Slashdot Mirror
Where is Largest Linux Desktop Install?
jackb_guppy asks: "Talking with Managers about Linux Training for staff. One asked a simple question: 'Where is the largest installed base of Linux desktops?' My guess the question was asked prove that there is no market, and I am unable to find an answer. I am guessing the next question will be: 'Largest site using Linux to replace MS desktops?' Anyone have a suggestion?" Just for fun, if any of you have Linux Desktops deployed in your department, can you give us some numbers?
X dies frequently on my system. It really depends on the version of XFree86 you use + your vid card. The error messages aren't terribly helpful to a newbie either.
"2) why would fsck cause damage to half their filesystem? while I've on occasion hit reset or powered down without a proper shutdown I have never had fsck cause any damage to my filesystem."
Ever have a newbie try to answer some of the questions fsck puts up? "Your iNode is supposed to be 64, it's 8." "What?" Windows's automatically check in the beginning of the 9x series sucked, but at least it ran pretty much automatically.
"Furthermore, if that was a concern, a journaling FS like XFS could have solved your problem."
Um, right answer to the wrong question. Journaling file systems help, but if you fsck fuck have your drive (or the media itself) forget it. Ask anyone running Windows 2000, even with journaling already turned.
"3) why were newbies having to "figure out" the desktop? what kind of training did you give them?"
For certain users, no amount of training helps. I'm still teaching people how to click and drag, and I've repeated the instructions to some of them 20 times. There is a difference in innate usability, however, between desktops like KDE and Mac OS. Mac OS X is perhaps the most intuitive GUI I've ever seen, with Windows XP following in second. I like KDE, but it's confusing to most new users.
"4) you say you kept trying several combinations. wouldn't that tend to lead to increased confusion about and disdain for the new environment? seems like picking one thing after careful evaluation and sticking with it would solve some headdache."
The average user upgrades their GUI (Windows) every 2-3 years. Things are going to change rapidally. The only problem, as it's been said many times before, is that Linux doesn't have the "advantage" of having a single, standardized desktop. At least if you know one version of Windows, you pretty much have a good idea how the next one is going to act.
"5) If your bank requires IE, maybe you should consider a new bank? I mean that may seem drastic, but if they are uncapable of supporting the system your business wants to use, I'm sure another bank would be happy to hold on to your money."
My company has $100 million worth of assets. Some companies are easily in the billions. Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to move that amount of money simply because your browser doesn't work? The bank is supporting 92% of the internet browsing populations -- what more can you ask for? If you go to the vast majority of banks and ask "Does your banking portal work with Linux broswers?" they won't have a clue what you are talking about.
I find it hard to believe that a majority of these "counterpoint" arguments were even thought out.