Linux = more maintenance time?
Forum rules
Do not post support questions here. Before you post read the forum rules. Topics in this forum are automatically closed 6 months after creation.
Do not post support questions here. Before you post read the forum rules. Topics in this forum are automatically closed 6 months after creation.
Linux = more maintenance time?
I work for a small business, we have to replace our old WinXP computers. There are some computers which doesnt run Win only programs, just emails, word, excel, etc. I suggested the Linux, but our sysadmin surprised me. He doenst want to mess with it.
Linux Mint and generally Linux really need more maintenance time? Really has more problems and difficulties? Compared to Windows 7 and 8.1
Linux Mint and generally Linux really need more maintenance time? Really has more problems and difficulties? Compared to Windows 7 and 8.1
Last edited by LockBot on Wed Dec 28, 2022 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Topic automatically closed 6 months after creation. New replies are no longer allowed.
Reason: Topic automatically closed 6 months after creation. New replies are no longer allowed.
Re: Linux = more maintenance time?
If your sysadmin only has experience with Windows, then it makes sense he doesn't want other operating systems. It will mean extra work for him (training and/or learning on the job). If there is nobody in your company that can serve as a "key user" for those users that will have to learn to use Linux, he is probably right to expect they will all be coming to him.
Introducing Linux into a company takes more than just installing Linux. As for maintenance time, IDK. I highly doubt a Windows sysadmin will be efficient (at first) in maintaining Linux computers, just as a Linux sysadmin won't be efficient (at first) in maintaining Windows computers (just think of all the stuff you don't have on Windows).
Introducing Linux into a company takes more than just installing Linux. As for maintenance time, IDK. I highly doubt a Windows sysadmin will be efficient (at first) in maintaining Linux computers, just as a Linux sysadmin won't be efficient (at first) in maintaining Windows computers (just think of all the stuff you don't have on Windows).
Re: Linux = more maintenance time?
Xenopeek is absolutely right, it may be an experience / training issue from your sysadmin's point of view. And from the sysadmin perspective he is absolutely right too.
But Linux is a much lower maintenance OS than any version of Windows imho. Updating a Linux system is done with one click for the most part. With Windows you can only update the OS (if you're lucky and 8.1 updates don't fail). Every third party piece of software (i.e. anti-virus, Adobe Reader, Winzip, etc, etc, etc) requires updates separately with manual intervention. Plus on Windows every time you sneeze you have to reboot the system and not so with Linux. Plus Windows updates take forever. Just go buy a new computer and see. It'll take hours to get the initial updates unless things have changed drastically since I switched to Linux a year ago.
There's also no real need for file system cleanup on Linux, or not to the degree that you need do it on Windows. No defrag necessary EVER as Linux doesn't fragment stuff like Windows does. You can argue either way I guess. But I'm guessing an experienced Linux sys admin has a much easier life than a Windows guy does.
But Linux is a much lower maintenance OS than any version of Windows imho. Updating a Linux system is done with one click for the most part. With Windows you can only update the OS (if you're lucky and 8.1 updates don't fail). Every third party piece of software (i.e. anti-virus, Adobe Reader, Winzip, etc, etc, etc) requires updates separately with manual intervention. Plus on Windows every time you sneeze you have to reboot the system and not so with Linux. Plus Windows updates take forever. Just go buy a new computer and see. It'll take hours to get the initial updates unless things have changed drastically since I switched to Linux a year ago.
There's also no real need for file system cleanup on Linux, or not to the degree that you need do it on Windows. No defrag necessary EVER as Linux doesn't fragment stuff like Windows does. You can argue either way I guess. But I'm guessing an experienced Linux sys admin has a much easier life than a Windows guy does.
Re: Linux = more maintenance time?
Yes. Bear in mind any Windows software updates, bug fixes and at least some software are covered in your licence. With Linux your admin would need to handle that himself. Speaking from experience working in IT for a major company, it is not quite a 'one click' as open source software has very different procedures. There are also legal issues involved.
At home, most likely yes, once you have everything up and running on your desktop there is little maintenance to follow. As a business system though, that's a very different story.
At home, most likely yes, once you have everything up and running on your desktop there is little maintenance to follow. As a business system though, that's a very different story.
Re: Linux = more maintenance time?
Wot?niowluka wrote:There are also legal issues involved.
Re: Linux = more maintenance time?
Well, to put simply, a company cannot simply download a software from a website and install it on 100s or 1000s of computers, without confirming no ownership, licence, copyright etc etc rights are not violated.xenopeek wrote:Wot?niowluka wrote:There are also legal issues involved.
This is not my area frankly, but I do know this is part of the process to confirm suitability of any software.
Re: Linux = more maintenance time?
Our sysadmin surely have a little Linux experince, because they install Linux on our server. Zentyal, as I know it is a Ubuntu based server OS. However it is very simple and user friendly, so isnt need much Linux knowledge.
