Linux jobs outpacing Windows jobs

Ignoramus13931 · External Since: Nov 02, 2009 Posts: 3

As Windows jobs decline 8% from the beginning of the year, Linux
postings grew 6%.

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid3...ci13732

What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly
averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.

If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.

I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than
adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are
receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.

i

Matt · External Since: Jan 26, 2009 Posts: 88

Ignoramus13931 wrote:
> As Windows jobs decline 8% from the beginning of the year, Linux
> postings grew 6%.
>
> http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid3...ci13732
>
> What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly
> averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.
>
> If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.
>
> I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than
> adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are
> receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.
>
> i

I strongly agree with your last paragraph above. It generalizes to any
large organization, because they have the economies of scale to learn to
administer Linux efficiently and to finance the migration. Best is
schools, as there is little or no data to migrate.

Advocate to the guy next to you for practice and support.

If you want things to change, advocate to the guy who has the power to
change things.

Ignoramus13931 · External Since: Nov 02, 2009 Posts: 3

On 2009-11-03, Matt <matt DeleteThis @themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
> Ignoramus13931 wrote:
>> As Windows jobs decline 8% from the beginning of the year, Linux
>> postings grew 6%.
>>
>> http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid3...ci13732
>>
>> What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly
>> averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.
>>
>> If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.
>>
>> I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than
>> adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are
>> receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.
>>
>> i
>
>
> I strongly agree with your last paragraph above. It generalizes to any
> large organization, because they have the economies of scale to learn to
> administer Linux efficiently and to finance the migration. Best is
> schools, as there is little or no data to migrate.

Economies of scale is where Linux shows its excellence, as you can
automate most system related things in Linux in a straightforward
manner.

So you can have one Linux system admin who knows scripting, administer
many more machines than a comparably intelligent Windows admin.

> Advocate to the guy next to you for practice and support.
>
> If you want things to change, advocate to the guy who has the power to
> change things.

I think that what happens in corporations, such as some I have
observed, that Linux appears and begins to metastacize, slowly at
first and faster later.

This is possibly a safer route to successful Linux migration than top
to bottom pronoucements such as "move everything to Linx next month".

The downside is that the Microsoft tax is stil being paid this way,
but I consider this minor.

i

Ignoramus13931 · External Since: Nov 02, 2009 Posts: 3

On 2009-11-03, terryc <newsninespam-spam.RemoveThis@woa.com.au> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:43:37 -0600, Ignoramus13931 wrote:
>
>
>> I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than adoption
>> by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are receptive to
>> the profit, cost and security motive.
>
> Users are receptive to the idea of being left up a creek without a paddle
> in a foreign OS. When was the last time you helped someone install, learn
> and use Linux?
>

Install, on Friday, learn, today at 4pm.

i

"Köhlmann_is_aka_'Petey_T · External Since: Oct 06, 2009 Posts: 8

Ignoramus13931 wrote:
>
> If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.

<YAWN>

terryc · External Since: Oct 17, 2009 Posts: 5

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:43:37 -0600, Ignoramus13931 wrote:

> I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than adoption
> by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are receptive to
> the profit, cost and security motive.

Users are receptive to the idea of being left up a creek without a paddle
in a foreign OS. When was the last time you helped someone install, learn
and use Linux?

Robert Heller · External Since: Sep 13, 2006 Posts: 257

At Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:23:08 -0600 Ignoramus13931 <ignoramus13931 DeleteThis @NOSPAM.13931.invalid> wrote:

