| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Questar offers Linux-loaded Dell PCs in Europe | |
|
||
| Time: 09:16 EST/14:16 GMT | News Source: The Times Online | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim | ||
|
A line of Dell Inc. desktop computers running a version of the Linux operating system will be sold in Europe by a reseller, broadening alternative offerings to Microsoft Corp.'s ubiquitous Windows software. The computers being sold online by Questar of Milan, Italy, will ship with Lindows Inc.'s Linspire operating system -- in English- or Italian-language versions -- and will receive Dell technical support, Questar said Tuesday. Dell operates a technical-support call center in Twin Falls. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 311 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:17:20 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/7/2004 5:06:01 PM |
|
#6 - Oh this is another Robertson scam.
Ohwell... nothing to see here, move along kids. |
| #2 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 7/7/2004 5:47:11 PM |
| Doughnut's conspiracy theory is fine and dandy, but he fails to link Robertson with the Questar deal. Pretty lame theory when you can't say that Robertson is behind the deal. Just another ad hominem attack on Robertson. |
| #3 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 7/8/2004 4:46:54 AM |
|
About Dell...and the Linuces....don't do it - not even on servers. #6 id dead-on right!
Ok, I run four certified Dell Red Hat AS Servers in production - three 4400's and one 6600. A client in our center has a dev team that is far more familiar with the Unices and therefore the FS, I/O and commands found in the Linuces. Fine, we run them and admin them from the command line with X-Services shutdown [SSH yadah...yadah...]. Because they are production systems and the client has contracts that require a lot of ticking and tieing...we have both paid RHN updates [$3410.00 per year folks], and Gold level service and support from Dell [also costly]. The 3410 is for any hope at all over critical updates and a must have source of verified packages - hundreds of them! Same is true for Orcale 9i on one of them - more money. Here's where Dell falls flat - totally. Over the last two years, and due to critical firmware updates....Dell has dispatched their "Certified Linux Techs." "Start Sweating!" Not once has the Dell tech done a thing....they simply do not know how...and they come scared to death. In all cases, we just did it for them and they watched - usually really nice, older gents who just don't do enough of it. Now the rest of this fun little story....in many cases, such firmware updates impact drives [read 8 in a RAID 10 Array] and device drivers...so even though it all goes just hunky...plan on booting to Single-User-Mode and waiting for a long, long time to do a FS Integrity Check and then re-indexing your DB instances and a whole ton of other fun to hit in the CLI kind of stuff! Now, while pretty easy stuff to do? Yup - no sweat. Free? Are you nutty? Cheaper that Windows Server 2003? Not a chance? The bottom line is this - if done right - and just like with any OS in any enterprise, "It must be" and it is inspected, checked and held to account...it will have subscriptions; it will have support contracts on file and it will cost...a bucket-load. And who pays? "I do!" for what? Zip from Dell that is for sure! So, Linuces on the Desktop and supported by an OEM? Opposite a toy monolithic OS inspired by a 27 year old and shelved OS, and ultimately a copy of an OS [Minix] that was at most, an experiment....? We have lost our ever-loving minds! I mean experiment, do what you want - most cool, but do not ever try and tell me it costs less or is more productive - I am the cat on 4 hour conference calls reviewing "Patch Proliferation" policies and Root Level Password use control measures with guys that will demand it is at least as expensive as any commmercial Unices. Please folks, do not buy into anything short of facts. On the desktop....lord of mercy help us. And FreeBSD/Darwin? Keep moving... At least there is Windows services for Unix - so at least UAGENT for BrightStor will run and BU the Orahome1 Dir on the 6600 - added because Dell and its certified Linuces still can write fast enough to a local LTO unit...we all need to look at the ground under us. Sorry to go on, but I have lost a ton trying to support a very bad idea that was forced upon us. |
| #4 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 7/8/2004 11:10:14 PM |
|
Yes #14, trust me on this...we admin the bee-jeebers out of these boxes - I just did a restoration of about 2 years of transactional data to re-load it for additional analysis.
