[linux-help] Re: FreeRadius server

["Jonathan Hall" <flimzy@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 10:04:27PM -0600, Jonathan Hall wrote:
> > "Reasons not to give Linux to your mother":
> >
> > 1) To install a user-friendly DE/WM, email client, web browser, and word
> > processor for Linux would require at least 128mb RAM and probably a
400Mhz
> > CPU.  To do so with Windows 95 requires a Pentium 100 with 32mb.
>
> That is vastly overstating the case.  Having played with a 100MHz Windows
98
> box just today, I can vouch for its inattantiveness and annoyingness :-)
>
> It took two of us a good hour just to get the video card to work.  Finally
> gave up and swapped it out for another.  Apparently its Windows 95 drivers
> didn't work in 98.
>
> Had trouble with applications needing MFC42.DLL, but it was on the system
> already.  Downloaded an update from Microsoft, reboot, no go.  Finally
found
> a Visual C update from Google that did the trick.
>
> It took me about the same amount of time to configure dual-head mode for
my
> Linux desktop.  (And before you talk about experience, our Windows admin
was
> working on it too)

I've had similar experiences with Linux, as well... and I'm quite
experienced in that arena as well.  You'll always find odd situations where
it takes unexpectedly long to get something working, regardless of what
software or OS you use.


> > 2) To install a user-friendly DE/WM, email client, web browser, and word
> > processor for Linux would require several hours of my time.  For
Windows, it
> > takes about an hour.
>
> I dunno, I have a pretty set list that I get with:
>
> apt-get install task-x-desktop mozilla koffice abiword gnumeric gnucash
kde kdm

Last I tried using out-of-the-box Debian packages, they weren't very
user-friendly without some tweaking.  That may well have changed, though.


> > 4) The cost of the software for Linux is free, granted.  The cost of the
> > software for Windows is probably about $45-$55 (~$30 for a Win95
license,
> > ~$15 for WordPerfect).  But the time I save by using Windows makes
Windows a
> > more economical alternative very quickly.
>
> You are not considering the cost of virus scanning software (how do you
> train a user just what things are OK to click on?  Or to not even open a
> mailbox if there's an Outlook virus on it), both in time and resources.
Nor
> the greater burden of security updates (both in frequency and in
difficulty
> to apply).  Windows 95 is going to be chock full of security holes by now
> (so is Windows 98 for that matter) -- what sort of impact on your time
does
> it make when the latest IE worm causes data loss, or the latest Outlook
bug
> causes another virus to get installed?

There is good AV software for Windows that is free.  My personal choice is
AVG AntiVirus.  Even so, you can pick up the latest version of Norton for
about $20.  That's about 15 minutes of my time.  It's still easier for me to
install that than to give Linux to my mom :)

As far as training goes, most users by now have at least minimal computer
training--with Windows.  Where training is concerned in _my_ sphere of
influence, Windows is definately the better choice, b/c it requires less of
my time.

As for security concerns... Email viruses are the main concern I'm aware of
for people like my mom.  And that can usually be handled by a good
up-to-date virus scan software of choice, and possibly even installing an AV
mail filter on a Linux box.  Most other security issues shouldn't effect
most minimal users.  By the time someone starts doing other high-risk
activities, there are other reasons for me to have them use Windows and not
Linux.  But my mom doesn't fall into that category, and this is why I didn't
mention them in my list :)




-- This is the linux-help@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi