Difficulty of Administration

• ``Linux is more difficult to administer than Windows NT.''
• ``Where are you going to find trained Linux administrators?''

This is an example of FUD#1: Exaggeration. Response: ``Linux assumes that you have a competent system administrator. If you enable an idiot to administer your mission-critical systems, you deserve what you get.'' Emphasize that any competent system administrator within an organization can be dropped into Linux with no special training and be expected to administer the system simply by referring to the manual. You're free to use me as an example (a math teacher, hired to write educational software, who was told ``you used Unix years ago so you're our new system administrator'').

Also be sure to point out that, unlike Windows NT, where remote administration is a kludged-on hack that does not address all facets of administering the operating system, Unix and Linux were designed from the first to be remotely administered. Thus you need far fewer administrators for Linux than you need for NT.

• ``Administering Linux requires you to edit all of these little text files with a text editor.''

This is primarily FUD#2 (an outright lie). All modern distributions of Linux come with tools that handle all normal administrative tasks without the need to go to the text editor level (unless you want to). In addition, there is an element of FUD#3: spinning a Linux strength into appearing to be a weakness. The strength, of course, is that if all else fails (if the tool bombs, for example) you can edit the actual file with a text editor. And furthermore, if you're at the end of a 9600 baud modem link and using a GUI tool isn't feasible, you can edit the actual configuration files with a text editor.