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?
Well... there's China
Isn't the Chinese government in the process of deploying Linux on a ton of PCs? Although from what I've seen and heard WRT the availability of pirated Micro$oft applications there, TCO is not really the issue...
Windows == $free, Linux == $free
I am the very model of a modern major general!
Do you use Linux on your desktop? Certainly you've had some experience with Netscape or the GNOME desktop. Nuff said.
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. Furthermore, if that was a concern, a journaling FS like XFS could have solved your problem.
You're being unrealistic. XFS is a hassle at best and dangerous at worst. It's been out of beta for how many months? It comes with how many distributions? It compiles cleanly on how many kernel versions? Why would they make their users into guinea pigs and introduce an even more uncertain (or "cutting edge") product?
3) why were newbies having to "figure out" the desktop? what kind of training did you give them?
Apparently not enough. Although anyone could learn one of the Linux desktops, not every company wants to take 3 months to train their employees just to save a little bit of money off their software budget.
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.
You are correct. That "one thing to pick after careful evaluation" is called Windows 2000.
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. When you look at the setup they used in Florida, they made a very strong point of making it simple for the users. They eliminated a lot of unneeded and potentially confusing funcationality, and they did an apparent good job of figuring out what they really needed to have to do the work they wanted to do.
Yeah, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to switch banks, reprint all of their checks, change all of their record-keeping systems, and change their wire transfer procedures, all so that they don't have to pay MS $199 every few years. Why don't you just write them a letter and recommend that? They'll be terribly amused.
0. We have two FreeBSD machines, but they act web and email servers respectively, not clients. For better or for worse, Windows (particularly 2000 and XP) are best for desktop usage.