Slashdot Mirror
Office-Worker Linux: It's Here and It Works
A few weeks ago, dot.kde.org featured a great why-should-this-be-amazing story about Linux being used as the day-to-day desktop operating system for city employees in Largo, Florida. Roblimo got a chance to see the system in action to find out how ordinary office workers are proving that the old "Linux is tough to use" shibboleth is nothing but FUD, and how a medium-sized city is saving buckets of money by minimizing the tax dollars spent on licenses and hardware. Oh, and they've also pre-empted the kind of costs (in hassle and money) that can face any organization that Microsoft suspects may have some licenses out of order. This is the kind of thing every elected official should have politely waved in his or her face by concerned taxpayers. The Largo system uses KDE on Red Hat, but since both KDE and Gnome are paying much attention to user interface, similar systems could easily be running on various combinations of hardware / distribution / desktop system.
Gee, how unusual. I suppose the average corporate drone is handed a Windows CD and an Optiplex?
Have you ever tried to get NT running?
i ven-right (what IS UP with that slashdot auto-spacing-long-lines-because-they-must-be-evil- and-would-confuse-the-reader-so-we-have-to-insert- spaces??-) mentality and start paying for things again (yes, I know a lot of linux users pay for distros, but VERY FEW do compared to the manhours put in to develop and sustain it, and VERY FEW do compared to the number of people who USE it.. Actually, it costs more to put out a distro because of the costs of the bandwidth that you must provide to allow people to download the thing) so that businesses will start to develop seriously for linux, things will not change. With the yelling from business about wanting a "profitable internet", do you think they're going to sink developmental funds into something that they're not going to earn any money at, much less turn a profit? Sure, volunteers and the occasional corporate sponsorship does work occasionally, but look at how long it has taken to get here, and how slowly it works.
... maybe ? is that it, that dot on the horizon? dunno... only time will tell.
Man what type of crack are you on? I've been a sysadmin here for 2 years, and tried to push out linux to users who wanted it on several occasions. And guess what? Linux is great -- that is if, and only if, you have perfect hardware and perfect setup and a standalone system. The minute that something is out-of-spec, linux goes AWOL and the poor desktop user is SOL because they don't know the difference between KDE and dd. OTOH, I've plopped in the install CD for W2K, filled in a few simple details, walked away, came back 30 minutes later and had a system up-and-running without any problems. Sure back in the day of WinNT4 (I humbly agree that Win9X was a POS, but don't get me started on why those existed and why customers demanded Win98SE and WinME...) there were a bunch of problems, but I have had very few problems installing windows 2000 systems (and *zero* on reputable machines (i.e. Dell), well there was that 1 problem, traced to a defective HD)... And secondly, as soon as the user wants to do something new with their system, they're SOL again, not only because installing isn't as simple as "click here to download, run setup.exe and you're installed" (albiet lately in linux it has gotten a LOT better), but also because the apps simply aren't out there.
Oh BTW -- check out my W2K Server, up for 131 days without a reboot, and also survived CodeRed without a scratch because I set up security properly from the day that I installed the server. There's a cool realtime stats program up on the CodeRed attacks and other neat things: here.
To recap, simply, I like linux. I think that it has a lot of potential but it simply isn't anywhere close enough yet to be a mainstream system. Remember this, and the fact that it's manhours spent with linux as well. I hate to be the harbinger of news here, but windows is much easier to use, period. There's no debate about that one, and with XP it just gets easier. Try putting your mother down in front of a linux machine, and then do the same with a windows machine. There is a reason why windows is used on 90% of desktops, and why Microsoft is the software giant that they are (reasons beyond the typical slashdottery about squishing competition and cheating and crap), more than just "being in the right place at the right time".. It's because, for better or worse, they have the best set of software products out there. Office and Windows are extremely successful because they're good, and people like them and use them a lot. That's a fact, hard to dispute.
I don't think that linux will make it as a mainstream OS anytime soon, or at least until most of the linux users (BTW, I think that part of the reason of linux non-acceptability is because of the typical i-love-linux-and-hate-windoze attitude and immaturity, not everyone, but just enough are immature and slander and swear and yell and scream and kick and fuss and act like children to give linux a bad name. Don't believe me? read our very own CmdrTaco. I think that he made some really good points there, the thermostat in hell must have broken that day...:> ) are part of the reason.
