School District Fires Network Manager... For Deploying Linux

[MacMan]

The Bexley school districts firing of it's district Network Manager, Curtis Mason, is OUTRAGEOUS! Its a fact that just about any system other than Windows will save a school district money and a lot of headaches.

I can think of several instances where Macs were replaced with Windows and not only did the costs go up astronomically, but the problems of running the Windows systems also shot up to the stratosphere .

The main excuse always seems to be that kids must learn to use what they will use in real life. Hogwash! That's like saying that in order to drive one CANNOT USE a Mercedes, but one MUST USE a Chevrolet because that's, mostly likely, what the kids will use when they grow up! I say people like that should grow up!

If a Mac system will save a school system a bunch money and headaches, then imagine what a Linux system would save a school district?

I think the problem may be partly that Microsoft pays school districts to use their inferior, to OSX and Linux, systems, the same way that drug companies pays doctors to recommend or prescribe their medicines to patients.

I am not a prophet, but I am predicting that the Bexley school system will be paying a lot more money for a computer network that will be giving them a whole lot more headaches then the Linux system they are about to foolishly replace.

It looks good on them; may they enjoy the misery that they will reap for their foolishness.

 

[Rob Williams]

The school board is full of idiots. It's sad considering it's the "school" board. They'll find out the hard way.

 

[NicePants42]

I'll go ahead and provide some links.

Story about switching to Linux.

Story about firing Network Administrator.

MacMan, after reading these articles, I didn't get the impression that Curtis Mason was let go simply because he wanted to migrate to Linux. From his own words, it sounds like he thinks that the teachers felt that he wasn't doing his job very well, and were angry that he didn't give them any input on the idea of the Linux migration. Both of those opinions are arguable and I don't intend to argue them other than to say that you are making assumptions.

Neither of the articles indicated whether any of the PCs had already been migrated to Linux, or if the Linux migration was to be canceled. One could argue based on those articles that the Linux migration is generally thought to be a good idea, but that Mr. Mason was not qualified to maintain the school's network through the migration and into the future. Neither of the articles indicate any link to the migration to Linux and Mr. Mason's firing, other than that they are both associated with the school's network, which seems to be under a lot of scrutiny lately because of the coming changes.

I'm just pointing out that there is another side to the story you present according to the reported news. Any arguments beyond what is reported appear to be based on personal opinion.

 

[Greg King]

Now I am not trying to pick on Rob here but my example does involve him. When we traveled out to Las Vegas for CES last January, Rob brought along his notebook. Having talked with him, I know without a doubt that he knows his way around Linux. That said, he ran into a considerable amount of problems with the hardware in his notebook and Linux not playing nicely.

My argument is that if he was experiencing problems, what happens when you have an entire network running Linux? Most school systems only have a single person that acts as IT/everything else that plugs in, so to me, it sounds like a much larger headache than it would be worth.

It does cost far more than it should, but the good thing about Windows is that it's been around forever and a great majority of users grew up on it so to an extent, it's safe to say that almost everyone knows how to use Windows. The decision of the schools was purely financial and thats fine. To me, it almost sounds like the network admin wasn't either doing his job correctly or going about things the entirely wrong way. Or, he may have been doing his job admirably and got canned unfairly... thats not really the basis for this discussion.

Working IT, I see how much we spend on a yearly basis on licensing and it absolutely blows my mind. I can understand how companies, businesses and schools are looking to save money by moving away from Windows and looking at Linux but sometimes thats a lot harder than it sounds. However, someplace like a school would be a lot easier because of the three months in the summer where everyone is away for break. That and how crappy of an idea is it to have Linux emulate the shit hole OS that is ME. That just sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

I think the real problem in all of this is the jackass that let the school get Windows ME in the first place...

 

[MacMan]

Agreed, but....

I'll go ahead and provide some links.

Story about switching to Linux.

Story about firing Network Administrator.

MacMan, after reading these articles, I didn't get the impression that Curtis Mason was let go simply because he wanted to migrate to Linux. From his own words, it sounds like he thinks that the teachers felt that he wasn't doing his job very well, and were angry that he didn't give them any input on the idea of the Linux migration. Both of those opinions are arguable and I don't intend to argue them other than to say that you are making assumptions.

Neither of the articles indicated whether any of the PCs had already been migrated to Linux, or if the Linux migration was to be canceled. One could argue based on those articles that the Linux migration is generally thought to be a good idea, but that Mr. Mason was not qualified to maintain the school's network through the migration and into the future. Neither of the articles indicate any link to the migration to Linux and Mr. Mason's firing, other than that they are both associated with the school's network, which seems to be under a lot of scrutiny lately because of the coming changes.

I'm just pointing out that there is another side to the story you present according to the reported news. Any arguments beyond what is reported appear to be based on personal opinion.

I agree that there is definitely two sides to the story, or any other, but as to your assumption that I was simply asserting my personal opinion, well, that is entirely CORRECT! That's the whole point of forums, they are a place in which one posts their personal opinions about this or that subject.

