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."

413 of 638 comments (clear)

  1. A catch-22. by Fucky+Badger · · Score: 5, Insightful
    1996: Linux was really fast on cheap hardware. But it wasn't ready for unclued office users.

    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.

    1. Re:A catch-22. by Greyfox · · Score: 2
      You mean Staroffice? Every time I've ever used that thing it's like wading in mud. Mozilla has a very similar feel, though Galeon somehow manages to avoid it.

      Try some of the more native apps. They still have that nice snappy feel to 'em.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    2. Re:A catch-22. by Fucky+Badger · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That's part of the catch-22. I love icewm, or fvwm, or twm, but most office users would rather use Windows 3.1. They stare at it with that "deer in the headlights" look.

      Gnome they can understand. KDE they can understand. And I try to run them on a PII-333 with 128MB of RAM, and the whole system grinds to a halt. And that's before they even start up Abi-word.

    3. Re:A catch-22. by return+42 · · Score: 1

      Sad but true. My five-year-old P133 with 32MB runs fine, until I start X (ouch) and Netscape (OUCH!). Or try to do anything serious with the GIMP. Thank God I finally got X working on my new machine. It leaves greased weasels in the dust :) All of which of course makes a 33 kbps net connection the new bottleneck...

    4. Re:A catch-22. by Fucky+Badger · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Granted, I don't have formal benchmarks to show you, but, suffice it to say, my own workstation runs NT 4.0 just fine, and any modern flavor of Linux utterly dies.

      NT is stable, fast, and very decently priced these days. If I'm an office manager, what's my incentive for trying to go to Linux?

    5. Re:A catch-22. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      That's odd. I found that KDE on a 166 with 32 megs of ram ran fine. GNOME ran like a pig on anything less than 64 megs though.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    6. Re:A catch-22. by darkPHi3er · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the key quote for LINUX's prosperity and survival was "After constructing a practical solution, the Test Center reached the following conclusion: Linux and associated Linux applications can accomplish many of the same tasks as the Wintel standard at a much lower initial cost,in this case, for 93 percent less than the software cost of a similar Windows-based network,and without many of the licensing hassles presented by traditional software platforms."

      MS' business models have always included lowballing the competition, either with pricing and/or features.

      LINXU needs to pitch itself to two major markets.

      1. The low cost, low IT infrastructure small-to-mid sized business crowd, that will be dependent on continuing Desktop evolution on the Tux platforms AND

      2. As Moore's Law continues to trash cost-per-cycle ratios and as MP and overall scalability improve on the LINUX platform, hit the mid-range SPARC and low end HPUX and AIX server markets.

      If RH and other distro vendors maintain Tux's cost advantages this will play directly into what the CRN article was focused on: deployment cost.

      this is effectively and 'end run' around MS desktop control, which is not going away any time soon...

      this plays to the STRENGTHS of the LINUX platform and the weaknesses of MS current marketing plan...MS keeps looking to get more customers on the higher end, high TPC/D business (because they are generally well-heeled corps who won't object to the endlessly increasing Windows licensing prices)

      This is a substantial weakness in MS' current bix model, and should be exploited as they would do it, ruthlessly.

      --
      Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
    7. Re:A catch-22. by deaddrunk · · Score: 1

      Which KDE? Certainly not 2.2.1, which, although useable, is still pitifully slow compared to Win98 on my K6-2 300 laptop w 160MB RAM. I must try the pre-emptible patch and see if that speeds it up.

      --
      Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
    8. Re:A catch-22. by DrCode · · Score: 2

      On mine, NT 4.0 runs fine, but so does SuSE 7.0 with KDE 2.2 installed.

    9. Re:A catch-22. by Accipiter · · Score: 5, Informative

      it's about twice as slow as Win2K/XP on the same hardware.

      That really depends on what you're running.

      I'll probably never hear the end of it if I say this, but I'm going to say it anyway: The most popular window managers for the XWS are also the most bloated.

      Have you ever used Nautilus? It is a very pretty interface, but it is slow as all hell on a machine of reasonable specs. (PIII 500 / 256MB) Now take Gnome and Nautilus, plop it on to a system, and yeah... it's not going to perform as well as it should. Granted, the XWS isn't the best performing GUI out there, but the 4.x rewrites are solving a lot of those problems.

      I've used Gnome/Nautilus as an example above, because I know less about the newer KDE releases with regard to frendliness, performance, and bloat. If someone would be kind enough to fill me in on how KDE is in these respects, I'd appreciate it.

      Anyway. Gnome is a pretty hefty download, and tries to shove all of the crap they think you'll need into the package.

