Perceptions of the Linux OS Among Undergraduate System Administrators

A look at the themes, myths and clangers reported by the next crop of system administrators.

Myths

A common misconception was “The fact that Linux is
open-source is of no real consequence or benefit to the average
desktop user.” Well, yes, the fact that the average desktop user
may never build a kernel from source (or change a line of code) may
mean that it is of no consequence to that individual desktop user
that the source is freely available. However, it is a huge benefit
to the average user to be able to leverage the excellent work that
others put into Linux (on their behalf) in order to improve the
core source code to the OS, and this benefit should
never be underestimated.

Knowing my GUI history, I tried not to let this next comment
upset me, “Microsoft has more experience building Desktop OS and
GUI technology, so they should be better at it than anyone else.
After all, Microsoft invented the GUI.” The good folks in Cupertino
will probably jump up and down in their seats if they read this,
not to mention the XFree86 and BeOS people. And we mustn't forget
Xerox PARC, where it all began. The last part of this myth really
should be a clanger.

A recurring complaint was that “there are too many different
versions of Linux”. No, not so. There's only one version of the
current Linux kernel. There may be too many
distributions of Linux, and I think it is safe
to say their differences cause confusion to Linux newcomers. (For
example, “Why can't Debian load my Red Hat RPMs, after all, they're
both Linux, aren't they?”).

Evidence that some of the Microsoft spin-doctoring is working
presented itself. Look at this comment: “Linux isn't free. The
various distributors charge for their distributions, just like
Microsoft charges for its OS.” True, if you attempt to acquire Red
Hat Linux at your local computer superstore, you won't get it for
free. But you can download Red Hat for free over the Internet. Try
that with Windows XP (legally, that is).

After shaking my head at that last comment, I came upon this
(from more than one student): “Windows is essentially free. After
all, it's included with a new PC when you buy it.” Well, anyone
that buys a PC from a PC manufacturer and asks for a blank
hard-drive, as opposed to one with Windows ME preinstalled, would
be a fool to pay the same amount for a PC with ME installed,
wouldn't they? So, Microsoft certainly gets its share when the
manufacturer sells you a PC with a Microsoft OS preinstalled. It
may be convenient for desktop users, but it is not free.

Some students think Microsoft has nothing to worry about,
because “Linux's success has been at the expense of the proprietary
UNIX systems.” If this were a true statement, Microsoft
really would have nothing to worry about.
Thing is, it is not a true statement. Yes, there are some people
replacing aging AIX boxes (and the like) with Linux PCs, but to
think that's the only use for Linux is somewhat blinkered. And then
there's Samba, which—in my view—is a piece of software that
Microsoft would dearly love to see go away.

In addition to the usual “Linux is too hard to install”
rubbish, this was a common complaint, “The Linux command line is
hard to learn and use.” No, it simply is not. The Linux
user-interface came in for further unwarranted bashing (no pun
intended), “Linux GUIs are slow.” Well, this really depends on the
hardware you're running on, doesn't it? To put Linux on an old PC
(which can no longer run the latest Microsoft OS) and then complain
when the Linux GUI runs slowly is just not comparing apples with
apples, no matter what way you look at it.

Remarkably, many students stated the following as gospel:
“Microsoft produce high quality software products.” Which helps
explain why the Windows OS never crashes, doesn't it? Let's face
it, if Microsoft produced cars, and their brakes failed once a day
without warning, there would be no Microsoft. Some went as far as
to say that “Microsoft are the trendsetters in the desktop OS
arena, so they will always come out on top.” The truth is Microsoft
has made a fortune out of copying and popularizing the ideas of
others, but this doesn't make Redmond the trendsetters.

Then came the following contentious statements (from the
majority of my students): “Linux offers no customer support, unlike
Microsoft, which has a great support system”, and “Microsoft's
technical support is the best in the industry and is superior to
that offered by the Linux community.” I asked my 31 students how
many had called Microsoft's customer support. Only one had, and he
went on to say that Microsoft had put him on hold for “a few hours”
before even talking to him. He didn't seem to see the problem with
this! Again, it was seen as “normal”.

[...] someone blurted out, "nearly everyone who used Linux last year went on to fail their project". It came out that a number of individuals were missing from the final year due to failing the project element in year three. When I probed for the root cause of the project-failing problem, I got my second shock: "Linux is too hard to install".

