but they definitely have some advantages over MS OSes.

The OSes above can match about 98% of what MS OSes can do except for windows games. That's a whole other can of worms there.

Semper Fi Carry^H^H^H^H^H Linux on :-D
a b 5 Linux
May 3, 2007 7:02:48 PM

I had actually typed up a reply earlier but it appears not to have posted. Nay mind I think you gave some more credible sources than my slightly sketchy experiences. I know Riser and I'm sure he will produce some MS data to conflict with the Linux studies :wink:

I think the Linux heads here agree that it is all possible. I think the point that I would make is that it is via different methodologies and even in some cases technologies. This really is a head game. I was once on an NT3.5 pilot project. We went live with the initial domain structure, non active type as this was 1995. I had great trouble in getting a bunch of seasoned VMS operators heads round the Windows way of doing things.

I think this is something the Linux world should take on board. If you have never seen PXE booting and shared file systems in action via the Unix/Linux ways then you won't know what they can do. Likewise we need to see what MS do and how we can suggest viable alternatives and show where our solutions are better. The other area to cover is interoperability and mixed environments. Linux is already great for some niche areas, making it play nice with the less able students has got to be an area for development.
May 7, 2007 7:48:04 PM

Good information. I will have to read up on it when I'm not at work..

But a single Windows Admin can administer thousands of servers as well. The last time I spoke with a true Microsoft administrator, they were on average administering 700-1500 servers per person.

My true question was if Linux supported these same features. You were able to provide that information to me somewhat.. but guess what? No one here knew what it was.

Put that business model around Linux and these features, package them together and it will take off. I don't have all day to sit around searching for a vague idea of what I want to do and hope to find it.
May 8, 2007 12:18:05 PM

Find me a man with a perfect OS, and I'll show you a man with his head in his ass.
May 8, 2007 8:29:56 PM

Okay that was too easy...
!