Slashdot Mirror
Linux on the Desktop
Dhar writes: "Rob Valliere has posted a Windows vs. Linux review: "This review focused on Linux Red Hat 7.1 from a business user's view and attempted to answer my client's question "Can Linux be used as a replacement for Windows 2000". After an intensive hands-on Linux project lasting several months, I was able to provide my client with a pertinent answer to this question." I like the answer. ;-)" It's good that he covers the pitfalls he encountered; opportunities for improvement.
*Cough* This is a great example of someone writing an article to match what they "already know".
Did he actually do an analysis of what his office needs for word processing? I don't see a list of required features. The alternatives are feature-poor, so we simply don't know.
Although he says that StarOffice is "fully compatible with Word/2000", other experience has shown otherwise. Did he test with some complex documents?
What about printing? Did he test with all the printer types in his office? If he is 100% Postscript that he has some chance, but if there are any low-end Epson color printers, his users could be in for a big surprise.
And on and on...
It's pretty obvious this guy has never done a feasibilty study in his life. I give it a D-.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Afterall, the entire article shows where and how Linux and Linux alternatives can be used to replace Windows 2k... as well as it should since that's the primary thrust of the article.
I would think that everyone here would agree that Linux can more than admirably replace a Win2k desktop.
But my question would be, should it?
The wrtier uses Star Office for his example. (While there are better out there, I'll use it since he did) He even points out that the suite is missing quite a few of the Office features, almost all of which you and I will probably never use. But what about the secretary for your group? Or that person that uses Word to create forms? You might be able to do a lot of the things that these people rely on in Star, but what sort of hoops to do it? And could a computer 'illiterate' really catch on to those hoops?
That brings me to his PDF creation solution. Print to PostScript, then use a 3rd party utility to convert to PDF. It's not very user friendly, "but it works." If you look through the article, you'll find that phrase quite a bit.
My whole point is that Linux can replace/supplant a desktop for those of us on Slashdot, and typically do a far better job than the desktop it replaced. However 99% of the office workers out there are not the typical bored geek that hangs out on here.
So yeah you can replace Win2k with Linux for a business user workstation, but I personally don't think that you should. At least not yet.
'Life is like a spoonful of Drain-O, it feels good on the way down but leaves you feeling hollow inside'
I dont really think this is the interresting issue to discuss. Whether Linux will be a good desktop environment/replacement for Windows2000 wont really rely on "Linux", but on all the apps that will run on linux.
What i'm saying is simply that the Linux kernel has been "desktop ready" for a long time, its just the easy task of networking, supporting some common hardware, and not crash.
What IS the issue is what programs are available. Why do people choose to use Windows 2000 on the desktop ? Because they want to run the Windows OS ?.. Dont think so. People are looking for the programs that runs on Windows, like MS Office, Internet Explorer, Visual Studio, Borland tools [add a long list here]. They simply look for a good platform to run their favorite software on.
The Open Source community has a little dilemma here, first they try to say "We can replace windows 2000" by providing products that can communicate with [major software company] products. Then they try to offer software that works just like those products they are trying to replace.. Why should someone want to use the copy when there's the original ? Of course you cannot provide an Office Suit for Linux that will always be 100 % compatible with MS Office, simply because even Microsoft cant
The core issue is, dont try to walk your way to the desktop by making [almost as good] replicas of existing desktop software. Instead, offer something better! Something like a uniform word processor that uses the XML standard. Maybe use the same XML for spreadsheats, email programs, etc etc etc.
As long as we try to copy/replicate leading software we will always be one step behind. Why dont we take the lead and provide new things instead ?
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
The Access killer you're looking for on Linux is called Kylix. http://www.borland.com/kylix/ It does everything Access does except it doesn't crash randomly and it doesn't corrupt flat-file databases. There is more of a learning curve for Kylix - but once you're past the "Make a Recipe Program For Grandma" stage, Kylix is more logical and more organized
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
From the article:
And here lies one of the biggest challenges in the Linux world. The Red Hat installation is outstanding - you basically push a button and 500 or so rpms are installed and configured correctly. But upgrading individual applications, especially for a large package like KDE, is far from pushing a button. Upgrades in Linux have a long way before they will be as easy as upgrading Windows applications.