>
> On 2009-11-03, Matt <matt DeleteThis @themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
> > Ignoramus13931 wrote:
> >> As Windows jobs decline 8% from the beginning of the year, Linux
> >> postings grew 6%.
> >>
> >> http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid3...ci13732
> >>
> >> What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly
> >> averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.
> >>
> >> If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.
> >>
> >> I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than
> >> adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are
> >> receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.
> >>
> >> i
> >
> >
> > I strongly agree with your last paragraph above. It generalizes to any
> > large organization, because they have the economies of scale to learn to
> > administer Linux efficiently and to finance the migration. Best is
> > schools, as there is little or no data to migrate.
>
> Economies of scale is where Linux shows its excellence, as you can
> automate most system related things in Linux in a straightforward
> manner.
>
> So you can have one Linux system admin who knows scripting, administer
> many more machines than a comparably intelligent Windows admin.
>
> > Advocate to the guy next to you for practice and support.
> >
> > If you want things to change, advocate to the guy who has the power to
> > change things.
>
> I think that what happens in corporations, such as some I have
> observed, that Linux appears and begins to metastacize, slowly at
> first and faster later.
>
> This is possibly a safer route to successful Linux migration than top
> to bottom pronoucements such as "move everything to Linx next month".
>
> The downside is that the Microsoft tax is stil being paid this way,
> but I consider this minor.

It should be noted that OEMs like Dell sell *servers* withOUT an O/S
pre-installed, so once the corp. starts installing *new* Linux *server*
boxes, they wean themselves off the Microsoft Tax. And Dell also sells
whitebox desktops as well, so if/when Linux lands on the corp. *desk*,
there is the option of cutting off the Microsoft Tax there too.

>
> i
>

--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows
heller DeleteThis @deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/

terryc · External Since: Oct 17, 2009 Posts: 5

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:24:30 -0600, Ignoramus13931 wrote:

>>
> Install, on Friday, learn, today at 4pm.
Thank you. Keep up the good work. There are plenty of them out there.

notbob · External Since: Jun 08, 2004 Posts: 792

On 2009-11-03, Ignoramus13931 <ignoramus13931 DeleteThis @NOSPAM.13931.invalid> wrote:

> What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly
> averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.

Many never were. Don't forget Unix was a major player long before M$
came along. Our company only dabbled in M$ networking when I was
there. Not sure what happened after I left, but know many people who
remained despised M$/Oracle in favor of the HP-UX environment that
existed before the advent of PCs, which adapted quit nicely when they
did appear. No doubt the big reel-to-reel mainframes have been
replaced, but with what I don't know. Linux would be a shoe in. BTW,
IBMs biggest cash cow remains their mainframes. I doubt anyone is
running Windows on them and IBM is a major promoter of linux.

nb

Matt · External Since: Jan 26, 2009 Posts: 88

Ignoramus13931 wrote:
> On 2009-11-03, Matt <matt.TakeThisOut@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
>> Ignoramus13931 wrote:
>>> As Windows jobs decline 8% from the beginning of the year, Linux
>>> postings grew 6%.
>>>
>>> http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid3...ci13732
>>>
>>> What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly
>>> averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.
>>>
>>> If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.
>>>
>>> I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than
>>> adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are
>>> receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.
>>>
>>> i
>>
>> I strongly agree with your last paragraph above. It generalizes to any
>> large organization, because they have the economies of scale to learn to
>> administer Linux efficiently and to finance the migration. Best is
>> schools, as there is little or no data to migrate.
>
> Economies of scale is where Linux shows its excellence, as you can
> automate most system related things in Linux in a straightforward
> manner.
>
> So you can have one Linux system admin who knows scripting, administer
> many more machines than a comparably intelligent Windows admin.
>
>> Advocate to the guy next to you for practice and support.
>>
>> If you want things to change, advocate to the guy who has the power to
>> change things.
>
> I think that what happens in corporations, such as some I have
> observed, that Linux appears and begins to metastacize,

It attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it
touches.

When one organization adopts Linux (or about any technology for that
matter) the individuals in the organization become accustomed to it so
that when they go home for the day or move to a different organization,
they bring Linux with them.

> slowly at
> first and faster later.
>
> This is possibly a safer route to successful Linux migration than top
> to bottom pronoucements such as "move everything to Linx next month".

The metastasizing that you mention prepares the ground, to mix a couple
of metaphors.

