"John van V." <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > about the unix/nt comparisson:
> > > with nt one thing is easy possible: delegate some task to someone who
> > > is not a skilled administrator.
> > And see him go crazy trying to fix something, e.g. installing NT on
> > drives with >1024 cylinders after a crash.
> > Get alife. If you have a problem with NT it gets difficult and you
> > don't even have logfiles that are as detailed as with linux.
> Linux has to support NT for a simple reason, we want to get onto
> their boxes to replace NT. If we break NT then Linux is off that
> box possibly forever. If we succeed then there is a tremendous
> likelyhood that NT will never be booted again.
<grin> Yes, I like that :)
> This comes to the need for an easier to use LILO, there was a project called
> GRUB but that fell by the wayside.
You can boot linux from the NT bootloader, but you can't boot NT from
lilo (as far as I know). If you use lilo, you will get two
prompts. Debian should come with documentation on how to put linux
into the NT bootloader.
> In a way the goal is to eliminate the Sys Admin on the local box,
> giving every body the ability to run things themselves.
> >The problem is finding them as a user needing them. :) Nearly every
> >tool has been programmed for unix.
> I am going to the perl conference this week, I am going to propose a micro perl
> which I believe is the perfect standard for admin. Perl, like a lot of other
> stuff is bloated, hence the need for a micro. Among advantages of perl, is the
> fact that the scripts are tiny themselves and fully portable to TK.
And absolutly unchangeable and unfixable in 99% of all cases. Theres
just no clean structure in perl code most of the time.
Thats the greates advantage and the greatest drawback of perl.
May the Source be with you.