[rescue] Re: [geeks] THIS. MAKES. ME. SICK.

[Patrick Giagnocavo]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 12:52:17PM -0700, Devin L. Ganger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 09:53:20AM -0400, Joshua D. Boyd wrote:
> 
> > Of course, at $150k a year, you can afford to burn out after a couple of
> > years, but I'm still not sure that is a wise idea.
> 
> Oh, get over yourself already.  NT and W2K, when run on proper hardware,

I think you are right, but this requires some additional info.

"Proper hardware" means - ability to remotely reboot system; purchase or use of
third party products such as VNC, SSH, PCAnywhere to allow remote
administration of machine.

> are neither more nor less difficult to run and maintain properly than
> Unix systems.  It takes getting to know the internals well, as is the

Run and maintain = "you need some money in the budget to buy additional
utilities, such as disk defrag tools, other sw to correct deficiencies of
design or deficiencies of MSFT tools."

> case with Unix.  It takes some discipline and methodology, as is the
> case with Unix.  It takes proper support and resources, as is the case
> with Unix.  But there's nothing inherently more soul-destroying about
> NT/W2K than there is with Unix, and anyone with the skillset to command
> *and deserve* $150K/yr will make NT/W2K sing and dance just as well as
> Unix can.

You are right, but I can't really see this as anything other than a red
herring.  

Obviously someone who can't keep NT/W2K running 24/7, regardless of what
crap the mgmt wants to run on the server, isn't by definition worth $150K,
are they?  But this statement means nothing in terms of the OS' underlying
stability or design...

./patrick

.