> The downside is that the Microsoft tax is stil being paid this way,
> but I consider this minor.
>
> i

Robert Heller · External Since: Sep 13, 2006 Posts: 257

At Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:51:21 +0000 smr <stevie.rice.DeleteThis@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
> Matt wrote:
> > Ignoramus13931 wrote:
> >> On 2009-11-03, Matt <matt.DeleteThis@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
> >>> Ignoramus13931 wrote:
> >>>> As Windows jobs decline 8% from the beginning of the year, Linux
> >>>> postings grew 6%.
> >>>> http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid3...ci13732
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly
> >>>> averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than
> >>>> adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are
> >>>> receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.
> >>>>
> >>>> i
> >>>
> >>> I strongly agree with your last paragraph above. It generalizes to
> >>> any large organization, because they have the economies of scale to
> >>> learn to administer Linux efficiently and to finance the migration.
> >>> Best is schools, as there is little or no data to migrate.
> >>
> >> Economies of scale is where Linux shows its excellence, as you can
> >> automate most system related things in Linux in a straightforward
> >> manner.
> >> So you can have one Linux system admin who knows scripting, administer
> >> many more machines than a comparably intelligent Windows admin.
> >>
> >>> Advocate to the guy next to you for practice and support.
> >>>
> >>> If you want things to change, advocate to the guy who has the power
> >>> to change things.
> >>
> >> I think that what happens in corporations, such as some I have
> >> observed, that Linux appears and begins to metastacize,
> >
> >
> > It attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it
> > touches.
> >
> > When one organization adopts Linux (or about any technology for that
> > matter) the individuals in the organization become accustomed to it so
> > that when they go home for the day or move to a different organization,
> > they bring Linux with them.
> >
> >
> >> slowly at
> >> first and faster later.
> >> This is possibly a safer route to successful Linux migration than top
> >> to bottom pronoucements such as "move everything to Linx next month".
> >
> >
> > The metastasizing that you mention prepares the ground, to mix a couple
> > of metaphors.
> >
> >
> >> The downside is that the Microsoft tax is stil being paid this way,
> >> but I consider this minor.
> >>
> >> i
>
> 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...

>

--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows
heller.DeleteThis@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/

smr · External Since: Nov 03, 2009 Posts: 3

Matt wrote:
> Ignoramus13931 wrote:
>> On 2009-11-03, Matt <matt.DeleteThis@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
>>> Ignoramus13931 wrote:
>>>> As Windows jobs decline 8% from the beginning of the year, Linux
>>>> postings grew 6%.
>>>> http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid3...ci13732
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly
>>>> averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.
>>>>
>>>> If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.
>>>>
>>>> I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than
>>>> adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are
>>>> receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.
>>>>
>>>> i
>>>
>>> I strongly agree with your last paragraph above. It generalizes to
>>> any large organization, because they have the economies of scale to
>>> learn to administer Linux efficiently and to finance the migration.
>>> Best is schools, as there is little or no data to migrate.
>>
>> Economies of scale is where Linux shows its excellence, as you can
>> automate most system related things in Linux in a straightforward
>> manner.
>> So you can have one Linux system admin who knows scripting, administer
>> many more machines than a comparably intelligent Windows admin.
>>
>>> Advocate to the guy next to you for practice and support.
>>>
>>> If you want things to change, advocate to the guy who has the power
>>> to change things.
>>
>> I think that what happens in corporations, such as some I have
>> observed, that Linux appears and begins to metastacize,
>
>
> It attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it
> touches.
>
> When one organization adopts Linux (or about any technology for that
> matter) the individuals in the organization become accustomed to it so
> that when they go home for the day or move to a different organization,
> they bring Linux with them.
>
>
>> slowly at
>> first and faster later.
>> This is possibly a safer route to successful Linux migration than top
>> to bottom pronoucements such as "move everything to Linx next month".
>
>
> The metastasizing that you mention prepares the ground, to mix a couple
> of metaphors.
>
>
>> The downside is that the Microsoft tax is stil being paid this way,
>> but I consider this minor.
>>
>> i

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.

