Köhlmann is aka 'Petey Toro' OLAY! wrote:

I thought it was two people talking in generalities (an idea or
conclusion having general application) about the social pressures
applying to people bringing Linux into their business but if you have
specific details of what we're talking about I'd love you to add to the
conversation.

Köhlmann is aka 'Petey Toro' OLAY! wrote:
Matt wrote:
smr wrote:

It's always better to slowly shift people's perceptions of things -
"this is something we've been using to do some jobs in the company" as
opposed to "this is the new thing head office forced on us." But that
first box is a difficult issue - somebody needs to administrate that
single CUPS server.
Which brings us full circle: Linux jobs outpacing Windows jobs.
Somebody
is hiring *new* Linux Admins and NOT hiring new Windows Admins...
My post doesn't go quite full circle, my point is that companies that
gradually adopt into Linux need to start with a single installation -
"that first box". Eventually this leads to companies with a huge
installed base of Linux that really like it but initially it's lots of
machines running some other operating system and one running Linux.

I would*n't* say that they would hire a new Linux admin at *that* point,
I think that's something the existing staff would handle. I'm saying
that at that point the existing staff need to administrate all of the
systems they had before as well as this new box that runs an entirely
new system - so what you're left with is relying on the current staff to
learn to professionally administrate a new operating system for a single
machine while doing their normal jobs at the same time. I'm saying
that's off putting to administrators. It's great once you start moving
lots of machines over to Linux and you can set up scripts that handle
lots of machines at once and that's where it really shines but it's
dealing with the hassle of the test machine that's a stumbling block.

I'm thinking that more often, that first Linux box is being maintained
mainly by whoever is using it, If that first user is not mainly a
sysadmin, he asks permission to use Linux, and they say okay, but you
have to maintain it yourself. Same thing happens if he is mainly a
sysadmin, but then it might be that the guy was hired specifically as
somebody who knows Linux and as somebody who can expose the other
admins and their bosses to the practice of running Linux. That would
be followed by incremental steps toward Linux by the company, stuff like:
migrating the servers, switching some users to cross-platform FOSS
apps such as OpenOffice, migrating one department as an experiment,
and hiring more admins and other workers who have experience in both
worlds.
LOL, it's obvious no one here has been through any conversion effort
from one platform to another in any shape form or fashion.

This is some kind of a total joke here, and it's two home users
conversing with each other.

I thought it was two people talking in generalities (an idea or
conclusion having general application) about the social pressures
applying to people bringing Linux into their business but if you have
specific details of what we're talking about I'd love you to add to the
conversation.

smr wrote:
Köhlmann is aka 'Petey Toro' OLAY! wrote:
Matt wrote:
smr wrote:

So no, no one is going to start doing something out of the norm, like a
rouge sysadmin individual that has a hankering to start using Linux and
blew smoke into someone's ear about switching to an all Linux platform
from a MS platform, and all of the other departments within a
corporation converts to the Linux platform. That's simply not going to
happen.

On 2009-11-04, Kholmann is aka little 'Petey Toro' OLAY! <Toro1 at (no spam) toro1.net> wrote:

smr wrote:
Köhlmann is aka 'Petey Toro' OLAY! wrote:
Matt wrote:
smr wrote:

[deletia]

So no, no one is going to start doing something out of the norm, like a
rouge sysadmin individual that has a hankering to start using Linux and
blew smoke into someone's ear about switching to an all Linux platform
from a MS platform, and all of the other departments within a
corporation converts to the Linux platform. That's simply not going to
happen.

No. It's going to be the CTO or CIO that's doing the pushing.

That horse left the barn a LONG time ago. And yes Linux did first go
in the back door of corporations being deployed by individual admins
on an as needed basis to deal with the usual corporate burdens.

That was about 10 years ago. Things are a lot different now.

Linux hasn't been "outside the norm" in a long time.

"Robert Heller" <heller at (no spam) deepsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6L2dnaHX0ueKU23XnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d at (no spam) posted.localnet...

8

Which brings us full circle: Linux jobs outpacing Windows jobs. Somebody
is hiring *new* Linux Admins and NOT hiring new Windows Admins...

Of course there is another explanation..
windows is getting easier to administer so you need less admin staff.
Blame M$ for making it too easy.

Keep something in mind here: we often talk about how Linux is
installed in companies without blessing of senior management, and then
makes some progress.

Here we have a different story, which is that companies are now
requiring people they hire to have Linux knowledge. This is now a
matter of corporate policy, as opposed to some low level enthusiasts.

On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:25 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody
identifying as dennis at (no spam) home wrote...

Of course there is another explanation..
windows is getting easier to administer so you need less admin staff.
Blame M$ for making it too easy. ;-)

This is true. Botnets are very easy to administer. You can control
hundreds of thousands or even millions of Windows PCs from a single
other Windows PC these days. <grin

You show me the corporate policy somewhere that mandates a Linux
initiative, without justification to senior management that controls the
budget.