As to any arguments in reporting you are CORRECT again, but you are wrong in assuming that I was reporting on the story.... I was not reporting, just expressing my opinion on the limited details of the original story.

I'm trained as a professional children's writer and not that of a professional tech reporter, which I have no doubt I could possibly handle, if the case warranted. Certainly, if reporting on a story, I would do my home work when it comes to reporting it, getting all sides of the situation and presenting them, in a clear and concise way, so that the reader could come to an inform conclusion themselves, one way or the other. However, your assumption that I was reporting, was just that an assumption.

Or am I just assuming, that you were assuming, that I was assuming? lol

However, I must say, in conclusion, that your reasoning concerning Mr. Mason could very well be spot on.

Thanks for you comments; I appreciate them.

 

[MacMan]

Agreed, but....

I'll go ahead and provide some links.

Story about switching to Linux.

Story about firing Network Administrator.

MacMan, after reading these articles, I didn't get the impression that Curtis Mason was let go simply because he wanted to migrate to Linux. From his own words, it sounds like he thinks that the teachers felt that he wasn't doing his job very well, and were angry that he didn't give them any input on the idea of the Linux migration. Both of those opinions are arguable and I don't intend to argue them other than to say that you are making assumptions.

Neither of the articles indicated whether any of the PCs had already been migrated to Linux, or if the Linux migration was to be canceled. One could argue based on those articles that the Linux migration is generally thought to be a good idea, but that Mr. Mason was not qualified to maintain the school's network through the migration and into the future. Neither of the articles indicate any link to the migration to Linux and Mr. Mason's firing, other than that they are both associated with the school's network, which seems to be under a lot of scrutiny lately because of the coming changes.

I'm just pointing out that there is another side to the story you present according to the reported news. Any arguments beyond what is reported appear to be based on personal opinion.

I agree that there is definitely two sides to the story, or any other, but as to your assumption that I was simply asserting my personal opinion, well, that is entirely CORRECT! That's the whole point of forums, they are a place in which one posts their personal opinions about this or that subject.

As to any arguments in reporting you are CORRECT again, but you are wrong in assuming that I was reporting on the story.... I was not reporting, just expressing my opinion on the limited details of the original story.

I'm trained as a professional children's writer and not that of a professional tech reporter, which I have no doubt I could possibly handle, if the case warranted. Certainly, if reporting on a story, I would do my home work when it comes to reporting it, getting all sides of the situation and presenting them, in a clear and concise way, so that the reader could come to an inform conclusion themselves, one way or the other. However, your assumption that I was reporting, was just that, an assumption.

But then again, maybe I'm just assuming, that you were assuming, that I was assuming? lol I always seem to post something when, like now, I am dead tired or in a hurry. Shame on me.

However, I must say, in conclusion, that your reasoning concerning Mr. Mason could very well be spot on.

Thanks for you comments; I appreciate them.

 

[Rob Williams]

Now I am not trying to pick on Rob here but my example does involve him. When we traveled out to Las Vegas for CES last January, Rob brought along his notebook. Having talked with him, I know without a doubt that he knows his way around Linux. That said, he ran into a considerable amount of problems with the hardware in his notebook and Linux not playing nicely.

Not to pick on you Greg, but that's a poor example

I left home without compiling a wireless card driver and SAMBA. That's hardly the same situation. I install a basic version of Linux with just what I need to browse and talk on AIM. I left home without realizing I didn't have a few of the most basic applications installed. This is hardly similar to something that would happen in a server environment. Installing a server distro would automatically take care of everything you would need. Installing a barebones Gentoo doesn't.

If you left home with a laptop and forgot to install Unreal Tournament, would you later blame Windows?

It does cost far more than it should, but the good thing about Windows is that it's been around forever and a great majority of users grew up on it so to an extent, it's safe to say that almost everyone knows how to use Windows.

Sardines have been around forever, but that doesn't mean they taste good. I have never had experience with a Windows server, but I have with Linux. Yes, the Windows desktop is popular and simple to use, but that doesn't really mean the server model is just as simple, or smart.

I am sure there are numerous downsides to Linux as a server. I just haven't ever come close to finding one. When I can log into a Techgage server, edit a configuration file and restart a service in under two minutes, it's a good thing. Not to mention the fact that I could run a single simple command to back up the entire server to a local computer.

But like you said, Windows is popular. THAT'S why it's so popular in the server market. People are scared of Linux. It could be that I am just a geek, but I find Linux as a desktop is far more efficient than Windows, once you know what you are doing. Even when you understand Windows well, simple things can be a huge pain in the ass.

I think the real problem in all of this is the jackass that let the school get Windows ME in the first place...

That, I agree with.

BTW, Linux can give you helps.

 

[NicePants42]

I was not reporting, just expressing my opinion on the limited details of the original story.

