[mdlug] OT: Microsoft Monopoly

[Adam Tauno Williams]

On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 09:06 -0400, Jonathan Billings wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 08:27:05AM -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> > IMO, what it really means is they-are-right.  I'm an Open Source
> > advocate and a UNIX/LINUX admin for ~15 years.  And I have no problem
> > admitting this in many regards.  The Open Source communities' insane [or
> > just lazy] addiction to the-txt-config-file is a serious hold-up for
> > LINUX deployment;  it means all admin tools, to the point that they even
> > exist, essentially *suck* and will eventually trash your config [acting
> > as anti-admin tools].  Fortunately with XML configuration, XDG, D-Bus,
> > etc... we are *finally* starting to move beyond the
> > idiot-who-thinks-sysadmin-is-proficiency-in-vi.
> Actually, I'm not sure that's a huge step in the right direction.
> The windows registry shouldn't be held up as an example of the proper
> way to centralize configuration.

This is arguing an implementation against the concept.  [And I haven't
seen a trashed windows registry in a long time anyway].  The mature
concept is Active Directory. 

>   At least with plain text, you can
> put the configuration into proper version control and use a
> configuration management tool to manage things centrally.

Sure, *you* can.  But that's just the point.  Everyone roll-your-own
solution to system administration isn't good system administration.  You
get hit by a bus.... and pity the poor fool who has to come in to manage
your systems.

> Perhaps I have "...[t]he Open Source communities' insane [or just
> lazy] addiction to the-txt-config-file", but I find it easier to
> manage centrally using current tools.  I don't believe it's insane or
> lazy, that just comes off as elitist. 

Ok, I'm elitist.  I don't have any problem with that.

> It's just the product of the UNIX community it was spawned from.
> I agree that it is annoying that every tool has it's own
> domain-specific language (you hear me, sendmail?), but I'm not won
> over by the Windows Registry.

Again, Windows Registry is merely an implementation.

> > <rant>
> > Heck, even adding a CA certificate to a LINUX host's openssl [or is it
> > gnutls?] configuration is a stupidly arcane exercise.  So most LINUX
> > hosts I find [yes *most*] communicate either in-the-clear or with
> > certificate verification disabled.  All the while their "administrators"
> > jabber on about how much more secure LINUX is that Windows.  And the
> > response to the criticism is usually that interanet traffic is trusted.
> > Wow! [But do you need 802.1x authentication just to plug any laptop into
> > a switch?  Ha, no, you'll just get an address from DHCP.  Oh, right,
> > 802.1x would require a working PKI configuration.... back to square
> > one].
> > </rant>
> I'm annoyed that it's difficult to add a CA to the OS and make it work
> universally. 

Yep.

>  It probably requires more of those insane, lazy text files. 

No, you have to run the command "/usr/bin/c_rehash"  Eh?  Wow, is that
poorly documented.  And it still won't work because just about every app
and service on UNIX/LINUX rolls-it-own certificate discovery solution.  

> > > > wilds of the job market that are "knowledgable" about Administrating Windows
> > > > than Linux systems. It has absolutely nothing to do with the actual
> > > > configuration or maintaining of the resulting systems.
> > > >   Modenn Linux distros are in many ways as easy or easier to setup and
> > > > configure than comparable duty Windows servers/systems.
> > And implied in the statement "in many ways as easy or easier" is the
> > statement "in many other ways as hard or harder".  Inherently these
> > kinds of statements negate themselves - they have no meaning, IMO.
> In many ways, your comments make sense.