My BS alarm is ringing loudly.
These students supposedly failed because they couldn't manage to install Linux? C'mon, the install happens at the beginning of a project! Any student who couldn't manage the install... no matter how much they procrastinated... still should have had plenty of time to switch their project to Windows rather than fail their third year.
Something sounds awfully fuddy about those reports.

Note that the article details the perceptions of my students. When I asked them why the Linux projects failed, the answer I got was it was hard to install. I don't for a second believe this to be the true answer, but that's what they told me. As I said in an earlier reply to an earlier comment: it is a convenient excuse.

Note that the article details the perceptions of my students. [...] I don't for a second believe this to be the true answer, but that's what they told me.

The article details your informants' reports of their perceptions. If the factual basis of their reported perception seems patently false to you, it's just basic to address the question of whether the informants were misreporting to the observer.
You may be a hard-core technologist, but human science can be very... tricky.

One thing...
Microsoft Visual C++ is NOT a dog environment to work with - actually if you have to compare it with different graphical IDEs on X11 systems, it kicks ass BIG TIME. Actually, many people concider it the best application ever made - it is made by developers for developeors..
So while you seem to be pissed over myths about linux, please, DO NOT spread any about other systems...

The fact that you need a large screen is the result of the extra displays added to make your life easier. Turn them all off (as in the old 16 bit versions of MSVC), and this argument doesn't hold water.

IMHO A dual monitor system is best for development anyway - one screen for the dev system, and one for the target. :)

As for the keyboard shortcuts - just redefine them to suit your taste.

Don't forget that you can also customise Visual C++ by loading add-ins too - and most are open source/freeware...

I wonder how many of these students started their program with 'expert' level computer skills.

This is the position I entered college in 1998with (experience in DOS, Windows 3.0 - 9x/NT4, NetWare, and Linux).

However, many of my classmates in the MIS program had a 'PC IQ' of 'I can type in MS Word, what else do you do with a computer?'! I wonder how many like me and how many like them were in the class in question.

Why does this matter? At least from the experience that I have, being a sys-admin is NOT something one can learn in school. That's why the value of a MCSE plaque (alone, sans experience) drops by the day. The only way you get good at working with computers is the same way you get good at doing push-ups: practice (and lots of it). The reason that I (and many others) are bothered by what this class represents is simple: It's not just a class, it's a disturbing trend in the industry. People like these students become 'System Administrators', and due to their general lack of computer familiarity (especially dealing with hardware) they shift their work load off onto vendor service agreements, consulting firms, and the like. IS ceases to be about maintaining computers and becomes about stamping shipping cartons and tracking service contracts. It's no longer about getting the best software for the job, it's about buying the package that does your work for you. Why? Because you don't know how to do it yourself, because you went into IT thinking (for some strange reason) that you should be able to avoid working with computers in IT.

I wonder how many of these students started their program with 'expert' level computer skills.

This is the position I entered college in 1998with (experience in DOS, Windows 3.0 - 9x/NT4, NetWare, and Linux).

You have lots of things to add, but adding doesn't always seem to have a positive effect, Does it now!

While I will admit, that both mine and my fellow students have been quoted (And rightly so) with some horrible clangars. Just because your Brothers, Fathers, Aunties, Friends, Babysitters, Ice Cream Man has a Neice with the Computer skills of a Power User and the Social Skills of an Igloo, doesn't mean that the rest of the Natural world needs to join the freak brigade. I have always been in the opinion that you go to an Academic Institute to Learn, Why learn before going, Who are you trying to impress, did you do a course under your bed before going to College so you astound your lecturers or is it just a really sneaky way to get girls. We go to College to aquire the skills, if we had them, we wouldn't need to.

the partitioning? if you dont know about partitions what are you doing messing with os's?? (and regardless this still isnt hard, i guessed my way through the partitioning the first time i installed linux [rh 5.1])

perhaps it's setting up x (which on most distro's is done for you for the most part)? well here's a simple solution, KNOW THE SPECS FOR YOUR CARD!

the bottom line is, linux isnt hard to install- your just to lazy to find out your computers specs.

besides, i recently had to install redhat 7.2 here at work, and it was like installing windows, propaganda and all (slack/debian are typically considered the hardest linux;s out there, and both are _simple_ to install)

although, i dont mind all these simpletons in the industry- i know i will always have a job.