I thought that my post said exactly that - you argued something that the reported news does not (yet) back up, therefore it is only your opinion. I was not saying you did a bad job of reporting the story, only that your opinions seem to ignore one side. Nothing wrong with that on a message board, I just wanted to help inform other readers a little further so that if an argument broke out, it'd be easier to fact-check.

I was just trying to inject a little calm into a thread with an inflamitory title.

 

[MacMan]

Well said NicePants

I thought that my post said exactly that - you argued something that the reported news does not (yet) back up, therefore it is only your opinion. I was not saying you did a bad job of reporting the story, only that your opinions seem to ignore one side. Nothing wrong with that on a message board, I just wanted to help inform other readers a little further so that if an argument broke out, it'd be easier to fact-check.

I was just trying to inject a little calm into a thread with an inflamitory title.

Well said NicePants42. I agree, too many people rush into shooting their mouths off far too quickly. That would include myself, at least, half of the time. When ever I see any thing Microsoft, my emotions tend to take precedence over any rationality on my part.

 

[Greg King]

I understand that you love Linux and MacMan loves anything Apple but to defend my earlier comments on Windows versus Linux, I would like to make a few points.

I understand that Mr. Mason wanted to migrate to Linux to save money but with Linux, as with anything, you sometimes get what you pay for and before you jump at me, I am in no way supporting Microsoft's insane pricing structure, but rather making a point that you pretty well get what you pay for.

What happens when this school corporation completely migrates to Linux and a few months after they are completely free of Windows, something breaks. Maybe it's an email or perhaps even something else. While you pay a lot for Windows, along comes the support and backing of their engineers. You can easily get on the phone, give them a call, let them know that your shits broken and within a reasonable amount of time, their engineers have worked the problem out and deliver either a patch or a workaround. Who are you going to call when something breaks in your Linux network? I know thats just one example but I think it's a pretty profound one. A school is a bad example of this but if you think about a large company, there is absolutely no room for downtime. Downtime is simply put, money lost and most IT techs to not want to explain a 10 hour "situation" to their superiors.

This, and market saturation, is why Microsoft is ultimately the best choice. As time progresses and Linux gains more and more steam, I can envision a world with complete and total Linux based networks... far more than there is now. The problem then is that for companies to invest into a new technology, they are going to want peace of mind and top level support and when you get into that, you can't get support folks to work for free. Something is going to have to offset the cost of support, R&D, marketing and whatever else distro makers can think of to spend their money on. At that point, the line between MS and Linux is quite blurry.

Linux is great for the basement users who tinker with it to either learn something about the software or to get back at the evil empire that is Microsoft (much like emo kids and the never ending battle between them and their parents), but for large roll outs, there is just to much on the line to trust a single distro. Last time I checked, Red Hat was not free, for was the support contracts that came along with them.

And to address the "Rob example," my bad bro.

 

[Rob Williams]

I think that you should learn and understand the Linux model before you start making comments against it. "Get what you pay for". You seem to be on the assumption that professional support for Linux just doesn't exist, or that it sucks. Both Red Hat and Novell offer professional support for their server OS'.

So how is this different than Windows? You also make comments that lead me to believe that you think Linux has low usage in the server market. Hardly the case, which is why Microsoft has huge marketing campaigns to "prove" their OS is better. I am not saying that Windows is a bad server. In some cases it may very well be far better. In some cases, Linux will prove far better.

Linux is free for those who want it. If you are running a huge infrastructure, then it would be stupid to not have professional support as a back up.

This, and market saturation, is why Microsoft is ultimately the best choice.

You don't seem to have hard evidence of why Windows is better. Who deals most with the servers? IT/IS guys. Why does it matter if the server they are configuring at work is similar to their desktop computer? Just because Windows is popular doesn't mean it's the "best choice".

You seem to underestimate the Linux usage in the server market. Take a look at this top list:

http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/reports/performance/Hosters?tn=march_2007

25% of the servers contacted ran Windows, while the other 75% ran servers based on Linux or some BSD variant. According to your assumptions, the world is chock full of basement geeks

I'm done debating here, because we could go on forever. I also don't work in an IT environment like you, so I can't make better constructive arguments. I am going by my personal experiences with web servers and also from articles I've read in the past.

 

[Greg King]

There really isn't a debate. We are all sharing our points. Just because I collect a pay check at work, doesn't make me an expert in the IT field. My whole point is that for the support, that a large company or school district would ultimately need, it is going to cost quite a bit. And yes, I understand that Red Hat and Novell offer support, but I made the comment that it is not free.

I have never once claimed to know anything about Linux, and I do understand that there are probably more UNIX based servers running the internet than there are Windows. I am only speaking from my experiences and from what I see on a daily basis. I am not saying that one is better than the other one, but for me and the company that I work for, MS just makes more sense at this time. I say that as we shovel a lot of money towards Microsoft because they make it easy to run their OS. Be it good or bad, it is easy.

If I had a basement, I would be a basement geek. But ultimately, one that ran Windows because I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to Linux.