      If you set your users up with something like AfterStep (which, by the way, can fit on a floppy), ditch the desktop pager, show them how to use Wharf and the Winlist, and install the apps they will need. Configure Wharf to make it easy to get the apps, then smack everything onto a kickstart server or something. Then whenever a new box enters the office, just kickstart the image on to the box and there you go. No configuring, and it would make administration much easier. (You could probably also hack in some cronjobs on the server and the workstations to automatically keep all packages up to date, but that's beyond the scope of this comment.)

      This way, they have a fast, clean window environment, the apps they need, and the benefits of Linux.

      --

      -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
      (If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

    10. Re:A catch-22. by renehollan · · Score: 2

      For a comparison: I've been running RH 6.2 with Gnome on a P200 with 80 MB RAM for about a year now. Yes, it's slow, but not unusable, unless I try to run Mozilla under RH 7.2 on the same box, and even then it runs, but too slowly for my liking.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    11. Re:A catch-22. by stilwebm · · Score: 2

      With RAM prices as low as they are, any box in the workplace (read: a user's primary workstation) that uses SDRAM has little excuse for having less than 64MB of RAM. A 64MB stick of RAM and GNOME sure costs a lot less than a Windows 2000 license (which runs like a pig on anything less than 96MB).

    12. Re:A catch-22. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      NT 4.0 has no support from MS any longer,
      that's like using linux kernel 1.x
      without support from Linus.

    13. Re:A catch-22. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Ram gets MORE EXPENSIVE as it gets older. Just try to pick up some SIMMS for a 386, 486, or even a classic pentium system. It's also really hard to find.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    14. Re:A catch-22. by Y+B+MCSE · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >>my own workstation runs NT 4.0 just fine, and any modern flavor of Linux utterly dies.

      Could it be that you are not installing properly? As an MCSE I have yet to see a hardware platform which performed better on NT 4.0 than on a good Linux install.

      As an Network Administrator (MCSE certified) my incentive for NT is currently that I do not have a strong enough grasp of Samba to replace my NT boxes for authentication from windows clients (and I have windows clients everywhere). I have replaced almost all of my application server functions with a good Unixware install (if such a beast exists) I am very pleased with Unix reliability and currently use Linux for some network monitoring. I will be replacing Exchange with a Linux based platform very soon. Happy Day!!!

      Life is like a box of chocolates....

      Too much of it will make you sick

    15. Re:A catch-22. by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was using RedHat 6.0, but I don't know what version of KDE that uses. KDE does have a slider in the control panel which lets you turn off eye candy to scale to slower processors.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    16. Re:A catch-22. by bfree · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hmmm, StarOffice seems to take an eternity to load, but once loaded it runs fine (not stellar performance, but perfectly acceptable), and mozilla is getting close to responsive (some moments but....). Now this is on a PIII 500 laptop with 280M of RAM running Debian testing with kernel 2.4.16 with the pre-emptable patch (with 64M the thing struggled with mozilla or OO and especially both). Is this an unreasonable spec to run PRE-RELEASE SOFTWARE? Mozilla is 0.9.6 and expects 3 more releases before version 1 (and about 4 months of time) and in the previous 4 releases and months the reponsiveness has really improved. OpenOffice is about where mozilla 0.9.1 was IMHO. What do you want from pre-release software, performance that does nothing, or relative completeness with slow performance, I know what I want and I am looking forward to version 1 of both (even if OpenOffice calls it version 700 or something similar). I'm running them both on hardware which is really about 3 Years old and I say that Hardware depreciates currently in at most 3 Years, so anyone hoping to use worse hardware to run the latest software should now that they are asking to be smacked about the place vis-a-vis performance (could a web browser for the current net really be light-weight enough to run on a PII266 w/32M?)

      --

      Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

    17. Re:A catch-22. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I used konquerer on the 166 because netscape is just a hog when it comes to speed. I think that Gnome should run as well on your 200 as KDE did on my 166 just because you have the extra ram. Gnome seems to crave ram, so my k6-2 400 ran fine since it had 128 megs of the stuff.

      I think the video card makes a huge difference on percieved speed as well. The ATI video card I'm using makes this humble 333 celron I'm using seem incredibly fast, even compared to my 550 under windows.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    18. Re:A catch-22. by Ivan+Raikov · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's interesting to note that three years ago I bought a Packard Hell with PII 266 MHz and 64 MB RAM, which ran Windows and small applications just fine, but really slowed down when I had MS Word 97, Netscape and an MP3 player running at the same time.

