----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig White" <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: "For users of Fedora Core releases" <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 10:31 PM Subject: Re: Problems installing FC4 on Dell Optiplex GX620 > Les is certainly capable of engaging a debate with anyone on an > incredibly diverse set of subjects and I suspect you just entered one, > but I will say this. > > The two posts that you have made on the subject suggest that you have an > incredibly narrow focus in your expectations. Whether Linux presently > supports some/all SATA drives and controllers and to which degree it > presently supports it is of interest to all Linux users but whether > Windows does the same better/worse is hardly the issue for Linux users. > > Windows is entirely proprietary source and thus you use by your > acceptance of a EULA that conveys to you an incredibly limited set of > rights and imbues Microsoft with your consent to their rights on your > system, data files that you store or access with your system for which > you pay a privilege fee which is neither transferable nor durable. > > A Linux system on the other hand has an end user license which empowers > you and gives you all rights and really only restricts what you must do > if you decide to redistribute Linux or it's various parts/pieces. > > If you look at things from the perspective of end user licenses...you > should be asking Windows users why they bother endlessly purchasing and > repurchasing the same software to which they obtain no ownership > whatsoever and could conceivably be denied access to the documents > (their own work product). That to me is far more encompassing of an > issue than whether XYZ brand SATA RAID controller works with Fedora. > > Some hardware manufacturers hurry to put their 'drivers' out for the > Windows platform because it represents a larger pool of potential sales > for them while Linux gradually accumulates the details to create the > device drivers, with or without manufacturers assistance with varying > levels of success. > > SATA drives are supported to some extent by FC-4 - there are controllers > - such as the fake RAID controllers that are suggested to be hardware > RAID controllers but really are software RAID controllers with drivers > installed into Windows and yes, some have Linux drivers too, but in > reality, those fake RAID devices and drivers don't perform better and > would leave you hanging if the motherboard or expansion card died since > you would have to locate identical hardware to make them functional > again whereas if you used software RAID, you wouldn't have a problem > moving the drive array to another SATA motherboard/controller. > > The issue of SATA on Fedora really isn't about SATA as it is about the > controllers that people are trying to use and the RAID implementations > that they are trying to use. > > If you purchase some of the quality brand SATA controllers, you are > likely to find that they work perfectly well with Fedora and other Linux > distributions. If you are talking about budget minded, often motherboard > embedded cheap SATA implementations, Windows is the right place to > start. > > Things are not always as they appear. > > Craig > The mention of RAID was in the context of Adaptec SCSI RAID which is a real hardware RAID solution. Some may argue that while Adaptec clearly makes the best SCSI Controllers they make the worst RAID controllers that have ever reached the market. None-the-less, Adaptec's RAID controller in our discussion is SCSI not SATA. But your discourse on SATA RAID was entertaining. For a production environment software RAID is unacceptable as it requires at the very least system down time to replace failed drives. As for operating systems, in general, no one buys an OS to simply have an OS. People buy an OS so they can run applications. There are a handful of studies which take the TCO of Linux and compare it favorably to MS. There are hundreds of studies which show MS has a lower TCO than Linux. I use FC4 for an application that until recently did not exist in the windows world. I use a Linux server as a development platform to ensure that code for certain projects works completely sans MS for certain clients. I use XP Pro as my development workstation because there is no Linux tool on the level of Visual Studio .Net or Dreamweaver 8. You also failed to mention that with the price paid for MS products comes support. Not just the support of a good natured (and highly skilled I must say) community as is the case with Linux. It is not true to say "Windows XX is better than Linux XX" without some qualifications. It is only possible to compare total solutions to total solutions for a particular problem at a particular point. For example, what would be the point of comparing FC4 to DOS 2.1? "Windows is entirely proprietary source " so is AIX, Solaris, Mac OS X, and Unix. "incredibly limited set of rights " Exactly what is the warranty on Linux? "why they bother endlessly purchasing and repurchasing the same software" Are you talking about buying the exact same title over and over again or were you trying to say that because you once bought DOS 6 that you should be entitled to use Windows 2003 Data Center? "privilege fee which is neither transferable nor durable." Exactly when does my license for XP Pro expire? Where in the EULA does it say I cannot sell the software to some other entity? The EULA for XP in section 4 clearly says that the end user may transfer the product to another workstation or sell it to another entity. I never understand zealots in either the Microsoft or Linux camp that can not accept that both tools have their uses and proper places with a large degree of overlapping functionality and a lesser degree or functionality not present in the other tool. I find myself unable to promote the use of Linux to Windows zealots nor the reverse. I find that reasonable people and most all the people writing the checks to pay for solutions very open to hybrid solutions or single vendor solutions depending upon the situation.
