Slashdot Mirror
Constructing a Windows-Less Office
joewakeup writes "This article at CRN analyses why today is the best time to consider building a pure Linux information system, from servers to... desktop. Among all the arguments, one of the arguments is the low cost of Linux offerings compared to Windows based-solutions. Worth a read."
2001: Most Linuxes have a very friendly desktop, with lots of productivity apps, but I swear to Linus, it's about twice as slow as Win2K/XP on the same hardware.
I'd love to have Linux running everywhere if it didn't require massive hardware to run smoothly.
The article failed to mention the cost of support to Linux platforms. Heck, I'd like to see windows replaced in the work place myself. But the fact remains--windows based sysadmins are a dime a dozen, and most of the sharp linux/unix admins don't want to be resetting passwords for morons.
It would be hard to find enough linux admins willing to do this kind of work.
-- yawn. --
low cost of Linux offerings compared to Windows based-solutions
Linux is cheaper? Really?
I wish that writers would make other points. This one is blatantly obvious, and every linux user knows it. How about some other points that most IT Managers don't know?
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
I feel that Linux would be a good desktop for the normal user. But it still does have a few shortcommings. One area that could use a lot of improvement is installing software in Linux.
"Linux is only cheaper than windows if you don't value your time" - I don't know who said it, but it is true!
I think we're still beating the dead horse on this one - Linux needs consumer oriented apps that work the same as the microsoft ones. There's not going to be a Windowless office until consumers adopt linux, which means consumer oriented software, not just stuff for geeks. Why don't people use StarOffice on Solaris - because is too bloody hard to use.
At least they have the sense to run a proper networking OS for the LAN. Don't "dis" Netware -- Windows is only getting near the kind of stability and usability Novell has offered for years.
-- clvrmnky
Plus, for user management and the ability to set granular rights, Novell is far ahead of Linux. Try setting linux to give the following permissions to the file myreport.doc
managers can read, filescan and change but not delete
secretaries can read and filescan
bob can read, filescan, change, and delete
john can read, filescan, change, delete and assign ownership of the file
jane can filescan
filescan is the ability to see the file if you do a dir or ls. Sometimes useful. And yes, you can change a file so that it is empty, but that is different than deleting.
Plus, got to love novell's salvage utility.
Sorry, just trying to plug a good nos.
"The single biggest problem at the enterprise level is politics," said Leon Brooks
Amen. I think Plato said it best (I think it was Plato) "those that do not engage in politics will be done in by it".
Use it, or lose it + do unto others before it's done to you.
Many things were done on 'nix workstations before the move to NT. It used to be full support for 'nix os's, min for NT, now the roles are reversed..sigh.
Even the machine operators clamor for the 'nix days from time to time.
But of course, I am prolly one of the few that think StarOffice 6 not being put out on the mac was a big mistake. I'd have chosen SO6 beta whatever over office v.X for os X out of principle and sanity reasons...but alas, twas not to be.
Funny, that you get the same title with Mac OS X and if SO6 was here it would still be a "Window less Office".
Huh...I'll be darned...who'd of thunk it?
Cheers,
Moose.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
My office is now 100% Window-less as of about 6 months ago, but we're instead 100% Mac OS X (currently 10.1). It's great. I don't miss Windows at all, and the myth that you "can't get applications for the Mac" is such a load of cr@p.
In fact, the new Office for Mac OS X is, in my opinion, much BETTER than the Windows version.
Networking has been faster, too, and that's important to us. You'd never believe it, but it's cheaper too. No more calling for technical support or having someone on duty to fix problems with our systems. You just don't need it with a Mac because the hardware and software is so well integrated.
The machines themselves have been CHEAPER for us. $1199 iMacs as clients and G4s to handle some of the heavier loads. It's worked great.
And by the way... that 22" Apple flat screen is not only beautiful for working with, but it impresses customers too. I know it seems like a detail, but people have gotten the impression we're an upscale successful business because they see those screens and comment on them.
I know I seem like a troll ranting about this or that, but I just want to get the word out, because I'm a very pleased Apple customer... and I'm laughing at myself for ever having used Windows for so long.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
One important component I still find missing is a free desktop database a la Access. This is a very important tool for every company, and it will be missing from Open Office 6.0 (not sure about Star Office 6.0). There's a commercial contender called Rekall from theKompany (and a port of Paradox 9), but only a couple free beta apps. This should not be that hard to write, though, since scripting languages, database backends and form designers already exist in free versions.
Why is everyone trying to shoehorn Linux into something it's bad at? I use Red Hat Linux exclusivly for my web servers. It scales well, I'm happy with it's security and it simply works helluva well? in that capacity.
However, I use exclusivly Win32 on the desktop. I have a digital studio box that uses Me, and will soon be upgrading that to XP. A couple dev boxen with 2000, and an older box with 98se. For my needs Win32 works helluva well? on the desktop. (Not to mention that I like to play games).
Now, *I* use win32, because I have a choice and I pick win32. But that's not why I think this is a bad (and stupid) idea.