      For the past 2.5 years, I've been running Linux on this machine, and I had to upgrade to 128MB this summer, when I decided to finally switch to XFree 4. Before that, the main applications I'm running -- Emacs, Netscape 4.7x, XMMS could co-exist peacefully under XFree 3.3.6 and Linux 2.2.x. So I don't think Windows has a smaller memory footprint than any of the big Linux distributions, contrary to what the astroturfers claim.

    19. Re:A catch-22. by Ivan+Raikov · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, I also use Sawfish as my window manager; the window managers of KDE and Gnome are just way too big, although I sometimes use KDE applications, so I keep the toolkit.

    20. Re:A catch-22. by drsoran · · Score: 1

      Not really. There has been a boatload of SDRAM on the market but even some of the older 72 pin simms are cheap. $17 for a 64 meg simm isn't too bad if you're really cheap which is what you can find them for on pricewatch.com. Now, if your primary workstation in a business is still a 386, 486 or even a classic Pentium you've got bigger problems. Someone in accounting apparently neglected to figure in the cost of replacing those old beasts. Anyone that thinks computers are just something you buy and they work forever without any need to be upgraded deserves to go out of business. Consider a 3 year refresh cycle for all the systems as a minimum. Anything older will probably cost more to repair if it breaks than its worth.

    21. Re:A catch-22. by Hostile17 · · Score: 1, Troll


      twice as slow as Win2K/XP on the same hardware



      I have not found this to be true at all. XP is a complete dog on my laptop (Dell Inspirion 3800, Celeron 500 and 192 MB of RAM), while RedHat Linux 7.2 runs just fine.

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
    22. Re:A catch-22. by litheum · · Score: 1

      well, if mozilla didn't take 2 fuckin' minutes to start up, i would be happy as a clam. pages are starting to load faster, but it's a little insane waiting so long when you want to check out a website or check your mail.

      fuck staroffice/openoffice (for now... way too buggy, crashes too much). i use abiword, a damn fine program, for everyday word processing tasks, and i love the thing.

      i can use mplayer to watch all kinds of windows only media formats, asf, avi, wmf, you name it. i still can't watch quicktime, but i haven't really looked around too much.

      there are plenty of file sharing clones, and if you can't find the one you want, get a job and buy vmware, which runs those damn things all day long if you ask it nicely (and don't try to do too much interaction... it's a little slow). of course, running windows is sort of a cop out, but honest to christ i don't care at all because it can crash all it wants and i can give it the finger and restart the vm.

      and hell yeah linux is stable, i can load shit up, load usb stuff, compile mad shit, have mozilla day after day and everything works like cake for 18 days (until i try to switch out of X w/nvidia driver to my framebuffer console and have the display get corrupted... which sort of confuses me since i can switch back and forth hundreds of times before i have a problem)

      basically, who gives a rat's ass if other people use linux? do what feels goooood and use what you want. tell people about linux, tell them that you can do crazy shit for 18, 20, 50 days without rebooting, but tell them that they have to want to do it, that they can't just pust OK, Cancel, and Reboot and hope for the best. if they aren't into it, who friggin' cares. kernel development will continue, mozilla development may or may not continue, openoffice development.. has it started yet? (kidding, they're doing a great job.).

    23. Re:A catch-22. by Sir_Real · · Score: 1, Funny

      (You could probably also hack in some cronjobs on the server and the workstations to automatically keep all packages up to date, but that's beyond the scope of this comment.)

      You might be a geek if... Your comments have "scope."

    24. Re:A catch-22. by Otter · · Score: 4, Informative
      I'll probably never hear the end of it if I say this, but I'm going to say it anyway: The most popular window managers for the XWS are also the most bloated.

      Sure, but that's the Catch-22 Fucky Badger (now there's a nick I wasn't expecting to see with a +5) was talking about. My 1200 MHz Athlon flies with WindowMaker and gcc running in a wterm. But that's giving up what's making Linux an alternative to Windows in the eyes of writers like these.

      I've used Gnome/Nautilus as an example above, because I know less about the newer KDE releases with regard to frendliness, performance, and bloat. If someone would be kind enough to fill me in on how KDE is in these respects, I'd appreciate it.

      The newer releases are definitely getting faster but you still need pretty recent hardware to get snappy performance. And it seems like because of the kdeinit hack, starting apps is considerably slower if you're not using the KDE desktop than if you are. Still, the load KDE imposes comes from the KDE 2.0 architecture. There's no major source of additional bloat in the near future and it's pretty clear how to make everything faster -- drastically improve the way a GNU system loads C++ apps.

