I think you are correct about requiring a corporate
backbone for the os on the machines acting as your firewall to the Net.
I think the real argument is over security by obscurity (the MS solution - if
you know too much then it is not secure) VS open security
(security based on the security administrator defining the rules and
understanding what happens behind the scenes and being able to integrate
multiple vendors solutions based on the load req's of the servers.).
MS says build it and it will scale. SUN & SGI says 'model your problem and we
will solve it' - I like the latter.
Lachlan McIntosh wrote:
> > than large companies are *ESPECIALLY* heterogeneous
> >environments, where you have some users who are Win 3.1, some Win 95,
> >NT workstation, some Macs, and some Unix That's the reality today in
> > > corporate America. Corporations decide which OS technologies to use
> > > depending on factors ranging from cost and scalability to politics
> > and
> > > religious bias.
> > I guess it comes down to where you work.
> > I'm in Australia and there has been a big move to NT from Unix and
> > Novell based networks (and I guess to keep things on an even keel I
> > would have to say "small to medium networks use....." (there really
> > arn't any really large companies here)
> > The main market where I am in Brisbane is Government and
> > SemiGovernment.
> > Believe me Microsoft has done their work here.
> > As you said Politics had a lot to do with it.....
> > Also in my experience, the better run networks have moved to NT.
> > Where you are it may be different.
> > But I can't see myself out of work for the next, ooooo, 25 or so
> > years........ (what a terrible pity.....)
> > Linux may be a better more stable solution (that's free) but that
> > doesn't mean that people will use it.
> > It seems that usage of the "internet" is different here as well.
> > There are only two main applications - mail and web browsing.
> > Corporations and government simply want to their users access to the
> > web and want to disallow any connections inwards, they also want
> > totally intergrated security (you know they create the user once,
> > assign whatever rights he/she needs and that's it, no buggerising
> > around with IP addresses, dual logins, stuff like that......)
> > If someone can point a better application for the job, I'll gladly
> > change my mind and start using/recommending another application, but
> > to my mind the "microsoft sucks - linux will save the free world from
> > cultural starvation" argument is silly and childish.
> > I'm not say that linux is bad, just that I don't think it's a
> > commercially viable option to have expertise in (at least in
> > Australia)
> > >All I can say to this is that it's just not true. I've had numerous
> > >Fortune 100 companies who have decided to use Linux or *BSD in their
> > >enterprises to handle serious production tasks. There are a lot of
> > reasons
> > >or it, ranging from the ability to customize what can be done due to
> > the
> > >availability of the source code, to wanting industrial strength
> > firewalls
> > (unfortunatly most government IT shops won't allow any OS applications
> > that don't have a vendors name stamped on them - the ones that are
> > generally used are VMS, NT, HPUX, solaris and Novell)
> > Lachlan McIntosh
Phone: (212) 593-0689 mailto:Me @
Fax: (212) 832-7502 http://WWW.DannyGumport.com