Ignoramus23290 · External Since: Nov 03, 2009 Posts: 2

On 2009-11-04, smr <stevie.rice.TakeThisOut@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

And what really helps is if there is someone at that company, who
knows Linux and wants to make it work.

i

smr · External Since: Nov 03, 2009 Posts: 3

Robert Heller wrote:
> At Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:51:21 +0000 smr <stevie.rice RemoveThis @googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Matt wrote:
>>> Ignoramus13931 wrote:
>>>> On 2009-11-03, Matt <matt RemoveThis @themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ignoramus13931 wrote:
>>>>>> As Windows jobs decline 8% from the beginning of the year, Linux
>>>>>> postings grew 6%.
>>>>>> http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid3...ci13732
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly
>>>>>> averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than
>>>>>> adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are
>>>>>> receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i
>>>>> I strongly agree with your last paragraph above. It generalizes to
>>>>> any large organization, because they have the economies of scale to
>>>>> learn to administer Linux efficiently and to finance the migration.
>>>>> Best is schools, as there is little or no data to migrate.
>>>> Economies of scale is where Linux shows its excellence, as you can
>>>> automate most system related things in Linux in a straightforward
>>>> manner.
>>>> So you can have one Linux system admin who knows scripting, administer
>>>> many more machines than a comparably intelligent Windows admin.
>>>>
>>>>> Advocate to the guy next to you for practice and support.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want things to change, advocate to the guy who has the power
>>>>> to change things.
>>>> I think that what happens in corporations, such as some I have
>>>> observed, that Linux appears and begins to metastacize,
>>>
>>> It attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it
>>> touches.
>>>
>>> When one organization adopts Linux (or about any technology for that
>>> matter) the individuals in the organization become accustomed to it so
>>> that when they go home for the day or move to a different organization,
>>> they bring Linux with them.
>>>
>>>
>>>> slowly at
>>>> first and faster later.
>>>> This is possibly a safer route to successful Linux migration than top
>>>> to bottom pronoucements such as "move everything to Linx next month".
>>>
>>> The metastasizing that you mention prepares the ground, to mix a couple
>>> of metaphors.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The downside is that the Microsoft tax is stil being paid this way,
>>>> but I consider this minor.
>>>>
>>>> i
>> 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.

Ignoramus23290 · External Since: Nov 03, 2009 Posts: 2

On 2009-11-03, Matt <matt.DeleteThis@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
> Ignoramus13931 wrote:
>> On 2009-11-03, Matt <matt.DeleteThis@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
>>> Ignoramus13931 wrote:
>>>> As Windows jobs decline 8% from the beginning of the year, Linux
>>>> postings grew 6%.
>>>>
>>>> http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid3...ci13732
>>>>
>>>> What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly
>>>> averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.
>>>>
>>>> If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.
>>>>
>>>> I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than
>>>> adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are
>>>> receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.
>>>>
>>>> i
>>>
>>> I strongly agree with your last paragraph above. It generalizes to any
>>> large organization, because they have the economies of scale to learn to
>>> administer Linux efficiently and to finance the migration. Best is
>>> schools, as there is little or no data to migrate.
>>
>> Economies of scale is where Linux shows its excellence, as you can
>> automate most system related things in Linux in a straightforward
>> manner.
>>
>> So you can have one Linux system admin who knows scripting, administer
>> many more machines than a comparably intelligent Windows admin.
>>
>>> Advocate to the guy next to you for practice and support.
>>>
>>> If you want things to change, advocate to the guy who has the power to
>>> change things.
>>
>> I think that what happens in corporations, such as some I have
>> observed, that Linux appears and begins to metastacize,
>
>
> It attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it
> touches.

Not as much as some think.

Example: I have a "DVR" at home. This is a video recorder box supplied
to me by a satellite TV company. It is completely proprietary, at
least as far as the video technology is concerned. (that is, they may
have put up some trivial source code like busybox on their website,
but not anything video related).