Oh well. I think that until linux users give up the I-want-everything-for-free-as-in-beer-as-my-god-g
Ahh... I'd seriously like to see a competetor to Windows and Microsoft products, but unfortunately right now I just don't see it, and
{/end rant}
If God gave us curiosity
Easily, my non-tech-savvy friends could get used to KDE and become comfortable in it, but I don't think they could set it up to be usable (nor do they care, and rightly so, they shouldn't have to). They could actually install easily--the Redhat install was exquisitley easy--but as far as installing programs, setting things up the way they like, etc., I don't think they could.
Then again, many people can't do the same with Windows (installing programs and configuring it to their liking).
KDE was likely the most crusial choice. Even moreso than Linux. For the stuf office workers do all day KDE is realy the best Unix based solution (Not counting MAc OS X which I havn't seen myself but have herd good things about).
I am all for being nice to "the other side" on these things but what I see is people strugling to use Gnome for ideological reasons and other people getting work done with KDE for financial reasons.
You know Finacial reasons like "Less money spent on Asperin", "fewer monitors shot at" and best of all you can fix the problems that do come up for less than it costs to fix the stuff you pay a grand more per seat for.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Even though you admit its flamebait I still have to bite.
If you can change their views and switch them over to Linux, then and only then can you claim some sort of victory.
I thought the point of articles like this were to show those people that it can be done. In order reach that point other companies have to show they can do it first.
And I don't think that the rest of the articles make for a mutual admiration society. I can use information like this when I discuss things like licensing terms, alternative solutions to problems with my co-workers. These are pertinent stories that can be used to advocate linux.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
I just installed Win2k and Redhat 7.2. Both bootable cdroms, both on mix match newish machines:
From first POST to "installed":
Linux: 35 min
Win2k: 45 min
Time to get drivers up to speed.
Linux: 0 min (had all my stuff)
Win2k: 25 min (nvidia, creative)
Time to get Quake3 running
Linux: 5 hours (still doesn't work right)
Win2k: 10 min
Time to get my RAID ATA-100 card working
Linux: 0 (it doesn't work)
Win2k: did it at boot, only took 2 min
-Jon
this is my sig.
Roaming profile... oh no, deja-vu.. nightmares...
Seriously though, I was administrating a company which all users had roaming profile - and it's a PAIN in the ass if a user move from one machine to another - you simple have to wait until of his desktop will be copied from the server - sometimes is few megabyes, but some heavy users have gigabytes of data to move...
On Linux/Unix it's different - nfs mount, finished...
Hetz (Heunique)
"Ummm...yeeaaahhh...if you could come in on saturday and ummmm...recompile the kernel with the latest USB patches so that your scanner will work...ummmmm...yeahh...that'd be great. Ummm...I'm also gonna need you to come into the office on Sunday too...yeeahh...you gotta get Linux printing Pantone colours to that Winprinter over there...yeaahh...that'd be great too. Oh...and don't forget those TPC coversheets! When you've figured out how to make Linux print as well as Windows, go print yourself out a dozen copies. Grrreeeaattt!"
1) Largo has been running a Unix shop and thin client network for years. Only the switch to Linux and KDE 2.1.1 is new. I doubt that one or two sysadmins leaving would change things.
2) This is a done deal, not a "someday" or "we plan to" thing. I wandered around Largo city hall and talked to actual, everyday users.
3) I'd like to go back and speak to Dave and Mike in a year, yes -- to see how their plans to use OpenOffice pan out. The biggest holdup (as I wrote in the NewsForge story linked to above) is the lack of a good OpenOffice filter for WordPerfect files.
- Robin
I just had to shove Windows 2000 down the throats of my sales force. Transition from NT4.0. You should have heard the bitching/whining/crying/demands/etc... It doesnt matter what you put in front of them, they will piss-and-moan if it is different in any way. (Hell 2 years ago when I got here and made NT4.0 erase the login-name from the login screen for security they tied to hang me!) Changeing them to KDE or Gnome is no harder than any other change. In fact the Linux change will make the admin's life a dream. (No more idiots installing software that makes the system unstable!!! Damned AOL on NT!)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Ok, I'll accept that.
Linux isn't hard to use. It's a pain in the ass if you screw with it for fun. But it isn't hard for most users. They just need Email, a Word processor and solitair.
And those run just fine.
While the article definately has a Linux vs Windows angle to it (and you have to admit, it's hard to talk about one being deployed without considering the effects the other one may have had, had it been deployed), I'm simply more interested in hearing secretaries extoll the virtues of KDE.