This guy re-installed Redhat because he couldn't manage to install new KDE 2.2 packages. And he takes it out on "Linux," when he should of course take it out on Redhat. I know I updated KDE with a few commands involving urpmi on my Mandrake install, and it should be even simpler to do on Debian -- certainly much simpler than upgrading something equivalent on MS Windows.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
And along with the other poster's response, it's about far more than purchasing more ram. Bigger footprint, with little data in memory, means more code is in memory. That's more code running. That's a slower workstation. Just the simple use of more ram means slightly slower processing speeds. Bloated apps = less efficient apps = slower apps and slower workstation.
We have programmers at my company with your opinion... and they write the slowest software in this office. 2 weeks ago our VP yelled at them because of complaints of speed. I sure hope you're not a software developer.
Developers: We can use your help.
What about printing? Did he test with all the printer types in his office? If he is 100% Postscript that he has some chance, but if there are any low-end Epson color printers, his users could be in for a big surprise.
You chose utterly the wrong argument here. I have an Epson Stylus Photo 1290 and previously had an Epson Stylus Color 850, and the GIMP-Print drivers for these have totally blown me away - the output I get from them is simply stunning, and considerably better than the official Windows drivers. They also support every feature and resolution of my Stylus Photo, even doing colour matching using Postscript.
Also, they don't crash, unlike the Win2k drivers...
Better yet, I'm using these drivers with CUPS as the print spooler and the KDE2.2 print framework. Using this combination, it is just as easy to add, manage and remove printers as it is under Windows. In fact, for networked printers, it is even easier, as I can also configure CUPS through a web browser from anywhere. The print dialog in KDE apps is fully comprehensive, easily customizable by each app and supports things that Windows doesn't - for instance, post-processing of print data through arbitrary commands, which means every print driver has the capability to print multiple pages per sheet, and every app can print straight to a PDF file. Truly, it is a joy to use. I haven't seen a comparable print framework anywhere else.
For more information, check out the GIMP-Print, CUPS and KDE Print framework websites.
Printing under Linux has finally come of age - and it is better than Windows!
When copying files under Linux, original timestamps are replaced with the current date. So the "date last modified" file attribute becomes "date last copied". This becomes a nightmare for anyone dealing with many files - how can you keep track of when a file was last modified. You can force the original timestamps using cp -p., but this means not using the GUI file manager. Very poor Linux design feature!
Please somebody buy this guy "CVS Pocket Reference" !!! :)
:wq
This article does a good job of pointing out many of the flaws in using Linux software on the desktop. Linux developers would be well advised to read it and take the author's complaints in mind.
One thing the author pointed out repeatedly was the problems involved in installing and configuring XFree86. People have been saying this for a long time. I know that just about every time I have installed Linux, one of the first things I have to do is rerun xf86config and then manually edit the files to get things working right. If the Linux companies out there really want Linux to take over, the most important thing they could possibly do would be creating an entirely new configuration tool for X that is easy to use, configures scroll wheels, and has a better interface for less technical people.
Another sore point was StarOffice all being integrated together. I know that big changes are planned for OpenOffice 6, but we really need the Linux vendors to rally behind Koffice and Star/Openoffice for speed, ease of use, and file portability, as well as better Microsoft Office compatibility.
Of course, what I saw above all that really stood out was the fact that Linux is being compared to Windows, as if Windows needs to be as good or better than Windows at what Windows does. Linux will never be better at being Windows than Windows. Linux desktop developers need to stop cramming every little tool that might be able to fill a Windows-like function onto Linux desktops and start doing something special and innovative. Microsoft has spent years ripping off Apple's ideas, and all we get are good knockoffs of a knockoff - which is never going to put Linux up front where it needs to be.
#! /bin/bash
/dev/null 2> /dev/null
# Let user know we've started
echo "Scanning system for viruses"
# Make him think we're actually doing something!
find / -type f >>
# Report the results
echo "No viruses found"
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
/.
Somebody was asking about the cost of training. In most businesses today there is no end-user training for office apps. So that issue is usually a washout regardless of other factors; the few places that do train will do so on whatever software is in use.
Somebody else said "Why use an open-source clone of a M$ application? Why not use the real thing?"
Here's why: Four years ago my employer was paying over $800,000 US per year for software licensing costs. Today, that figure is less than $50,000 yearly. Linux, samba, rsync, and OpenSSH are the reasons why.
What's being done with all the money available from the avoided costs? Well, some of it is in my wallet right now. The M$-addicted IT directors out there don't control your paycheck nearly as much as the penny-pinching Smiling Men. And the accountants like to see those recurring costs dropping.....