Being one of these now-infamous students within the author's class, I would like to thank you for stating some basic (albeit over-looked) facts about this "hard-to-install" myth. Being one of the illustrious students who partook in one of the previous years projects (and passed, I might add!!), I feel as though I must at least offer my personal view on the installation process. As it was my first time installing the OS, and not having too much experience with it, I have to admit that I was daunted to find that there was alot of detail required for installing LINUX, and in my own eagerness to get the OS up and running, it did lead to problems at the first couple of attempts. But I whole-heartedly agree with your comments. Even with the earlier versions of LINUX, it is the preparation before the install that causes the failure. Knowing your specs is about all you really need to be familiar with, even as a first-time installer. I learned from my mistakes, checked out the specs, and the entire installation became fairly simple. I'm happy to say that after the installation and eventual maintenance, I discovered a whole new way of looking at IT on a large scale from an administrative point of view (something that I feel I was denied with Windows IMO), and can now appreciate the real value of understanding the OS (and not just LINUX). Thank you for your simple, but effective comments in this "bitching" session, and I hope that the views of my lecturer and those who are arguing with regards to their preferred IT dogma are realised to be opinions, and nothing more.

The thing you fail to realize is that the discussion is why MS has the desktop market share. It doesn't matter how easy it is for a sysadmin to install. What matters is how easy it is for Joe-bag-of-donuts to install.

And Joe knows *dick* about partitions. And packages. And network settings.

I am not stupid, and while I may be lazy, I am fairly sure that has nothing to do with the ease of installing an operating system. My first experience with Linux was a download of the kernal (I don't think it was a distro) from AOL. That was back in 96 I guess. Kernal 1.6 maybe. Who knows. It never worked. And I guess that is understandable, since I was a wee lad who never used anything but windows. Fast forward to 2000. Installed red hat a coupla times in the past 4 years, used it till I screwed something up (once I deleted LILO. I think I was trying to make it only book linux. I was young and ignorent back then...). Well, to get to my point, I attempted an install of debian. It had been years since my last attempt at linux. And dispite some bad experiances, I still love the OS. Well, back to debian. I was clueless on the packaging system. Everything else I could guess my way though, even the X config. How the heck should someone who has never used a linux system know what packages are, let alone which ones available are needed, and which are incompatable? For a non-nerd (By nerd I mean a natually technically competent person) family, Linux can be hard to get used to. Sure, after a third or fourth try they can get it right, but who's going to want to do that when they think they can do Windows in one shot (good luck). On the other hand, Red Hat, Mandrake, and (from what I hear) Suse make pretty dang easy install programs. I had no trouble with Red Hat 7.1. It was quicker than an install of Windows, at least until the file copying. I guess that 2 gigs of software can take a while to install. Anyway, my point is that I do not think that someone is lazy simply because they do not know all about their hardware or do not know what the thousands of Linux packages do.

For the most part, Mr. Barry's students are correct, and denying this won't help the Linux community. Addressing the concerns voiced by his students is the only way that they will be resolved.

I was, exclusively, a DOS/Windows user from 1987 until 1994. It was at that time that I realized a need for more than Windows 3.x had to offer. After making a study of Windows 95 (on my brother's machine), I concluded that it, too, didn't offer what I needed. So, I then undertook to study another OS for a month. I was so impressed, that I went out and bought a copy, and ran it on my computer for SIX (6) years.

That operating system was IBM's OS/2 Warp. I've seen OS/2 Warp do things back in 1994 that Windows still can't do today.

And then, in 2000, I saw the writing on the wall, by IBM's own hand. This because IBM ignored its non-corporate customer base. If the Linux community ignores the concerns of so many potential users, it will NEVER displace Windows anywhere.

Many people found OS/2 difficult to install and use because it didn't have the greatest hardware driver support. Companies such as ATI Technologies, Creative Labs, Promise Technologies, and others, discontinued their support of OS/2. Further, support was withdrawn by an astonishing number of software vendors. For example, the WordPerfect Corporation had ported all of its software to OS/2. And then...they just quit. Adobe. Borland. Even IBM itself. Industry support must be had and actively sought out.

The people who DO NOT use Linux today are the furture of Linux tomorrow. Do not brush them aside. And do not treat them as whining children who can't install Linux because they are too lazy. If they say that Linux is hard to install, then damn it, it IS hard to install! Don't tell them that it is easy simply because it was easy for you. That, is arrogant!