Show of hands, how many of you have parents and grandparents could go to work tomorrow and use *nix without a hitch instead of Win32?
Business want their workers to be *productive*. And yes, I know you can argue that many of the powerful features found in *nix desktops make a user *more* productive. But only the top 5% or so that will ever figure them out. I'd venture to guess that 99% of *windows* users never figure out *it's* features.
Right clickable context menus are something that the average secretary or insurance broker or customer service rep has probably never heard of.
The file structure on win32 is a mystery to these workers. If their copy of word somehow winds up pointing to a diffrent working directory than C:/My Documents/ then half of them will have no prayer of navigating back to where it was and will declare their files "lost". Until someone comes along and fixes it for them.
It all boils down to this: If I gave my mother a Porche 911 Twin Turbo tomorrow, I know that she would drive it to work every day exactly the same as she drives her Subaru Outback station wagon. It's only certain people that will take advantage of the extra power. This analogy isn't less applicable to computers, it's MORE applicable.
The point? Win32 is easier than *nix. And Win32 is STILL TOO HARD for the masses. Yes, I am well aware of the fact that your average geek can use it. Your average IT guy can use it, but they're not 99% of officeworkers world wide. So why would you want to take a step backwards and make these poor saps use somethign that will make them hate computers even more?
It seems a lot like cutting off your own nose to spite Microsoft's Face to me.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Mr. Anonymous, you bring up another point about Open Software and Linux Zealots^H^H^H^H^H^H^HAdvocates. Most of them are cold and abusive, especially towards newbies. To bring linux into the market, it'll require caring, and cooperative handholding for clueless newbies.
Until you grow up and realize this, Linux isn't going anywhere.
When Open Source advocates realize this, they'll start developing software the community needs, not just themselves. Its ok that it started off selfish, but it needs to end with cooperation and community.
Then, the linux community can say "We support Linux better than any MS Support service! And our support is $0.00 per hour."
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
I'm all for fully Unix/*BSD/Linux systems, including the desktop (although I still think MS Office, as much as I hate it is more user/idiot friendly than most offerings like StarOffice or KOffice).
A business running all *Nix actually not to hard to achieve now, provided that your business is the type that isn't heavily reliant on users who must use Office like their lives depend on it.
Unfortunately, most of the struggle is getting Linux/*BSD/Unix systems integrated with existing networks and programs - especially those which have been touched by Microsoft's embrace and extend philosophy, or run on a closed protocol, or use closed file formats.
Many businesses are not going to start from scratch with Linux/*BSD - and are more likely to want to move piecemeal away from Windows if they decide to do so.
As much as we'd all love Microsoft to open up their "standards" they know exactly what they're doing, and the anti-trust case doesn't look like it's going to help all that much.
It's a bit of a Catch 22 situation, and one with shifting goal posts - but easier integration with existing systems - with projects such as SAMBA and Ximians Vapourware Exchange plugin for Evolution might are the sort of thing to persuade PHB that moving to Linux/UNIX/*BSD is easier.
This post seems to be yet another anti-Microsoft rant - but in most cases these are the sorts of things that make life hard for people to shift their IT intrastructures - vendor lock-ins.
But yes, moving to Linux (or other free *Nixes) has probably never been easier.
To bad i still have to use Windoze at school. The administration doesnt know a good OS when they see it. Thats why they run mostly Win95 on a Novell network.
Sigh. These kinds of comments from know-it-all kiddies are _really_ annoying.
The single biggest obstacle to Linux everywhere is specific Windows applications with no direct portable equivalent, like AutoCAD or MS-Publisher.
These are only tip of the iceburg for linux
sPh
this is getting old. how many times are we going to go over this?
- the people reading slashdot are not the ones who need convincing, this audience is well aware of the capabilities of linux.
- if you need articles like this to convince your boss, you don't know enough about linux and wouldn't be able to implement this type of solution.
thank you, good night.
Riiight...
When will you stuck up geeks realize that 90% of "REAL" office workers (those that work in education, state agencies, insurance offices, etc.) are still confused by e-mail.
My god, just the other day it took me 45 minutes to explain the difference between Outlook and Eudora to a guy.
Most people barely understand the concept of a left-click and a right-click. Calling Linux or ANY of its desktops user-friendly is complete bs.
Do us all a favor and keep Linux on servers where it belongs.
If the "People that work for free" want everyone else to use their OS, then they should make the OS suit everyone's needs, not just their own.
That is my attitude.
If you want Linux to take out MS, then I'd suggest you ensure that everyone that uses Windows has their respective software genres represented.
If you want linux to be only for elitests and hobbiests (which is a popular attitude with linux), then keep being selfish. But don't question why people don't use Linux.
Sometimes I think that most Linux Elistests only like to bash MS. They don't actually want to be better than it. Because beating MS means that everyone else will use it, and it won't make them feel special (read: Elitest).
Sorry for the troll-like opinion, but that is my opinion.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
I think that the major hurdle to overcome in the transition to an all Linux office environment is the office worker who does not want to learn.