      At any rate, the best way to get Linux going faster is to buy new RAM. I understand why people don't run and out for new processors or hard drives but RAM is so cheap now $20-30 will liberate you from the misery of hitting your swap.

    25. Re:A catch-22. by jeffphil · · Score: 3, Informative
      Linux in most default installations is a server not a desktop OS. That being said, I think if you are comparing W2K Server to Linux then they would be comparable. Sure the code for W2K server is exactly the same as W2K workstation, but the setup and services is the key. Here are some tips:
        • On W2K to make your GUI more responsive, change the environment to favor "Foreground" apps instead of "Background" apps.
        • On linux, renice your X to make foreground apps higher priority. Here's the command I put in my .xinitrc:sudo renice -10 -p `ps -aux | grep "[^grep].*X \(vt\|:0\)" | awk '{print $2;}'`
        • On W2K, turn off services that you don't need
        • Same thing for linux, lots of services get started -- but do you need them running all the time? (e.g. if you're not developing for your db app that day, turn off the DB server)
      • For some reason, at least with RedHat, all of the apps and libraries are installed with debugging symbols. Who knows what their reasoning is, but that takes apps longer to load and slower to run. Have you ever run a "Checked Build" NT or W2K that includes all debugging symbols? The same thing happens. What I do is boot to my rescue CD and strip every file on a regular basis (which also frees a ton of HD space). Be careful with this because you have to run ldconfig from the rescue CD before booting back to your default -- and it requires using params to ldconfig to point to the right mounted directories and spitting the ld.so.cache to the right spot. If you do it wrong, you will not be able to boot except to rescue CD.
      • Compile a new Kernel (preferably with the new VM) and take out all of the unneccesary items and compile as much as possible into the kernel instead of modules.
      I'm sure there are a hundred others, but these seem to do the most for me with least effort.

    26. Re:A catch-22. by 4444444 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      suffice it to say, my own workstation runs NT 4.0 just fine, and any modern flavor of Linux utterly dies.
      Considering NT 4.0 came out in the days of The 486 thats not suprising. What hardware are you using?

      --

      http://Lenny.com
      4 great justice!
    27. Re:A catch-22. by Jason+Earl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Since these boxes are going to be on a network anyhow, why not simply use underpowered machines as X terminals. Any machine with 16M of ram has enough oomph to be an X terminal, and one commodity server (with enough memory) can easily support hundreds of users.

      As far as I am concerned the only real reason to take a look at Linux on the desktop is that it finally allows the systems administrators to move to a useable thin client arrangement. Imagine the joys of one box to administer and nothing but disposable machines on your users' dekstops. Linux has finally gotten to the point where it has enough applications to allow you to shift to this sort of a setup today. The fact that this sort of an arrangement will probably save you money on both software and hardware costs is nothing more than icing on the cake. The real potential for savings is in administration costs. All of a sudden you can get rid of all of your desktop support personnel and replace them with one Linux admin, and a monkey whose sole job would be to replace failed thin clients.

    28. Re:A catch-22. by CyberGarp · · Score: 1
      I'd love to have Linux running everywhere if it didn't require massive hardware to run smoothly.

      I noticed a similar thing. Then I killed all unnecessary daemons (sounds like a book title). Then I installed a startup script to use 'hdparm' to speed up disk access. Then I discovered Blackbox for a window manager. Now my Linux install runs circles around my Windows install.
      --

      I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
    29. Re:A catch-22. by hughk · · Score: 2
      NT is stable, fast, and very decently priced these days. If I'm an office manager, what's my incentive for trying to go to Linux?
      I was forced to Win2K because of hardware support issues. It works well on a small setup with my MSDN Universal Subscription. OTOH, put up Win2K Server with Back Office and watch those pennies go. If the writer is happy with NT4.0 and SP6.x, fine but that is it, why move. However, once you start paying for new versions of the OS and the application (upgrades are not cheap, unless you are in MSDN), then you pay, and pay. With the OS upgrade, remember the memory, then howabout some more speed for the processor?

      Win 2K plus Office 2K works well on a single computer and is even affordable if you can shop around and get the s/w bundled (or do the classic, buy MS Works and the upgrade to Office for less than the price of Office). Once you start getting to server based networking, this is where the prices keep getting higher.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    30. Re:A catch-22. by TCaptain · · Score: 1
      Which KDE? Certainly not 2.2.1, which, although useable, is still pitifully slow compared to Win98 on my K6-2 300 laptop w 160MB RAM

      I don't get that, I have a gateway solo2500 which is a P333 (192 Megs of Ram) with a dual boot of Win98 SE and Mandrake 8.1 which runs KDE2.2.1 and I gotta say both are more than "useable"...KDE is running fast, dependable and VERY usable....the only thing that's stopping me from wiping out the 98 partition altogether are some of the games that I play and some of the software projects I need to support for work...