I installed Linux Mint for my parents and brothers. In my experience Linux hasnt much more problems than Windows. And need less maintenance, as someone wrote. Therefore I surprised at the administrator's words.
Thx the answers, I read with interest.
We have a dozen computer and there are 3 which dont need Windows.
I installed Linux Mint for my parents and brothers. In my experience Linux hasnt much more problems than Windows. And need less maintenance, as someone wrote. Therefore I surprised at the administrator's words.
Thx the answers, I read with interest.
We have a dozen computer and there are 3 which dont need Windows.
Re: Linux = more maintenance time?
Still don't get "legal issues". LOOK at the website for that distro and see what the licensing requirements are. Reading is a required skill for most sysadmins. You need to check this out whether it's commercial or open source software so no difference.niowluka wrote:Well, to put simply, a company cannot simply download a software from a website and install it on 100s or 1000s of computers, without confirming no ownership, licence, copyright etc etc rights are not violated.
This is not my area frankly, but I do know this is part of the process to confirm suitability of any software.
EDIT: The team involved in the process for software approval most likely knows how to read as well. Or maybe not if they're all lawyers.niowluka wrote:Yes. Bear in mind any Windows software updates, bug fixes and at least some software are covered in your licence. With Linux your admin would need to handle that himself.
Last edited by gtsfer on Sun Jun 29, 2014 4:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Linux = more maintenance time?
It's actually more complicated than that.
An example would be Samba. Apple wrote their own because of "licensing issues" with Samba.
An example would be Samba. Apple wrote their own because of "licensing issues" with Samba.
Please add a [SOLVED] at the end of your original subject header if your question has been answered and solved.
Re: Linux = more maintenance time?
Well, I was talking about a company who would not risk their revenue and reputation on hoping one of their sysadmins is also a legal expert who, come to worst, will defend the company in court. In some places, especially when stakes are high, software is approved via a process, and is not a decision of one man.gtsfer wrote: Still don't get "legal issues". LOOK at the website for that distro and see what the licensing requirements are. Reading is a required skill for most sysadmins.
EDIT: quote fail
Last edited by niowluka on Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Linux = more maintenance time?
That's why 1000+ people companies would use Red Hat.
Re: Linux = more maintenance time?
Believe me, it would still involve a fairly large and well salaried legal team...xenopeek wrote:That's why 1000+ people companies would use Red Hat.
Re: Linux = more maintenance time?
Yes, I know I've had to clear stuff with them in the past But regardless of what operating system is used, companies will audit the software being used. That's no different between Windows and Linux. If users have local admin rights and can install software themselves, I think we all know what happens ("free for personal usage" and "trial" software gets abused). But again, that's right now the case on Windows and wouldn't be any different on Linux.
Re: Linux = more maintenance time?
In principle yes, it will be the same.xenopeek wrote:Yes, I know I've had to clear stuff with them in the past But regardless of what operating system is used, companies will audit the software being used. That's no different between Windows and Linux. If users have local admin rights and can install software themselves, I think we all know what happens ("free for personal usage" and "trial" software gets abused). But again, that's right now the case on Windows and wouldn't be any different on Linux.
To bring it back ot a little, here the company already has a licence with 'the ones we don't speak of', which most likely be a major point in deciding whether to switch to *nix. Anyway, as I said, legalities are not my area, just making a point it is a part of decision making process, not just subjective opinion or pure IT considerations.
Re: Linux = more maintenance time?
niowluka wrote:Believe me, it would still involve a fairly large and well salaried legal team...xenopeek wrote:That's why 1000+ people companies would use Red Hat.
The GPL is written in plain and simple language.
Re: Linux = more maintenance time?
Interesting discussion here. Leaving the legal issues aside:
- From the situation described in the OP there may be a considerable learning curve for sysadmins who are not yet familiar with Linux
- ... but once you are through that, I feel confident that you will have fewer day-to-day maintenance tasks that you would with any WIndows system.
Re: Linux = more maintenance time?
Depends whats considered "maintenance time." Sounds of it, sounds like more or less people coming with issues on how todo this and that... Typically something worth thinking of is making this a longer term project IE switch them to using firefox browser thunderbird email((or evolution if you need exchange support))libre office etc on the windows desktop. After which they get comfortable you can virtually switch them to a linux distro something like KDE or cinnamon, they might not even notice its NOT windows plus there are themes you can apply to even look closer to windows And they're already used to firefox libre office thunderbird and wont know its linux underneathArpee78 wrote:I work for a small business, we have to replace our old WinXP computers. There are some computers which doesnt run Win only programs, just emails, word, excel, etc. I suggested the Linux, but our sysadmin surprised me. He doenst want to mess with it.
Linux Mint and generally Linux really need more maintenance time? Really has more problems and difficulties? Compared to Windows 7 and 8.1
As far as actual maintaince is just the same as windows have to apply updates just a few different step to get to the update window