I migrated from OS/2 Warp to Windows 2000 Professional in November of 2000. In November of this year, I used Partition Magic to create a 10 MB ext2 partition on my hard drive, and then I installed SuSE Linux 7.3 as a dual boot option on my computer. And then it happened. I saw all of their complaints.

What happened to drive C:>? D:>? E:>? Or how about drive H:>? How shocking! My drive letters disappeared. All of them! Why? Linux doesn't use drive letters, that's why! And the backslashes in the directory tree...My God, they go the other way, now! I was raised on DOS. For 15 years I have been using DOS/Windows. I have used FAT, HPFS, FAT 32, and NTFS. They make partitions with drive letters. And then, all-of-a-sudden, I have to figure out what to do without them. That was like a brick up-side the head. Could you imagine how this will affect people who were raised on Windows (no DOS) alone?

And who, I pray you, who in his right mind would, could, actually expect anyone raised on Windows to compile his own damned software???

What were you thinking?

I had an IDE, SCSI hard drive configuration. In order to dual boot Windows 2000 and Linux, without destroying my Windows install, I had to remove the SCSI drive. Of course, removing the SCSI drive might have been due to my own ignorance and/or inability, rather than a problem with Linux. And if that is so, it just proves my point.

Switching from Windows to Linux is NOT like switching from a Ford pickup truck to a GM Cadillac. It's more like switching from an automobile to an airplane. Like it or not, people will need flying lessons in order to use Linux (because I doubt that anyone is going to write a more familiar file system for Linux). Would anyone expect Mario Andretti to do with a Cessna what he could do with a Formula One?

Hey, everyone, my point is simply this. You need to see Linux from the point of view of one who has never used any operating system other than Windows. And then, address his concerns. If you don't, his conversion to Linux will be nearly impossible to achieve.

Of course M$ Windows can have a huge file system, that can be enlarged anywhere along its chain by making a directory and mounting the new drive to that directory (read with sarcasm). Easy, huh? Well, Linux could do that, Unix can do that. Sure it is confusing if you are not used to it, but some things undreamed of in M$ Windows land are routine in other Operating Systems.

I started on DOS, then used Windows, thought it was nifty, then was forced to learn Unix 10 years ago, and have been a convert ever since. Just try to move hundreds of files from a directory to its parent directory. It would take a while in Windows, but seconds in Unix/Linux.

Have to make corrections to Windows configuration files, regarding changing DNS addresses on 100 machines? I have done it in short order in Unix, and without going to individual machines, manually changing the GUI, or rebooting after changes were made.

I have been a sysadmin for some years, and much prefer Unix to Windows, any day, as a sysadmin.

If the Linux community ignores the concerns of so many potential users, it will NEVER displace Windows anywhere.

--/snip--

WRONG: Linux/Unix has displaced windows in Banks, Financial Institutions, Hospitals, Large corporations and everywhere else where mission critical computing is a must - It is MS who is an endangered species in these areas.

--snip--

it IS hard to install! Don't tell them that it is easy simply because it was easy for you. That, is arrogant!

--/snip--

LOL, I recall the high failure rate in University for those taking Calculus courses. Noone ever tried to make the argument that because it was hard we shouldn't learn it or is not of value. I agree that for the average user Linux/Unix is too much for them but for CS/IT Majors? In university there are courses that you simply must pass before you can get your degree (Calculus is one of them). IMHO Unix/Linux SHOULD be one too.

--snip--

What happened to drive C:>? D:>? E:>? Or how about drive H:>? How shocking! My drive letters disappeared. All of them! Why? Linux doesn't use drive letters

--/snip--

FYI.. Unix has been around for FAR longer than DOS/Windows. The argument should have been why did DOS decide to use drive letters. Drive letters are a bad idea. In Unix/Linux you have mount points/filesystems that allow you to access files from a hard drive, cdrom, floppy, or a remote computer in exactly the same way (NFS/Samba mounts). Of course, mount points is yet another concept these System Admin wannabees have trouble with.

I have to agree with the first post - it does not matter what all the people posting articles say? Who are you arguing with? The kind of person that is reading this column has used or installed or at the very least knows about Linux. We all know the advantages - how do we communicate them?

