After reading several replies to Mark Smith's article "The Soul of Windows," I can't resist formulating my own theory about the reason Microsoft changed the marketing focus from systems administrators to top executives. This is what I think: As many of us agree, Microsoft didn't take market leadership because they offer better products. Was Windows 3.0 better than Macintosh? No. Was Windows NT Server better than Novell? No. The Microsoft products succeeded simply because they were less expensive.
Microsoft's target used to be systems administrators. Microsoft was trying to convince administrators that its programs were good enough to replace the market leaders but at much less cost for the enterprise*so, we could make the appropriate justification (i.e., the Return on Investment—ROI—argument) to the finance group. Let's face it: We don't have any decision power in the enterprise. Or do we? Can any admins implement any high-tech project (e.g., Storage Area Network—SAN, wireless) without the approval of the chief financial guy? Our job is to evaluate, recommend, and, if approved, implement. Microsoft understood the buying process very well and still does. Now that the company has taken the enterprise environment, it doesn't need the systems administrators any more to justify its programs. Now it can go directly to that financial guy. The reason Microsoft is scared by Linux and the open-source initiative is not that the programs could be better than Microsoft's but because implementing and maintaining them could be much less expensive than using Microsoft products.
Until one company demonstrates that it can live with open-source applications alone, Microsoft's dominance won't be threatened. But Microsoft doesn't want to wait for that day. What does that mean for systems administrators? Well, in the same way we brought Microsoft to the enterprise, we can get rid of Microsoft by justifying the cost of using alternatives to Microsoft products. I have to admit that this task is more difficult than it was in the early 1990s. But it's not impossible. Install a small network in your home, test the applications, extrapolate the results, and calculate the cost. You might be surprised!
—Ricardo Torres
ricktorr@prtc.net
Why Not Free Tools?
After reading Douglas Toombs's "Web Monitoring Solutions" (April 2003, http://www.winnetmag.com, InstantDoc 38276), I started noticing a consistent trend with the Windows community in general. The subject of free (or open-source) tools rarely makes its way into the articles. I realize that this is a Windows-based magazine. But I know firsthand that having a tool that does what Ipswitch's WhatsUp Gold does for free would be a great tool.
In addition to the tools that are listed in the article, you need to add Nagios (http://www.nagios.org). Yes, it runs on Linux, but in a small shop, any old hardware would be able to monitor everything. I monitor 400 servers with more than 1400 services. I need multi-tier escalations, the ability to log Help desk tickets, and the ability to launch scripts against the Windows boxes to repair failed services if necessary.
A few years ago, I worked in a small shop in which I was the only IT guy. I would have killed to have this tool. Our company had no money to spend on WhatsUp Gold or any other tool like it. I'm very interested in the open-source movement because it often offers excellent products that cost only the time that you invest implementing them. If there is a tool that is just as good as a commercial product, Windows & .NET Magazine should present it even if it runs on Linux.
—Andy Stein
andy@droidmcse.com
FASTFACT
60% of respondents to a recent Windows & .NET Magazine Instant Poll said they believed that Windows Server 2003 will be Microsoft's most secure OS to date. For the complete Instant Poll results, go to http://www.winnetmag.com/poll.
OOPS
In Ed Roth's "Windows XP's Advanced Networking Feature" (March 2003, http://winnetmag.com, InstantDoc ID 37939), the instructions to upgrade the .adm file on a Windows 2000 system, Step 3, state: "From the MMC Active Directory Users and Computers snap-in, right-click the DC to which you want to apply the new settings, then select Properties." The sentence should have read: " ... right-click the domain container to which you want to apply the new settings, then select Properties." We regret any inconvenience this error might have caused.
In Dustin Puryear's article "Apache 2.0 on Win2K" (April 2003, http://winnetmag.com, InstantDoc ID 38288), the author says that when installing Apache software you need to "first remove or disable any existing IIS installation." Is this a necessary step, and can Apache and Microsoft IIS coexist?
—Craig
craig@tasmail.com
End of Article
Prev. page
1
[2]
next page -->