...
While this issue has been in full-fledged war mode for years, I think *nix proponants such as myself would have far more success focusing on the suitability and usability of KDE and Gnome than always boiling it down to a Xwindows vs Windows debate. Sure, Windows does the job, I run it at home; but if this article proves that End User X, dumb as a post, doesn't mind KDE (I'd use it daily if my audio-apps ran in *nix), force it on em! Well, at least in situations where it's my tax dollar
Of course, the long term upside is that newbies 'n average users would finally have some variety in their computing experience before they blindly pledge allegience to the only OS they see commercials for; thus helping solidify *nix and KDE/Gnome as a viable platform for the Everyday Joe in the minds of the consumer.
"Old man yells at systemd"
That's twisting thet truth significantly. The major reasons cited in the Wired article for the failure of Linux adoption were:
Furthermore, it appears the ScholarNet initiative is not over yet. The current progress has not achieved the penetration desired, but future iterations hold more promise, as hardware compatibility improves and the "seeded" Linux knowledge from the successful installations trickles down.
Anyone interested in the attractions of Linux implementations in developing countries might want to have a look at a paper I wrote for a final year Engineering unit: postscript version. It has some mistakes in it I haven't corrected yet, but I'm open to revising it :)
That raises an interesting point, which I find is often overlooked - documentation.
I'm not talking about man pages/how-tos etc (which I personally find are usually of a much greater standard in terms of usability in an open source arena), but outlining:
* the exact steps taken to build the environment in the first place,
* maintenance steps (the where/why and how of upgrades, bugfixes, sec pathces etc)
* new user tasks - from both the admin and user perspectives
* general usability guidelines
If these tasks are done at the beginning, and tailored for whatever particular business environment you are in then I've found it is much easier to get it accepted by management and perhaps even spread to other departments.
One common stumbling block I've come across in trying to build these types of office environments is management fear that if I (or the admins with experience with open source setups) were to leave then they'd be stuck - after all it is much easier from a corporate view to find someone familiar with setting up/running a wintel / nt backend environ than linux.
Providing detailed outlines covering conception through to delivery/expansion really helps make a choice like this seem much less risky from the management view. After all if you are the only open source 'evangelist' in the company it is going to be a tough sell no matter how convincing your arguement.
When it is time to move on the steps you leave behind can help less experienced admins really get a grasp on not only the how, but the why of 'open offices'. Its how I really started, and I've now left many converts in my wake.
This is not a victory for Linux. This is a victory for one old variant of Windows: yes, X-Windows.
You can compare these apples and oranges because, simply put, in the end the job they are to accomplish is the same. Supply the required office/administrative capabilities to 400 people in a work environment for the least amount of support headaches and cost.
There are a dozen of ways to try to accomplish it. This just happens to be one way that works well.
We all know that the truth is, linux is hard to use for novices, and a good portion of linux users are not inclined to help newbies out. Read a few usenet posts to see this. "Linux is tough to use" is not FUD, it's the ugly truth. The people who realize this, and don't shrug it off as "FUD" are the ones who are positioned to correct this flaw.
Don't get me wrong, there's been tremendous progress made in linux usability, but the majority of it has been in the initial install area. There are still a lot of problems with UI consitancy, and any usability expert will tell you that this isn't a minor flaw. There's also the problem with installing software, because there's not the same one-click method for every program that Mac and Windows have.
Progress has been made, but we are certainly in no position to dismiss problems with linux' usability as FUD. When we do that, the progress will stop.
Er, who cares what *you* think about this? The company I work for used to be a windows shop, until they went through a BSA audit. Then I went to management and proposed the switch to linux (which they knew about because of the great job it did as a server). Guess what, after paying through the nose in wasted time and resources for the BSA shit, Linux started looking pretty good to them. Now we're a Linux shop, running RedHat/KDE/StarOffice and users are being re-trained for the new environment. Apparently, the BSA audit was very efficient in convincing management that it's worth re-training your employees in exchange for not hearing about Microsoft ever again. And the users? Who cares. They're being paid to do their jobs, training is prvided to them, so they'd better learn to do it the way the company wants them to, since this particular way has been deemed the most efficient. They can have all the eye-candy disguised as ease of use they want on their home computers.