Remember the old adage: 'The customer is always right', and this is especially true with potential customers. Admittedly most of the Windows users have never installed an OS themselves, having it come pre-configured and nicely working.

For a user to swap to a new operating system, it has to be so easy that they can do it in their sleep - just slip in the cd and that's it. Forget about the IT professionals that should know what they are doing, they are only a tiny install base, it is the mass market which is important.

To succeed you need to be better than your competition, and I can tell you now that, perceptually, installing windows is musch easier than Linux. You just go out and buy a computer and hey presto you have a nice install of Windows, all working!

I am no Linux evangelist, I use Linux in my working environment - about 3 out of the 30 employees do. There are still things that Windows gives you that Linux cannot/will not. If you address these things then Linux will be a viable desktop environment. I have never called the microsoft help desk, yet I have looked up countless FAQs just to get something working on Linux.

Linux, easier to install and use? I am a programmer who has used Linux for some time now, I know how to compile and install programmes - but even then sometimes it annoys me. Windows - InstallAnywhere(tm) is your friend.

"the point of view of one who has never used any operating system other than Windows"

I suppose there's a vast number of people in that category, and they have my sympathy. I was stuck in the world of DOS and Windows 3.1 from about 1985 'til I finally got my hands on Unix about 1988. I've continued to suffer with Windows on my desk in most of the jobs I've had since, and I've used it for just about nothing but a telnet client.

I've never been able to understand how System Administrators allowed this to happen. Well, yes, I know how. PeeCees with DOS and Windows were installed in shops that didn't have professional system administrators, or even networks, until those shops outnumbered the ones with real computer systems.

More then two years ago I had the pleasure to work for Lucent Technologies BCS group. As a telecomm hardware company I had to use a lot of different OSes (Linux, BSD, Solaris, Unixware and of course the Win*series...). What was worst was the fact that as a Support Engineer, I had to spend a lot of time at my Windows using clients, mainly because my higher level colleagues doing remote authorisations / upgrades / support / etc had extreme problems with getting access to those machines in the first place, due to the lack of the (in)famous command line and tools such as pcAnywhere. Cutting it short, when its 3 AM in the morning, the coffe is NOT working anymore and your client's admin is snorring behind you while you are still trying to understand why the Win* server software is not working / crashing / unreachable like it should be (it says in the manual it should work! ;), the one thing you start to pray for is a flashing command prompt...

Regardless of if you like it or not, TCO is a business reality. How it fits in with your little worldview is immaterial to the rest of the world. Until the *nix TCO comes down, it will be an uphill battle.

*nix administrators cost money. MS admins are cheap. *nix apps run slow, require re-educating the work force, and suffer from not being able to exchange files as easily with external organizations that *do* use MS.

As a desktop system, *nix has a (perceived or real) higher TCO, and that will hamper it's spread.

Actually - to lay this TCO issue to rest - we have a saying in Aus....horses for courses mate *winks*

If I spend more time setting up a perfect system, that runs for a year without downtime, without too much upgrading (there will always be patching or upgrading packages) - or alternativly, setup the server badly from the beginning, and constantly have to fiddle with it - which one has a lower TCO?

The most important factor in TCO is the human element - period. Find the right OS for the right job, and employ the right person, and employ the right procedures. You will find the lowest TCO.

Just use you're logical thoughts - don't fear the penguin or the falling windows. Windows sucks at somethings, and Linux *can't* do some things....but at the end of the day - you have employed 3 MCSE's already - well hell employ a Linux person with an MCSE - and for godsake retrain your staff!! Even if you don't deploy Linux for anything important - options these days don't retain them anymore - keep giving us geeks more training, and qualifications - and we'll hang around.....and the person who made the servers from scratch will always know them more intimatly.

Stop exaggerating. I can get a Windows box set up, completely ready to go in a matter of hours. All S/W, drivers, settings, nuances, etc included. I have tried to install Red Hat on a computer of mine at home. First of all, the initial install took almost 45 minutes. Big deal. Nothing worked. I couldn't get my printer to work, no sound, I couldn't use the side buttons on my mouse, and perhaps the worst... I couldn't get my cable modem to work. There were others that are not coming to me at the moment. Now, I'm sure there is a way to get all these issues worked out. But for a sys admin "not yet trained in Linux", I'm sorry, there's no way he got that ALL set up in 45 minutes, unless you were telling him what to do step by step, but then, that doesn

