[Gllug] Voluntary work

[Bernard Peek]

In message <3FB4D245.3000509 at uncertainty.org.uk>, Sean Burlington 
<sean at uncertainty.org.uk> writes
>Bernard Peek wrote:
>> In message <p0521060cbbda4fd54ee5@[192.168.216.2]>, Gordon Joly 
>><gordon.joly at pobox.com> writes
>>
>
>>>
>>> Samba 3.x outperforms Windows Server 2003 by 50%, reported elsewhere.
>>   Yes, that's the sort of argument I was getting tired of. I 
>>understood  the argument and accepted that as a fact. It still didn't 
>>justify  putting in a Linux system.
>>  I had one web server. If I needed to add 50% more horsepower I could 
>>have installed Linux. Or I could buy another server. The cost of a new 
>>server was approximately the same as my daily charge-out rate. So if 
>>it  took me more than a day to learn and install Linux and copy the 
>>web-site  across then I couldn't justify it.
>
>I agree that simple performance may not always be a compelling argument 
>- but...
>
>a lot of MS stuff really doesn't work very well
>
>Notably Outlook/Exchange for email

I looked at Exchange and Outlook and decided that there were better 
options. I picked NTMail and Turnpike. Both very good at what they do, 
essentially bug-free, easy to run and bombproof. I rejected Exchange 
because of the support overheads and Outlook because of the security 
risks.

Facing the same decision again I might choose a Linux solution or 
Exchange and Outlook 2003. It's not a clear choice. Exchange and Outlook 
have fixed most of the problems.

>
>I certainly find Word harder to use than Open Office (even though I 
>have used Word more)
>
>FrontPage/IIS are just plain demented
>
>and yet these things are still popular

They are easy to use and get the job done.

>
>The really odd thing is that people seem to decide if they find 
>software easy to use within a few seconds of looking at it (maybe this 
>means KDE have the right approach)

That's true. There's enough commonality between Windows programs that 
experienced users can understand a new program by browsing through the 
menu options. It's quite reasonable for users to expect to learn a new 
program in minutes.

That background learning doesn't help as much when they first look at X 
applications. But now there are people who are starting with X 
applications under Linux and they find Windows applications confusing.

>
>and in my experience the maintenance of *nix systems is so much less 
>time consuming it's silly
>
>text config files mean the system is almost self documenting (compare 
>that to trying to keep word docs full of screen grabs)

I've never felt the need for screen grabs. Given that most Windows 
programs are themselves self-documenting I would only use a manual as a 
last resort. My opinion is that if a program can't be used without a 
manual then it's not good enough. It hasn't reached version 1.0 level.

>
>
>> In fact I went away and learned Linux on my own time. Installing a 
>>Linux  server didn't become economically viable until I had spent 
>>perhaps  £50,000 worth of my own time on it.
>>
>
>wow - you turned down 50k to learn linux - that's dedication !

No, that's what my time would have cost if I had been charging for it.


-- 
Bernard Peek
London, UK. DBA, Manager, Trainer & Author. Will work for money.


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug