From: Chris Robinson 

Here's a thought:  If Linux/ UNIX relies a lot more on scripting and, as
you say, less admin tools are developed as a result of this then would it
not be the
case the for every Windows aAdmin you may well nedd two Linux Admins (the
idea being that the Windows admin tools save a significant amount of time).
 Also, a lot of IT departments have scaled down due to the fact that so
many more things in a Windows environment are automated (software patch
deployment, domain admin tools etc) - would IT departments need to scale-up
in order to switch to Linux?

Chris (n.b. these are just thoughts "thrown up in the air" - they
may well be crap :oP)

"Geo." wrote:

> "Joe Barr"  wrote in message
> news:3e2c4a49$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> > So they realize that "Yes, we actually do have them beat in
areas."
>
> Every OS has it's strong points. Unix/Linux is very flexible and does allow
> a lot of scripting. OTOH the ease of scripting has IMO hurt linux admin
> tools development because the tool developers don't hear the screaming
> before someone scripts something.
>
> > What
> > you're saying is that Linux sysadmins are in general more competent, which
> > brings up emotional issues. It may be that the competent people simply do
> > not choose to work on other platforms. I would not criticize Chad's study
> > on that basis.
>
> Consider this, maybe it's not an issue of competent admins but more an issue
> of non admins calling themselves admins? I think if you compare apples to
> apples, select two admins, one windows and one unix, both with 10 years
> experience, you will find them pretty much equal in their respective
> abilities.
>
> Did Chad's study take years of experience into consideration?
>
> Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4