Hi,
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Ian O'Connell wrote:
> Despite the extreme unpopularity of Tim's view, for the average
> scenario he's quite correct, and in all my systems which came
> pre-installed with windows that partition is re-sized down and left
> alone. Given the amount of software/companies in the world who insist
> on Microsoft its the sensible option to have it to hand. Its just as
> bad to be a linux zealot as a Microsoft one.
Nobody gets tagged a Microsoft zealot for not having linux installed and
ready to go at any moment, I don't see why not having windows makes you a
linux zealot. Actually, I don't think I've ever heard anyone called a
Microsoft zealot, the word zealot only seems to get used in the other
direction. Perhaps it's only deserved by linux people?
> If a service engineer comes and installs his dsl do you really want to
> have to that conversation on linux?
Personally I would, though I can imagine others might not and that's up to
them. Every ISP that I know of can be used from linux (or mac, solaris,
etc. for that matter).
Why would an ISP ever consider investing the slightest time on any other
operating system or avoid creating a dependency on windows if experience
shows them that "everyone always has windows anyway".
> to take an example of ones i've encountered :
> 1) NTL installation , guy was required to test setup, required a
> windows machine to do that, he had no idea how to do anything on
> linux. Was i going to argue with him ? why bother?
That's strange, I've had two NTL lines set up, configured and tested using
Linux. Apparently some web-based config tool runs on their modems. I made
a point of telling them in advance that I needed an ethernet modem to avoid
needing windows, which I don't have. There was never even a question of
windows -- bizarrely, one NTL engineer complimented my girlfriend on using
linux, he'd "heard it was very good".
> 2) Eircom business DSL installations, similar.
They don't use ethernet modem/routers with web-based configs any more?
> Whether its right or not is irrelevant, 99% of the worlds pc computers
> are running windows,
I think that's more like 90-92% but anyway.
> when it comes to on site technicians or dealing with phone support
> regarding hardware faults its only sensible if the machine came with
> windows then keep it about and don't go causing agro that benefits no
> one......
It's somewhat beside the point but I actually did this some time back. I
needed windows to run Irish Broadband's testing tool (which was actually
written in java, but very awkward to get working on linux[1]).
So, I plucked out a year-old Windows 2000 install on a laptop (this was
late 2005). I did indeed manage to get the tool started. Shortly
afterward, the laptop randomly rebooted. Huh? Of course, I hadn't been
patching it so it almost immediately fell victim to a worm. I don't regard
this as being Microsoft's fault either. If you keep an OS unbooted and
therefore unpatched for a long time and then put it on the internet, you're
liable to get in trouble. I learnt a similar lesson with RedHat 6.2 some
years ago.
Gavin
[1] http://www.hamilton.ie/gavinmc/ripwave/navini_diag.html
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
