\jeff{krimmel}

A Very Realistic Assessment of Linux

I read this article today, and I must say I found it to be one of the fairest assessments of the current state of Linux that I’ve read. It’s not earth-shattering. It’s not even that insightful. It’s just plain honest.

One of the truer statements I’ve read about Linux in some time: “The person who sets it up is the person who is going to fix it when it breaks. So be prepared to have that person around at all times and if not, be prepared to pay a lot more for somebody to parachute in and fix it.” That statement isn’t rock solid true, but it’s pretty close. I learned this when I tried to fix our Linux cluster’s file server after it went down as a result of a power failure to the building. I was not the one who set the server up. In fact, it was ordered and delivered before I arrived at Caltech. It is pretty difficult trouble shooting a Linux system you haven’t set up. Not impossible. Just a bit difficult.

And one of the reasons is also listed in the article: the configuration files you’re editing generally require different syntaxes (is that the correct plural of “syntax”?). It’s a much more customizable arrangement than that offered by Windows. I find it to be much more powerful. But you pay for it in the need to require at least a cursory understanding of the several main configuration files on any system. Troubleshoot a Windows box? There’s three or four things you check immediately, and most of the time, you’ve found the problem. With Linux, it’s not so easy. It’s not going to be an obvious spyware problem or a runaway process that a reboot fixes. It’s there because it’s a real problem; something you have to find and fix. Fortunately it happens much less on Linux than on Windows, but it still happens. It’s part of using a computer.