The issue is this...the Linuces may be free for casual users; however, in the enterprise and under contracts with the world's larger companies, one has to have hardware contracts, and support agreements on file. No matter how useless they may be. The same is true of a credible source of patches and bug fixes - hence the RHN subscriptions, which are also on file - and dern costly...$3410.00 USD Per Year. With Dell, whose hardware is okay, the support one can expect when running a Linuces that the support will be ineffective - expensive paper. Now, in addition to these conditions, multi-part surveys, SAS-70 Evaluation Results, and personnel certifications, work histories and often penetrating on-site examinations are conducted. Regularly, I have to show the exact commands issued to harden a custom installation of a Linuces. It is not free, guys and it's not cheaper or better than Windows Server 2003. It may be some day, but that day is not today and I am the guy doing a lot of the work and signing the checks that cover the operating costs. Unless my CFO is full of pond-water, the Linuces systems are far more costly and much less monetized. We work in both major development camps, too - and yes, I am very biased in favor of .NET. The reasons are many, but it simply allows us to do more, more quckly and for much less. The clients seem to respond to this, because we can be more responsive, and charge less. While I certainly want to see increased competition and better products from all, I still have to look at my people and be dead certain I can provide for them and their continued growth. I can't do that as well opposite the Linuces, or even the largest OEM's seeking to support them. Now, on the other side of this coin is Microsoft - as a Microsoft Partner, I can share that they are truly helpful, very respectful and they really get involved. We see and benefit from real support that translates into great solutions for our clients. Believe me, if it were not true, I'd post like mad in here - hoping they'd hear me and do something about it. Thanks for the ear. |
| #5 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 7/9/2004 3:11:12 PM |
|
Yes, and while true technically the business continuity and assurance sections of the contracts entered into, do require the agreements and procedures I've shared.
Every contract and client I have dealt with has required this as a matter of policy. Perhaps not all providers, or all clients out there may specifically state so, but in our case, they have and do - consistently, requirements have increased and uncontrolled, public access of unverified patches and updates without a source of governance is not allowed. Further, no matter how simply worded - a simple PO, for example, is a contract under the law. Even the simplest of contracts/PO's and even those that do not carry direct articles, do carry implied articles. This means that it is assumed that professionals will conform to implied standards and increasing standards as they become relevant - yes, we have to go through legal review as well and that is re-visited regularly. I know the inclination is to assume that these measures are unique, but frankly, the absence of them would be unique. Other businesses do not have to comply, but they will find it very hard to secure the required approval of the supported clients' IT/MIS and legal departments' staff. What I mean opposite Dell Support Contracts for Hardware when using a Linuces is that no matter what it says, the level of support is not there. I have not seen one technician, despite their arriving with the part(s) be able to perform the tasks assigned. To date, and in each case, we have had to do it for them - even though the liability was Dell's. Even opposite hard and clear component defects, only the hardware is warranted and they have been unable to support that when running a Linuces. We do it for them. So, I assess the value of the support contract to be zero (0) - aside from satisfying the contract requirements to have such an agreement in place. Finally, the very nature of the OSS Community does not satisfy the business community's requirement to define where liability is assigned. Commercial enterprises may take that risk on for themselves, but they cannot by virtue of providing a service, extend that risk to another party w/o their knowledge or consent. This position is how our supported client legal teams conclude the discussion - not me - I just adhere to their standards. Commercial enterprises want to know that a responsible party is there to access, contact and hold to account for patches which are distributed. Despite free and open sources, which may be as or even more effective, there is no means of resolution. This is why for control systems, for example, we use SCO Unix [ATT Open System V], not because it is any better, but because someone is identified as being a source of governance. While interesting, OSS is not consistent with our laws opposite our right to own property - this is not just an argument that favors Microsoft - nor should it suggest some bias...it does mean that companies "buy" things - what they "buy" they want to own and treat as property, which is exposed to both legal and accounting treatment. You are quite correct about all you say; however, opposite the delivery of service to commercial enterprises, I am sharing the realities we face each day. It is very tough, too - we carry a lot of costs for doing it in conformance to these conditions and when all people tend to think of immediate price only, it is tough as heck to compete - despite doing it better, or more completely, "or" at least appearing to...and that is just as important in business, because people want to know who to call, and have some assurance of consistency. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 311 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:17:21 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