So to asnwer your point, yes, I've been there, I converted Windows shops to Linux, I keep hearing from my friends that their companies use Linux more and more and yes, I do think that this kind of articles are useful and inspirational. to those of us who actually go out and convince management guys that Linux is a better choice. For those like you on the other hand, who can only bitch and moan about how Linux is not ever going to makie it in what your head tells you from inside your ass it's the "real world", they're probably useless. You'll never get it anyway.
When I saw this post I thought "something's up" because I have a hard time believing that people accustomed to running Windows could switch to KDE and not absolutely HATE it.
That's when I read they've been running Unixware for the last several years. Hell, they're accustomed to clunky interfaces! Moving from one clunky interface to another is no big deal. They simply don't know what they're missing.
I've seen secretaries and the like jumping through hoops trying to use poorly designed character/terminal interfaces in corporate environments who were PLEASED as PUNCH! Why? They didn't have a better system to compare it to.
So before you all start patting yourselves on the back, I think you need to give those secretaries some credit: Anybody can learn how to do most anything given time. There's no specific reason why a secretary can't learn to deal with clunky interfaces like KDE or Gnome just as easily as they can learn to deal with some hideous 1980's character based interface.
This says nothing about KDE's usability. It's still clunky. These folks simply don't know what they're missing.
I see two types of objection to switching.
The "Necessary Condition" objections are mainly "Office", "Outlook", and "IE". Which is, alas, what everyone spends all day using. And until MS gets spilt up, this will not change. But also "that new accounting package", "my scanner", "our new CRM software", "our ERP project", and so on. And these are actually much harder to overcome. I think maybe we can identify a small group of users who do not use accounting, ERP, CRM etc. If we have to change all those, implementing Linux would actually cost us a lot of money.
Eh, before you say it:
StarOffice etc do not work well enough. Always some problems converting Word and Excel files.
VMware is slow, but it also defies the entire object (you still have to pay for an MS license)
Anyway, then there's the...
"Usability" objections. These are easy to fix in time - or they should be. But we are not there yet! I just spent a whole weekend setting up a new desktop machine for myself - Athlon 1 GHz, 512 MB RAM, RedHat 7.1. I had to do a kernel upgrade before it would see my Envidia graphics card. I still cannot print to my samba printer. And having installed machines ([pre-]CP/M, DOS, Win, Novell, Linux) for 20 years, I am not new to PCs or to Linux, but I still cannot figure out how to rewrite the Gnome/Ximian menus! And the config tool core-dumps: I have had 20-odd core dumps in the first day alone. And the lack of "OLE" drives me mad - an experienced PC user spends his life cutting and pasting, and the lack of this in common Linux desktop environments are a real obstacle.
So now I am looking for small groups of "expert users". Our (mainly hardware-) engineers come to mind first. But I am looking hard for real interoperability so we can roll out across the company. My estimate: 2 years out. I hope I am wrong.
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
I'm not going to comment on the relative costs of the hardware/software, because it's all true: Linux vs. Windows will win out, pure and simple. But the story (about Roblimo's take) is comparing apples and oranges.
Look at how they talk about backups: it sounds as though their concept of backups in the Windows world is to have users saving documents on their local hard disk, rather than to a server. The users have become accustomed to system crashes and network failures. I'll address at least part of the former complaint in a moment. The latter is the fault of either poor network administrators (as opposed to systems administrators, or a flaky server that hasn't been set up correctly. One of the biggest reasons people think NT is unstable is because the pretty GUI encourages rank amateurs to call themselves systems engineers. Blame this on the paper-MCSE syndrome, or on Microsoft's psychology, or whatever: but let's at least be honest and admit that, should the quality of admins increase, so would the quality of experience.
The other problem I have with this, and what really prompted my subject line, is that the comparison is between a Linux-based thin client network and a MS-based fat client network. Hello? If you took away all the Windows desktops and put in something like Citrix MetaFrame, then guess what? You'd realise several of the same benefits that the article touts or implies as being advantages unable to be put forth in a Windows-based system.
If you take the article as being a good example of how simple it is to migrate users over from Windows to Linux, then fine. But the system level comparisons are obfuscatory at best, and dishonest at worst. Yes, there's no way you could get the same level of performance out of the hardware they use if you went with a Windows implementation; but an article that compares a 10-person IT staff supporting Linux (or any OS) on 400 thin-client devices with supporting that many devices all running Windows on individual desktops is simply not a valid comparison. Is that really fair? By all means, let's point out the advantages for Linux in terms of ROI, open-source, and so on -- there are plenty of valid bases here -- but let's also be intellectually honest. Pretty please?