Sound is a tricky thing with linux sometimes. The default driver that came with my RedHat 7.2 for my old soundcard didn't work, despite my tinkering in the /etc/modules.conf file, but I found a wonderful shareware sound system setup at:

I've recently graduated and now work in the field, and just have to say a few things abut this "wear-his-heart-on-his-sleeve" article. Both when I was in university and at now work, Linux wasn't even on the radar for 95% of the people in the industry. Neither was BSD or MacOS or Solaris for that matter, a blindness which this author also seems to have himself when teaching ...how does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot?But it's gratifying to see at least some instructors in tertiary education settings trying to expose their students to more than just MS systems, rare as people like this are. But this instructor is more than just trying to teach his students about Linux... he's evangelizing. It's obvious in his article and the way he frames his questions; the article at least does not even attempt to be unbiased (probably not surprising for a website called Linuxjournal) and probably his class instruction is not either. This is one of the biggest reasons new 'converts' get turned off Linux altogether: it's percieved as a "cult" by many including the IT people I work with, and no wonder with typical geeky Linux-types manically extolling the virtues a 3% marketshare system to anyone that will listen.Since we're talking about his students arguing the merits of the statement "Linux will never threaten Microsoft Windows as a desktop operating system", we have to all admit that Linux is too hard to install, and yes the command line is too hard to learn for the vast majority of desktop users. Since we're talking about desktop adoption here, and not use by "future system administrators"Being a Linux user isn't as great as it was a year or two ago, I find. Worst of all for us "nerdy Linux-types" is that we've already been stereotyped by mainstream users, and now the press isn't really talking about Linux like they used to. It's this perception problem (combined with MS FUD - which evidently works) and significant loss of momentum that are probably unsurmountable obstacles. Good thing I have my MCSA and MCSE, I think I'll be using them a lot more as Linux slowly fades away.

It is interesting you grouped anything that is not microsoft to be the 95% that not on the radar, what do you think most of the critical systems run on. Do you think your bank runs on NT?

It is the responsibility of the teacher to expose to the student as many different topics as possible within a particular subject and let them make the choice but ignorance is no excuse.

Most of all, whether or not if they are going to be sys admin is a mute point, they are in a technical curriculum and given that just saying it is too hard makes it too hard because they don't even get it a chance. Without knowing they won't be able to choose or make a decision without some others opinion or worst marketing bs

As far as your MCSE, does that really say you know how to handle a MS problem or does that mean you can pass a test and can dial a number to talk to MS?

Just as the poster was expressing an opinion when they stated Linux would fade away, you are expressing an opinion when you say it will not. You do yourself more credit when you refute opinion with fact, rather than engaging in a childish "Will too!" "Will not!" argument...

As to bravery and anonymity... I thought the Linux crowd was composed largely of privacy advocates. Shouldn't I be allowed to protect my privacy from some molotov cocktail-toting Linux geek?

As to bravery and anonymity... I thought the Linux crowd was composed largely of privacy advocates. Shouldn't I be allowed to protect my privacy from some molotov cocktail-toting Linux geek? Nice use of language. Thanks. Yes, privacy is important. However, this is a "public" discussion form. I think it's only good manners to sign your comments/replies. I think it's too easy for some people to spout-off when they know they are doing the said spouting in an anonymous way. That's all I was trying to say. (Now, where can I find someone to put "molotov cocktail-toting Linux geek" on a T-shirt for me ... ).And, BTW, "privacy" and "anonymity" are two very different things indeed.

I've got news for you - The majority of mid-size to large corporations run with mixed (multi-tiered) computing environments (mainframes, Unix/Linux boxes, Windows).

Over the past couple of years, Linux is increasingly becoming a major player. The last company that I worked for is implementing Linux on their IBM 390 mainframes running IBM WebSphere Application Server as a replacement for their clusters of Compaq computers running Windows NT/2000 & IIS. Just for a frame of reference, a single IBM 390 mainframe is capable of running tens of thousands of separate Linux virtual machines (which means you have the capability of running thousands of web servers on one machine). Microsoft doesn't have anything that comes close to this capability. Factor in the reality that in these cash-strapped economic times, more and more corporations are turning to Linux solutions rather than costly Microsoft solutions. I wouldn't rely very heavily on your MSCE, because most major businesses worth their onions won't touch you with a ten-foot pole unless you are proficient in a multi-tiered environment....And if you're still not convinced, ask any major banking, petroleum, chemical, financial institution, etc., what systems they trust their mission-critical data to run on - you'll quickly find that their answer will be either mainframes or UNIX/Linux systems...