I have actually heard people say that they "can't use Macintosh, because I only have experience with Windoze".
Equating lack of knowledge with lack of ability is a fallacy that many users allow themselves to fall into.
Managers are aware that their is a learning curve, and a lack of desire to learn, so they will often avoid making changes that may cause the lowest common denominator (office drone) to stress.
Thats kind of funny.
Let me tell you a good reason not to use Linux where I work (A financial services company). The vendors laughed when we asked about support for running their apps on an Windows Emulator.
Short Story:
No Vendor support for Emulator == No Linux
Another way to look at it: "When a company uses 100% MS software, they very much have problems exchanging data with their customers because of the forced upgrade path."
.TXT, .PS, .RTF, .XML, or any other non-.DOC format for text documents?
.XML. Unfortunately, that world is not here. We live in a world instead where many companies, probably most, send text with .DOC.
Okay. Let's say that I have Office 2000 and I'm sending stuff to someone who still uses 97. I can save the file in the old format with a couple of clicks.
Is this a problem? I mean, really. What percentage of the workforce is using
Part of the reason why MS apps are buggy and bloated in the first place is because they make an effort, however shallow, to retain backward compatibility with earlier formats.
Yes, we could live in a world where everyone sends text with
The data exchange problem exists, as you point out, but it is much easier to surmount if you're using MS products than if you're using something completely alien.
Stop being a knuckle-dragging zealot.
I'm surprised the article does not even try to address the basic issue of file compatibility. Fact is, a normal office would have tons of documents in MS Word or Excel files. Excel is a complex and powerful piece of software: people write applications in it complete with menus and buttons. I know document conversion programs exist, but they never do a good job even with simple documents, let alone mega-apps-in-Excel and such. In addition, your business partners, suppliers and clients will want to collaborate with you using Word/Excel/PowerPoint files, and you are not in a position to dictate what they use. This is the reality of business. Even if you want to switch, and even if suitable Linux apps are available, you may not be able to.
Besides, StarOffice is a bloated monster.
Please do not argue that Microsoft will never be supplanted because people do not like to switch operating systems.
In order for people to use Microsoft, they had to switch operating systems (waaaaay back when).
The "trick" is to aggressively market a superior operating system which promises to improve productivity while reducing costs. That's what Microsoft did in order to arrive where it is today(although one can argue that the promise was a lie). That's what Linux, Macintosh, and any other Operating System vendors need to do.
It's not impossible, just difficult.
It only works for them because you're there to administrate it for them. Have they every tried to add a printer? An external hard drive? A sound card?
If it's all setup for you ahead of time, Linux is about the same as Windows for a user that just wants to surf or word process. But you're assuming that someone 'manages' that computer for them - 95% of people DON'T have a sysadmin to take care of Linux hardware and software installs for them, they have to do it themselves!
Can you imagine mom reading the man pages and recompiling the kernel to get her USB external hard drive working? I can't. I can, however, imagine her following the Windows instructions: "plug it in, and a drive letter will appear". See? Linux COULD be that easy, but certain people have acted to make sure that it ISN'T.
90% of the population? You do realize that when you buy almost any Intel PC, other thana clone, you have bough an MS uni-license. I'd say fewer than 30% of the copies of the various Windows flavors running out there are actually pirated.
Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
Of course, anyone who's ever worked in a company with computers knows that's a load of crap. It doesn't matter what type of computers you run, you're going to have to hire people to take care of them. Your IT department deals with OS installs, hardware failures, virus eradication and miscellaneous end-user issues.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It's not. What the article was really replacing was MS Office. They could have just as easily simply installed the Windows version of StarOffice and the Gimp. They called it a Linux comparison because Linux still rakes in the hits.
The only real reason to run Linux desktops is if you are planning to leverage X Windows and use thin clients. Saving money on client licenses is good. Saving money by lowering administration costs is golden.
I work in a small business environment, and, much as I like Linux as a server, I'm not going to be putting it on desktops anytime soon. Win4Lin isn't going to work for me - if I have to buy a licenced copy of Windows anyway, I'm just going to run that. Yeah, 98 sucks, but 2K is fine - I can leave my 2k desktop running all week with no crashing. Most small businesses I've dealt with don't use just Office & e-mail, there's often an industry specific app that they're wedded to, & it's usually for Windows only. It just doesn't make sense to jump through too many hoops to get away from that.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm a linux bigot, for sure. But one hurdle that has to be overcome before anyone who's not insane sells this idea to their boss is the utter lack of secure filesharing for a multi-user office. Usernames and passwords, in plain text, in an automount config file is not an option. Experimental filesystems are not an option. NFS is not an option (got root on the client (install cd) you've got access to anything.). OpenAFS maybe, but not exactly a widely discussed or supported system.
NFS4 sounds like the ticket, but the two available open implementations (umich and samba team) are in their infancy.
Until this problem is solved, this whole discussion is moot, as far as I'm concerned.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!