UNIX v Win2k

[Sasso, John IT]

Well, it seems like we agree on one thing - running DNS service on a UNIX
box is the preferable solution.  Now here's where we part ways ...

My statement "GUIs can't do everything for you!" applied in the context of
an earlier suggestion of managing DNS on a UNIX box from a Web-based (or
other GUI-type) interface; granted, other portions of the box can be managed
via GUI (to a certain degree, and depending on the OS).  MS-Windows is
managed virtually entirely by one GUI or another on the platform (from what
I've observed my fellow Windows admins do over the years), its ingrained in
the OS, as opposed to UNIX; I may be wrong, but it seems there are few CLI
tools on a Windows platform (i.e. DOS-based tools) to totally manage the
platform >>compared to<< what is available (and even necessary) GUI-wise.
So understanding this clarification, no, my argument does not self-destruct.
I cannot help the way Windows was developed :/

The contention of Barry and I is making the case to the business (y'know,
them upper management folks and execs) to hire someone with a UNIX
background to manage a DNS server, the sole UNIX box there (assuming the
business cannot outsource such service, for some reason; we do not for
security and management purposes).  In theory, that'd be the solution, but
theory doesn't always apply.  If you are running services on UNIX boxes, you
need UNIX admins; for Windows servers, Windows admins; ad infinitum.  To
deny such is to be naive.

--john


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Darcy [mailto:kcd at daimlerchrysler.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 9:05 PM
To: comp-protocols-dns-bind at isc.org
Subject: Re: UNIX v Win2k



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.
>
>
>