I had a hunch that it ran Linux. (because what else could it run)

The only way to find out that it was Linux based, was to open it up,
take out the hard drive, and insert it into my Linux PC. Even then,
the hard drive contained only data and not executables.

I believe that what the TV company did (provifing a DRMed product
based on open source) was distasteful, but it probably did not violate
any Linux intellectual property.

> When one organization adopts Linux (or about any technology for that
> matter) the individuals in the organization become accustomed to it so
> that when they go home for the day or move to a different organization,
> they bring Linux with them.

Yep.

i

John Fuhrer · External Since: Nov 03, 2009 Posts: 76

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:00:42 -0600, Ignoramus23290 wrote:

> On 2009-11-04, smr <stevie.rice DeleteThis @googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> And what really helps is if there is someone at that company, who
> knows Linux and wants to make it work.
>
> i

It helps if they are on the management side of the shop.
The tech side has little influence and in management's eyes are
"replaceable".

John Fuhrer · External Since: Nov 03, 2009 Posts: 76

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:14:24 -0600, Ignoramus23290 wrote:

> Not as much as some think.
>
> Example: I have a "DVR" at home. This is a video recorder box supplied
> to me by a satellite TV company. It is completely proprietary, at
> least as far as the video technology is concerned. (that is, they may
> have put up some trivial source code like busybox on their website,
> but not anything video related).
>
> I had a hunch that it ran Linux. (because what else could it run)
>
> The only way to find out that it was Linux based, was to open it up,
> take out the hard drive, and insert it into my Linux PC. Even then,
> the hard drive contained only data and not executables.

Most people prefer to use DVR to record things.
But, whatever floats your boat...........

You're lucky you didn't brick the thing and hopefully you didn't destroy
any tamper seals because if you need to exchange it the cable company may
not be so friendly.

> I believe that what the TV company did (provifing a DRMed product
> based on open source) was distasteful, but it probably did not violate
> any Linux intellectual property.

It's all about money.
If they can save a few dimes by using Linux and if Linux works for them,
they will.

At some point, the Linux community will figure this out.

Matt · External Since: Jan 26, 2009 Posts: 88

smr wrote:
> Robert Heller wrote:
>> At Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:51:21 +0000 smr <stevie.rice.DeleteThis@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Matt wrote:
>>>> Ignoramus13931 wrote:
>>>>> On 2009-11-03, Matt <matt.DeleteThis@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Ignoramus13931 wrote:
>>>>>>> As Windows jobs decline 8% from the beginning of the year, Linux
>>>>>>> postings grew 6%.
>>>>>>> http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid3...ci13732
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly
>>>>>>> averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than
>>>>>>> adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are
>>>>>>> receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i
>>>>>> I strongly agree with your last paragraph above. It generalizes to
>>>>>> any large organization, because they have the economies of scale to
>>>>>> learn to administer Linux efficiently and to finance the migration.
>>>>>> Best is schools, as there is little or no data to migrate.
>>>>> Economies of scale is where Linux shows its excellence, as you can
>>>>> automate most system related things in Linux in a straightforward
>>>>> manner.
>>>>> So you can have one Linux system admin who knows scripting, administer
>>>>> many more machines than a comparably intelligent Windows admin.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Advocate to the guy next to you for practice and support.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want things to change, advocate to the guy who has the power
>>>>>> to change things.
>>>>> I think that what happens in corporations, such as some I have
>>>>> observed, that Linux appears and begins to metastacize,
>>>> It attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it
>>>> touches.
>>>>
>>>> When one organization adopts Linux (or about any technology for that
>>>> matter) the individuals in the organization become accustomed to it so
>>>> that when they go home for the day or move to a different organization,
>>>> they bring Linux with them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> slowly at
>>>>> first and faster later.
>>>>> This is possibly a safer route to successful Linux migration than top
>>>>> to bottom pronoucements such as "move everything to Linx next month".
>>>> The metastasizing that you mention prepares the ground, to mix a couple
>>>> of metaphors.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The downside is that the Microsoft tax is stil being paid this way,
>>>>> but I consider this minor.
>>>>>
>>>>> i
>>> 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.

