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?
One question I would have is, why was the experience that you had so vastly different from the one described in the florida government? There they seemed to make good use of it and had few problems transitioning employees to the new system. I'm thinking that perhaps there is a strategy that does work well for deploying Linux in a business environment if the right approach is taken.
I'm a bit baffled about some of what you are describing. When X died, you say they'd hit reset and then fsck would take out half their filesystem? I see a few things here that don't make sense:
1) why was X dying? I've never had X die except in the rarest occasions or more routinely on systems I had really futzed with.
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.
3) why were newbies having to "figure out" the desktop? what kind of training did you give them?
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.
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.
Basically what it boils down to is that I get the sense that Linux is capable of being on the office desktop if it is implemented in a way that conforms to its benefits and drawbacks. You will have some initial training investment because it's different from what most people use, but there's no evidence I've seen to indicate that it's a fundamentally unusable OS in that space.
> A few months ago we tried to move the 15 non-technical employees (receptionists, accounting, etc.) to a Linux desktop... The result? They hated it, and productivity went down fast.
Fire their asses. I know lots of dumbfuk secretaries who used to do just fine running their applications from a DOS prompt. Ditto for clerks working from a VMS prompt. Anyone who can't deal with the spiffy new Linux desktops is suffering from a bad case of dont-want-to.
> We couldn't find a non-IE browser that would work with our bank's site
Sounds like you need to talk to your banker. They're not very technically adept, but they do understand things like "take our account to another bank".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I spent 3 years evangelizing Linux and getting it installed on a lot of desktops. Is it worth switching? I'd say yes for any small-medium sized company. For any large company it's simply not worth it.
Large companies have large turnover rates and need to hire people and quickly get them up to speed. Large companies also don't notice the extra cost of licensing. I see tens of thousands of dollars thrown away each day on stupid expenditures - why would software licensing matter? Plus, large companies tend to sign contracts with companies like Dell and Compaq for all their desktops - the OS is already there.
Yeah, I used Linux exclusively for 4 years as my desktop. It's still my OS of choice at home. But at work.. well, we have the MS thing going so that's what I use. And you know what? It's not that bad. It works, I can get my work done. I used to have to do programming, and Linux worked well for that. Now I simply use a bunch of canned applications that are peripheral to my job. Windows works ok for that.
Now, if you really think you want to go install Linux on a bunch of secretaries desktops, here's what you need to plan:
Good luck.
----- obSig
I am a unix sys admin at a large nationwide computer retail chain. Sad to say, their unix experience has not been entirely satisfactory (aix, hp-ux, etc), which is not the fault of the OS at all. Such a retailer is especially beholden to M$, and so the company has been descending into the windoze nightmare for 2 years now. Working mostly on NT/2000 machines this past year I have experienced first hand just how incredibly inferior is the OS.
So the count here is a pathetic 10 linux/freebsd, 30 AS/400, 300 AIX, 3000 windows.
Admittedly linux has been my primary desktop these last 7 years, but I have had to use - and learn - windows all along too. So I must conclude, this bickering about "linux not up to windows desktop standard yet" is just laughably wrong. _Everything_ for me is incomparably easier to do on linux than windows, and despite the closed systems around me, I can do almost all my windoze work from my linux desktop. In fact I have repeatedly demonstrated my rule of thumb there - any job takes about 30 times longer to accomplish on windows than it takes on linux. And after that - windoze requires constant maintenance from things breaking, whereas linux "just plain works".
The windoze losers here simply resist change, and have become accustomed, or more apt, inured, to the windoze way of doing things. I challenge them to at least spend as much time on linux as they spend on windows before mouthing off any more.
tcboo