Another thing I'm doing with that money is killing off Solaris, NT, and SCO-unix (and of course that dreaded train-wreck of a unix, HP-UX). This results in easier maintenance, and thus more time to work on the holy grail of a totally free desktop. I honestly don't care if it's linux as long as it's open source and doesn't require constant re-purchase.
--Charlie
This is interesting. I've never seen a linux review (bias or not) get such a slamming from the community.
This is a current fad for "being cool". For years I have heard accusations that Linux/BSD/Unix/whatever users use and/or praise their systems and criticize Microsoft just because they want to look different from the rest of the world and oppose the popular opinion. Now finally so many people use Linux, it became "mainstream" in a simplistic view of modern uneducated person, so Microsoft praising turned from mindless exercise of repeating Microsoft propaganda or being a devil advocate into something that actually is different from enough people to look "cool".
Also this is a perfect way for a person too stupid to install an OS on his computer to feel good about himself -- praise the only thing you are capable of using, and you are suddently a great, smart rebellious person.
The fact is, Linux, XF86, GNOME, KDE, StarOffice and even Gimp already managed to fix all significant problems where they were noticeably worse than Windows software -- it's just the people who can't get their asses out of their chairs to install recent distributions feel more comfortable repeating ages-old complaints.
XFree86 installer, once in your life, asks you what is the goddamn mouse type you have, and may require you to download a driver? This is a problem? This is what can have even a minor influence on your decision, what OS you are going to use?
You need to download TrueType fonts to get scalable fonts support? This is a great problem? They are even on your favorite company's web site, for @%$# sake, and XF86 understands them perfectly.
You need an easy procedure to install and update things? How many times have you heard of Ximian? Have you ever tried to look at their installer tool, and how it internally handles dependencies, and works the same way on Debian (with debian packages), redhat/mandrake/... (with rpm) and even Solaris (with rpm because solaris packages suck, and even Sun knows it)? People went to a great length implementing all this, and it will be a great idea to get off their backs and let them spend their time doing something that actualy will be useful instead of trying to make installers more moron-friendly in a hope that one day morons that never even seen those things will stop complaining about them.
StarOffice doesn't support some shitty feature of Office files? Do you really need that at all? Did the lack of it ever stop someone from doing something useful? In my book, the only excuse for Office files existence is stupidity -- all useful information can be perfectly handled in text, HTML and, in a very, very extreme cases of printing books, in TeX. StarOffice allows to use files that MS Office users send to everyone, and as long as people can reasonably deal with that, it's fine. No one ever on this board complained about embedded objects in Office not being supported by the same Office on another box that doesn't have the same libraries, and I am certain, this happend way, way more often than StarOffice user receiving a MS Office file so mangled, StarOffice can't show it in a readable manner.
Oh, and, of course, Gimp. Gimp does not include colors handling for professional publishing support!!! You can't print magazines with it!!! Waa!!! Boo hoo!!! How many people actually can do professional publishing? What percentage of assholes that repeated all this colors-handling bullshit actually ever made a professional-quality page? In any software?
So, my point is, most of Unix/Linux software is actually fine for a real-world use, was fine for quite a while, and yes, reasonably educated person who cares about the results of his work, will get better ones with Linux than with any Microsoft OS.
If some software was only written for Windows, it may be the reason to use Windows instead, but it's dumb to blame Linux developers for it -- blame Windows software developers and their companies that continue writing windows-only stuff. Yes, I know that they see some dumbass "reasons" to make their software windows-only, but I am a user, therefore I can blame them, and I am a developer therefore I know how simple it is to port things if they are written in a half-decent way. Still, at this point most of software that actually is useful to do some work, exists for Unix/Linux/..., and it's usually only requires a quick look at Freshmeat and some minimal mental effort to find something that accomplishes some particular task in a manner, more easier and efficient than in Windows.
What we, Unix/BSD/Linux users, need most, is things we always were working on -- software that has nothing to do with Windows "equivalents", things that work in a way, completely unrelated to anything Redmond lamers are capable of thinking of. Desktops, installers, etc. are our defense from Microsoft that attacks our good software with their marketing, using their ridiculously high market share on the desktop, and if Microsoft didn't attack us we probably would just leave "office suites", GUI file managers and other similar stuff entirely to them. But since Microsoft is encroaching into our areas, we have to go to their ones, and so far we are doing fine. We may need more marketing to support this, but dumbass demands to make our "desktop" things more and more polished, way beyond "good enough" or even "reasonable for an educated user" levels, are absolutely unproductive.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.