Matt · External Since: Jan 26, 2009 Posts: 88

Ignoramus23290 wrote:
> On 2009-11-03, Matt <matt DeleteThis @themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
>> Ignoramus13931 wrote:
>>> On 2009-11-03, Matt <matt DeleteThis @themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
>>>> Ignoramus13931 wrote:
>>>>> As Windows jobs decline 8% from the beginning of the year, Linux
>>>>> postings grew 6%.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid3...ci13732
>>>>>
>>>>> What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly
>>>>> averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than
>>>>> adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are
>>>>> receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.
>>>>>
>>>>> i
>>>> I strongly agree with your last paragraph above. It generalizes to any
>>>> large organization, because they have the economies of scale to learn to
>>>> administer Linux efficiently and to finance the migration. Best is
>>>> schools, as there is little or no data to migrate.
>>> Economies of scale is where Linux shows its excellence, as you can
>>> automate most system related things in Linux in a straightforward
>>> manner.
>>>
>>> So you can have one Linux system admin who knows scripting, administer
>>> many more machines than a comparably intelligent Windows admin.
>>>
>>>> Advocate to the guy next to you for practice and support.
>>>>
>>>> If you want things to change, advocate to the guy who has the power to
>>>> change things.
>>> I think that what happens in corporations, such as some I have
>>> observed, that Linux appears and begins to metastacize,
>>
>> It attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it
>> touches.
>
> Not as much as some think.

I was using your cancer analogy as a silly cheap shot at that famous
quote by Ballmer, of course.

> Example: I have a "DVR" at home. This is a video recorder box supplied

"Köhlmann_is_aka_'Petey_T · External Since: Oct 06, 2009 Posts: 8

Matt wrote:
> smr wrote:
>> Robert Heller wrote:
>>> At Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:51:21 +0000 smr <stevie.rice.TakeThisOut@googlemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt wrote:
>>>>> Ignoramus13931 wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009-11-03, Matt <matt.TakeThisOut@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ignoramus13931 wrote:
>>>>>>>> As Windows jobs decline 8% from the beginning of the year, Linux
>>>>>>>> postings grew 6%.
>>>>>>>> http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid3...ci13732
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly
>>>>>>>> averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than
>>>>>>>> adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are
>>>>>>>> receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i
>>>>>>> I strongly agree with your last paragraph above. It generalizes to
>>>>>>> any large organization, because they have the economies of scale to
>>>>>>> learn to administer Linux efficiently and to finance the
>>>>>>> migration. Best is schools, as there is little or no data to
>>>>>>> migrate.
>>>>>> Economies of scale is where Linux shows its excellence, as you can
>>>>>> automate most system related things in Linux in a straightforward
>>>>>> manner.
>>>>>> So you can have one Linux system admin who knows scripting,
>>>>>> administer
>>>>>> many more machines than a comparably intelligent Windows admin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Advocate to the guy next to you for practice and support.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want things to change, advocate to the guy who has the power
>>>>>>> to change things.
>>>>>> I think that what happens in corporations, such as some I have
>>>>>> observed, that Linux appears and begins to metastacize,
>>>>> It attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it
>>>>> touches.
>>>>>
>>>>> When one organization adopts Linux (or about any technology for that
>>>>> matter) the individuals in the organization become accustomed to it so
>>>>> that when they go home for the day or move to a different
>>>>> organization,
>>>>> they bring Linux with them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> slowly at
>>>>>> first and faster later.
>>>>>> This is possibly a safer route to successful Linux migration than top
>>>>>> to bottom pronoucements such as "move everything to Linx next month".
>>>>> The metastasizing that you mention prepares the ground, to mix a
>>>>> couple
>>>>> of metaphors.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The downside is that the Microsoft tax is stil being paid this way,
>>>>>> but I consider this minor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i
>>>> 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.