The Most Convoluted Network EVER!
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@JaredBusch said:
You all forget that it is AJ, the thief, that stated in the other thread to just use the DNS and DHCP because it did not matter if you had CALs or not.
STFU @JaredBusch.
Sure thing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Mixing networks is completely normal. While this IS a complex network, it does not appear to be ridiculously complex. If the primary concern is around having both Windows and UNIX in the same network, I don't see anything wrong there, at least not at this level.
Sure, with lots of analysis, we might determine cost savings or feature advantages by going down to just Windows or UNIX, but we'd need a lot more information to make that determination. Tons of companies have both. Large networks are complex things. The way an SMB works is little related to how an enterprise works.
I've never worked anywhere that was solely windows. we've always have some Linux or Unix, or FreeBSD. my current temp contract is a full Linux based environment, though we are probably pretty rare.
-
It's not the fact that they mixed *nix and Windows together that concerns me. I've seen plenty of places do that. I guess I can't really explain it. Not usually at a loss for words but I am now.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
It's not the fact that they mixed *nix and Windows together that concerns me. I've seen plenty of places do that. I guess I can't really explain it. Not usually at a loss for words but I am now.
The only difference would be they are well integrated which isn't a bad thing. Many SMBs will use windows as the primary and *Nix just kinda poorly thrown on top of it.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
It's not the fact that they mixed *nix and Windows together that concerns me. I've seen plenty of places do that. I guess I can't really explain it. Not usually at a loss for words but I am now.
The only difference would be they are well integrated which isn't a bad thing. Many SMBs will use windows as the primary and *Nix just kinda poorly thrown on top of it.
The place this is implemented has had many issues though. I haven't personally seen the network so everything I know is second-hand, but I've been told they've had all kinds of issues with their setup.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Mixing networks is completely normal. While this IS a complex network, it does not appear to be ridiculously complex. If the primary concern is around having both Windows and UNIX in the same network, I don't see anything wrong there, at least not at this level.
Sure, with lots of analysis, we might determine cost savings or feature advantages by going down to just Windows or UNIX, but we'd need a lot more information to make that determination. Tons of companies have both. Large networks are complex things. The way an SMB works is little related to how an enterprise works.
I've never worked anywhere that was solely windows. we've always have some Linux or Unix, or FreeBSD. my current temp contract is a full Linux based environment, though we are probably pretty rare.
I can't say that I have either. I've been in pure UNIX, but never pure Windows. Even the SMB Startup that I was at in 2000, with only twelve users, was mixed 50/50.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
It's not the fact that they mixed *nix and Windows together that concerns me. I've seen plenty of places do that. I guess I can't really explain it. Not usually at a loss for words but I am now.
The only difference would be they are well integrated which isn't a bad thing. Many SMBs will use windows as the primary and *Nix just kinda poorly thrown on top of it.
I've seen that a lot. Sometimes it is a single integrated network, sometimes they are loosely related with almost no connection between them.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
It's not the fact that they mixed *nix and Windows together that concerns me. I've seen plenty of places do that. I guess I can't really explain it. Not usually at a loss for words but I am now.
The only difference would be they are well integrated which isn't a bad thing. Many SMBs will use windows as the primary and *Nix just kinda poorly thrown on top of it.
The place this is implemented has had many issues though. I haven't personally seen the network so everything I know is second-hand, but I've been told they've had all kinds of issues with their setup.
Never worked in a college but, I'd say any college of decent size will have lots of issues.
-
In the mid-90s I worked at a national US ISP and all of the servers either ran SunOS (later Solaris) or UNIX 6, or briefly there were a lot of Redhat servers as well. I'm not sure what they run today, but I think it's nothing except Linux, not sure what distro though. There were absolutely no Windows servers, though there were Windows workstations for client developers and I remember NT 4 was used for the domain but later replaced with OpenLDAP, and finally the only Windows machines left were only for client development, even server development (at least when I was there) was on Sun machines. I wouldn't really consider it a mixed environment, as it was apparent to me from everyone that if they could only use Unix that's what they'd use.
So certainly as mentioned above, when it comes to single type environments, Windows-only is pretty rare. Even at Microsoft they don't have Windows only environments, hotmail used some form of Unix or Linux for a very long time. There was an article about this, but I cannot find it, it detailed how Microsoft tried switching hotmail to Exchange but it was a huge failure for a long time. I imagine now it uses it though, probably some cutdown version of it better suited for such a large environment. Microsoft, though, isn't great on scalability, except SQL Server and modern versions of .NET can do a pretty good job at it (even surprises me). SQL Server's own advancements since 2005 have been very impressive.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Never worked in a college but, I'd say any college of decent size will have lots of issues.
I did long ago. Some issues, not horrible. but it was the 90s.
