UNIX v Win2k

[Kevin Darcy]

My 2 cents...

Since "GUIs can't do everything for you!" [sic], why even use MS products for
infrastructure at all? I think your argument self-destructs pretty quickly. The
choice is: an MS product that only has a GUI, so when it breaks in a way that
can't be fixed through the GUI, you're basically SOL, versus a Unix solution
with a GUI for the day-to-day stuff, and if something breaks that the GUI can't
fix, at least you have a *chance* -- albeit maybe a slim one -- of going in and
fixing it from the command-line. Isn't the business value proposition rather
clear? Remember, this is a *DNS*server* we're talking about; a piece of the
infrastructure. If it were some sort of application server, then other factors
would come into play, e.g. development tools. But for a DNS server, you just
want it to run reliably, and to be able to fix it when it breaks.


- Kevin

"Sasso, John IT" wrote:

> Although I'm a UNIX bigot and believe that Internet info services such as
> DNS should be run on UNIX boxes, I have to second Barry's point.  Having a
> UNIX box with a GUI interface with all the bells 'n' whistles to manage BIND
> is not sufficient enough for a non-UNIX (Windows) administrator.  It is not
> uncommon to have to do troubleshooting, performance tuning, security, and
> other config mgmt of the UNIX box that requires knowledge of the OS itself
> and, at times, the internals.  GUIs don't do everything for you!  As one
> needs to learn how to crawl before one can walk, one should understand how
> to manage a UNIX box at the command-line/text file level before resorting
> entirely to GUIs.
>
> Despite my UNIX slant, I agree with Barry.  If your business does not have
> anyone with UNIX experience (and assuming it cannot afford to hire someone
> with such experience), then sticking with BIND on a Windows box (or Win2K's
> DNS) may be better - for the sake of managing the servers.
>
> My 2c worth.
>
>         --john
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Pointer [mailto:sam.pointer at hpdsoftware.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 5:51 AM
> To: 'James Gray'; comp-protocols-dns-bind at isc.org
> Subject: RE: UNIX v Win2k
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> "where a even a Windows user could manage it".
>
> :)
>
> - -----Original Message-----
> From: James Gray [mailto:james-spam.sux-gray at ozemail.com.au]
> Sent: 13 May 2002 23:16
> To: comp-protocols-dns-bind at isc.org
> Subject: Re: UNIX v Win2k
>
> "Barry Margolin" wrote...
> > Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> > >This being so, why are you considering a migration in the first
> > >place?
> > >
> > >Unless you need server functionality that is _specific_ to Windows
> > >2000
> AND
> > >you cannot keep both the UNIX system and the Windows 2000 system,
> > >why migrate your DNS at all?  No need to fix something that isn't
> > >broken!
> >
> > What about personnel functionality?  Many sites only have Windows
> > system administrators, and no Unix sysadmins.  Legacy Unix servers
> > are OK as long as they continue to work, but as soon as they break
> > or need to be
> modified,
> > there's nobody competent to do it.  I've had to talk customers
> > through modifying their BIND configurations, and we're lucky if
> > they know how to
> us
> > "vi" enough to perform the editing.
> >
> > It may not be broken now, but I think that companies that think
> > ahead are being prudent.
>
> Barry raises some good points but I think the day-to-day
> administration of a
> *nix server can be simplified to the point where a even a Windows
> user could
> manage it.  There are many web-based GUI tools to manage *nix servers
> and
> the most mature of these IMHO is Webmin.  It even has a specific DNS
> admin
> module for managing zones and all that entails.
>
> We are migrating our DNS away from Win2K to *nix with Webmin, and our
> IT
> department only has two Unix admins (myself and another guy) but most
> of the
> zones will be administered by a bunch of MCSE's :-)  So far so good.
>
>
>