I am amazed at the lack of knowledge displayed by some of your undergrads

Believe me, I was amazed too. Which goes to explain why I felt I had to write the piece in the first place. BTW, the students are mainly in their early 20's, and some have already been active in the workforce.

What has system administration got to do with Desktop OS ?

Nothing, but the idea was to get the students thinking about Linux (and other alteratives) by framing the discussion around something that they should all understand, i.e., the desktop.

Whoa! Isn't installing and configuring "Desktop OSs" still part of a System Administrator's job? And fixing 'em after the lusers screw 'em up? What do System Administrators do these days, then? Nothing but servers? Then what do you call the people who wrangle herds of workstations these days? "Helpdesk"?

Yes. I was too quick to say "nothing". Of course sys admin's need to know all there is to know about Desktop OS's (and not just the installation part). Sorry - I can't think what came over me when I wrote that! Thanks for putting me straight.

I see Microsoft setting trends whether you want to believe it or not and it tends to be good for consumers. I remember when everyone screamed at MS for integrating a browser into their OS. Now it would be unthought of and frankly ridiculous if an OS didnt ship with a browser. Furthermore this adds to the ease of use for consumers since alot of the windows OS is in a recognizable browser/internet format. And ya know what? I just downloaded Red Hat 7.2 and I forget which GUI I was running but I was rather disgusted to see that the entire desktop/interface was based on the browser. The file management util/control panel and all the other related windows were webpages with their own url's and so on. This after the same people were bs'ing about Microsoft doing it. You're all a bunch of losers with nothing to do but ***** and in the end you usually copy the same ideas that you complained about.

The issue is not whether the OS ships with a browser, it's whether a monopoly OS vendor gets to tell OEMs that they cannot ship any any browser except the one specified by the OS vendor.

Netscape's complaint was that Microsoft was preventing OEMs from shipping Netscape in addition to IE. At the time most corporate intranets used Netscape, not IE. Netscape had a 3:1 lead in the browser market. The major reason this changed is that MS started prohibiting OEMs from shipping Netscape.

This is true. If only the open source gui developers would do the latter instead of the former. Can anyone tell me how to replace Konqueror in KDE? It's easier to replace IE as your default browser in Windows than it is to get rid of that Konqueror garbage.

"How to get rid of Konqueror?" Don't bother. Simply install and use Netscape 4.X, 6.X, Opera, Mozilla, lynx, links, w3c, etc, etc. Install one or all of them and pick whichever suits you.
Change the MIME types to point to the browser of your choice. Done.

The damage MS has inflicted on computing is clearly reflected in the existance of students who echo non-factual MS dogma and demonstrate an utter lack of knowledge of the real history of computing or even the current state of the industry. I can only be thankful that I passed thru the education system when learning how to use a computer meant learning how to code, not how to use the latest MS software and recite its marketing lies. I see a big demand for foreign-educated IT staff in the future.

Hi. I'm a 24 year old UNIX sys admin. I can relate to your students' lack of understand Linux. When I was in college, my networking courses all used NT. (Although I've always had a facination with UNIX)

But, let me say this... If you're going to work in a small office, you may be ok using NT. However, if you ever have the task of building a large production infrastructure, you'd better know UNIX. It's a very common O/S in large environments. So yes-- Windows will most likely retain the majority of the desktop market. Who cares. Use windows on your laptops/desktops. But when you want to use a stable O/S, where downtime is unacceptable, NT just won't cut it. (I've seen Apache servers up for years, where as we need to reboot our IIS server weekly.)

Two last things:

1) The installation of Linux is NOT complicated at all. The first O/S I ever installed was FreeBSD several years ago. Talk about hard. I could understand if these were business students, but come on. These are info tech majors. It's time to learn what a partition is.

2) To students considering to learn UNIX: the learning curve to UNIX is steep. But it's a curve you only have to climb once. If anything, Windows is constantly changing. (For better or worse, who knows.) 95,98,ME,XP,NT3.5,NT4.0,2000, etc, etc, etc. UNIX is much more standard to a sys admin. (Oh, and by the way, you'll make more cash as a UNIX sys admin.)