You're blowing smoke here, pure smoke. Coversion from one platform to
another cost money. It's not for free, and it's not going to be slipped
in no back door, when its coming out of other people's budgets, as there
are other stake holders involved.

Mr. Majestic wrote:

You show me the corporate policy somewhere that mandates a Linux
initiative, without justification to senior management that controls the
budget.

You're blowing smoke here, pure smoke. Coversion from one platform to
another cost money. It's not for free, and it's not going to be slipped
in no back door, when its coming out of other people's budgets, as there
are other stake holders involved.

Idiot. Nothing that Jed has written is in opposition to any of that. You
like building straw men that you can knock down?

like a rouge sysadmin individual that has a hankering to start using Linux
^^^^^

Kholmann is aka little 'Petey Toro' OLAY! wrote:
like a rouge sysadmin individual that has a hankering to start using
Linux
^^^^^

Is that what you call a Red Hat afficionado?..

"Aragorn" <aragorn at (no spam) chatfactory.invalid> wrote in message
news:hcrvkj$h1c$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:25 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody
identifying as dennis at (no spam) home wrote...

Of course there is another explanation..
windows is getting easier to administer so you need less admin
staff.
Blame M$ for making it too easy. ;-)

This is true. Botnets are very easy to administer. You can control
hundreds of thousands or even millions of Windows PCs from a single
other Windows PC these days. <grin

Botnet controllers are usually hijacked unix/linux systems..

they are too important to be windows machines as the user might load
AV software or just turn them off.

On Wednesday 04 November 2009 21:20 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody
identifying as dennis at (no spam) home wrote...



"Aragorn" <aragorn at (no spam) chatfactory.invalid> wrote in message
news:hcrvkj$h1c$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:25 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody
identifying as dennis at (no spam) home wrote...

Of course there is another explanation..
windows is getting easier to administer so you need less admin
staff.
Blame M$ for making it too easy. ;-)

This is true. Botnets are very easy to administer. You can control
hundreds of thousands or even millions of Windows PCs from a single
other Windows PC these days. <grin

Botnet controllers are usually hijacked unix/linux systems..

Actually, this is not true. The purpose of a UNIX(-like) machine in a
botnet is usually to run either an official or a covert IRC server -
i.e. in the event of a rooted UNIX box - so that the botnet members can
communicate with eachother via an IRC client. I happen to have been
running an IRC network for many years - it's currently down for
technical reasons - and we've seen such botnet IRC clients come online
and gather in a number of awkward channels, even spitting out weird
messages. Of course, they don't need to do that, as they can use the
simple "/PRIVMSG" protocol, but having them in a channel might make it
easier for a controller to index them.

The software that controls the botnets is usually readily made and
freely downloadable Windows software. That's how come the scr1pt
k1ddi3s get to play with it as well.

they are too important to be windows machines as the user might load
AV software or just turn them off.

The botnet controller is not a part of the botnet (although it may
inadvertently be a member of another botnet). It is not a hijacked
home or office PC. It's the black hat's own personal computer -
generally a laptop with a wireless NIC so that he can make use of
unprotected wireless LANs to gain access to the internet and remain
untraceable himself - and so he's in charge of what gets installed
there and what not.

Above the wailing & moaning of the trolls, Aragorn was heard to say:

On Wednesday 04 November 2009 21:20 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody
identifying as dennis at (no spam) home wrote...



"Aragorn" <aragorn at (no spam) chatfactory.invalid> wrote in message
news:hcrvkj$h1c$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:25 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody
identifying as dennis at (no spam) home wrote...

Of course there is another explanation..
windows is getting easier to administer so you need less admin
staff.
Blame M$ for making it too easy. ;-)

This is true. Botnets are very easy to administer. You can control
hundreds of thousands or even millions of Windows PCs from a single
other Windows PC these days. <grin

Botnet controllers are usually hijacked unix/linux systems..

Actually, this is not true. The purpose of a UNIX(-like) machine in a
botnet is usually to run either an official or a covert IRC server -
i.e. in the event of a rooted UNIX box - so that the botnet members can
communicate with eachother via an IRC client. I happen to have been
running an IRC network for many years - it's currently down for
technical reasons - and we've seen such botnet IRC clients come online
and gather in a number of awkward channels, even spitting out weird
messages. Of course, they don't need to do that, as they can use the
simple "/PRIVMSG" protocol, but having them in a channel might make it
easier for a controller to index them.

The software that controls the botnets is usually readily made and
freely downloadable Windows software. That's how come the scr1pt
k1ddi3s get to play with it as well.

they are too important to be windows machines as the user might load
AV software or just turn them off.

The botnet controller is not a part of the botnet (although it may
inadvertently be a member of another botnet). It is not a hijacked
home or office PC. It's the black hat's own personal computer -
generally a laptop with a wireless NIC so that he can make use of
unprotected wireless LANs to gain access to the internet and remain
untraceable himself - and so he's in charge of what gets installed
there and what not.

So dennis at (no spam) home showing that is something else he knows nothing about,
botnets. What a surprise.