Re: [OT] RAID

[Martin Howell <martin.howell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'll chip in my two pennorth as well.  I have been keen to
make use of linux for some time, and tried to get to grips
with it on at least four separate occasions - basically I
would like somehting without the windows bloat, that doesn't
need me to buy new hardware every couple of years and
software that doesn't cost me an arm and a leg.

Sadly, I have failed to master linux because 1) it ain't
plug n play by a long shot, and b) the people who _do_
understand it often sneer in a superior manner at people
like me who are struggling, so help is kinda difficult.
Bear in mind I have been headfirst into PCs since the
mid-70s, cut my teeth on DOS, done some programming before
visual enaything was available, so I don't consider myself a
complete plank.

On the other hand, my main server runs windows server 2003
and has not had a second of downtime in around 2 years (it
feeds from a UPS, so the power failures don't kill it.  I
set it up easily; I can understand the way it works; it's
mostly GUI driven; and there's tons of real help out there
in an environment not populated by snotty yoofs

I really would like to use linux, but until it offers the
same kind of easy setup characterised by w2003 instead of
the wooden command line interface of linux, sadly I'll have
to stick with Mr Gates.  And before anyone gets too steamed
up, I already know that there is real linux help available,
and there are some people who are patient and coherent
enough to be useful, but they are far outnumbered by self
opinionated snotlings.  Sorry, but thats been my experience.

I'll hunker down behind the settee now until the noise stops :-)

Martin


Ian Lowe wrote:
>> Someone touched a nerve. ;-)
>
> You betcha ;)
>
>> If you really believed that statement then why did you go on to
explain
> why windows is better or/and linux is worse?
>
> Not really what I was saying - each has it's forte, and I would
happily use
> either in the right situation. In the SOHO server space, I think
Server 2003
> blows away Linux. In web serving applications or in the embedded
space, I
> think the tables are turned, and Linux is the default choice.
>
>> I've experienced this just as much on any platform I've ever used
so this
> seems like a
> weak argument against Linux to me.
>
> It wasn't an argument against Linux - it was an argument against the
view
> that "linux is superior". Ubuntu on the desktop crashes no
less frequently
> than windows, it's not any faster, and it's gui is not really any
better. I
> like it, and I install each new version without fail (more recently,
in a VM
> rather than on physical hardware).. But it's a long stretch to say
that it's
> better than XP, let alone Vista.
>
>> For me, on Linux, the most unstable drivers tend to be with
drivers that
> are not part of the core kernel - madwifi, etc. Fortunately, I don't
> need these on my linux servers - not sure why you would to be honest
> since servers don't generally need them.
>
> Same applies to server 2003 - run decent hardware that's on the WHQL
list,
> don't install superfluous crud on the server, and you won't see a BSOD
-
> ever. My server (an SBS2003) powered off last night when the main
breaker on
> the house went: last reboot was a good six months or so ago (and was
> planned).
>
>> My linux servers all have uptimes of several hundred days.
>
> And my windows server behave similarly - I wonder if that's more a
factor of
> our experience of running these servers and judicious selection of
decent
> hardware, rather than any great factor of the OS...
>
>> Sigh. It was a hobby platform in 1991 but I think it's big
business now
> and has been for a while.
>
> I was really meaning more "in the home" servers as a hobby -
I really don't
> see anyone running a linux server in their home without any issues if
they
> don't at least view it as a hobby (and have a circle of pet unix geeks
to
> call on for help when it fails).
>
> Not to say that the windows servers are any more stable overall - but
it's a
> shedload easier to find solutions for the common issues they will see.
>
>
>> Why would a non-geek care about the OS on a server? A non-geek
> shouldn't care if their set-top box, router or HA server runs Windows,
> IOS, freebsd or Linux because that layer should be invisible to them.
>
> Very good point.
>
>> I think the state-of-the-art today means that if you are running a
> server (windows or linux) to automate your home, then I think you need
> to be a geek if you want it to be able to maintain it.
>
> Yeah, I'll agree with that - and clearly, the more embedded appliance
style
> objects we have in our home networks, the more linux systems there
will be,
> hidden away, working nicely, just doing their jobs.
>
>> Personally, I don't care what those doing HA today are using; I
just
> think we should concentrate our efforts on improve the
state-of-the-art
> so that users don't need to know.
>
> Zero disagreement from me ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--


Grizelli Associates Limited
IT Project Consultants
2c Nethermoor Road, Middlezoy, Bridgwater, TA7 0PG
UK Company registration no. 2468872
VAT registration no. 713 1775 49