      I have to admit that I had problems with speed on my desktop machine which is a 1Ghz Athlon with 512 Megs of ram, when I installed KDE 2.2.0 with Mandrake 8 (the ONLY problem - once I switched to iceWM it went away). However a quick install of Mandrake 8.1 has solved that problem and it rocks too...

      --
      "I'm not a procrastinator, I'm temporally challenged"
    31. Re:A catch-22. by paai · · Score: 1

      > NT 4.0 has no support from MS any longer,
      > that's like using linux kernel 1.x
      > without support from Linus.

      No, because with Linux 1.x you always
      will have the source.

      Paai

    32. Re:A catch-22. by binner1 · · Score: 1

      That's funny, I thought the whole reason that M$ released XP was to force users with decent equipment into an unnecessary upgrade.

      -Ben

    33. Re:A catch-22. by deaddrunk · · Score: 1

      1.1.2 I believe, which was pretty quick.

      --
      Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
    34. Re:A catch-22. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      If I was in charge, that's what I'd do in an instant. Alas, I'm not.

      Linux on the corporate or even educational desktop done in this way would be fantastic. It removes power from the (often dangerous) user and places it into the hands of the sysadmin, which is good in an environment where everybody wants to put their copy of neo-napster or age of empires on their PCs. Removing their power to do such things before they sit down to use their PC is a good way to ensure productivity in both students and employees.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    35. Re:A catch-22. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I just installed RedHat 7.1 on a 133, and it is a bit sluggish in KDE. Windows 95 on the same machine is a rocket compared to RedHat, but NT 4.0, which is a much fairer comparison(NT supposedly never crashes :)), is noticably slower than RedHat.

      Mozilla is strangely perky when it's running though...odd.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    36. Re:A catch-22. by err666 · · Score: 1

      Compile a new Kernel (preferably with the new VM) and take out all of the unneccesary items and compile as much as possible into the
      kernel instead of modules.


      Bullshit. Wether something is built into the kernel or as a module doesn't affect performance at all. Also, unused kernel modules take away RAM but don't affect performance directly.

      --
      reduce(lambda x,y:x+y,map(lambda x:chr(ord(x)^42),tuple('zS^BED\nX_FOY\x0b')))
    37. Re:A catch-22. by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      I've just recently had RH7.2 on a P133 laptop, but am in the process of switching it to FreeBSD4.4-- an OS with a little demon for its mascot is more my style. I previously ran RH6.2 on this machine and found that the RH7.2 release is significantly slower than the RH6.2 system running a compiled-from-source KDE2.2.x (I only upgraded because I was hoping to take advantage of X4-- but never ran X4 because the video chip on the laptop is unsupported as yet)...

      Anyway, long story short: XMMS (or any mp3/ogg player) on a P/133 is just about going to max out a Linux system. Even minor events (like running a ps or ls from a terminal) can cause an interruption to the playback. On RH7.2 in KDE I'd get a lot of cuts at all times (simply from updating the XMMS window itself I think), whereas before as long as I didn't do anything but play the mp3 I'd be fine.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    38. Re:A catch-22. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      It could be that the whole system is now optimized to take advantage of the better superscalar architecture in the p6 core, which would explain why it would run slower.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    39. Re:A catch-22. by Seli · · Score: 1
      And it seems like because of the kdeinit hack, starting apps is considerably slower if you're not using the KDE desktop than if you are.

      You can avoid this by putting calling 'kdeinit' in some of your startup scripts called during starting X session, and preferably also calling 'kdeinit_shutdown' during the X session shutdown. This way kdeinit should keep running all the time, so starting KDE apps should be as fast as in KDE environment.

    40. Re:A catch-22. by Y+B+MCSE · · Score: 1

      Neither proud nor ashamed. But it doesn't hurt the salary. I am a long time windows user though and am enjoying the transition to being a Linux user. The Y B in my user name stands for Why would any one want to go that route now. As of 12-31 I will be a proud FORMER MCSE.

      Thanks for asking :-)

    41. Re:A catch-22. by secolactico · · Score: 1

      Certainly not twice as slow. Xwindows, however, is a pain in the axe if you are forced to use the standard vga/svga server. In comparison, almost any "el-cheapo" video adapters have optimized drivers for windows (any windows).

      Not twice as slow, but the screen refresh performance makes you feel like so.

      Let go of Xwindows and its a whole other world.

      --
      No sig
    42. Re:A catch-22. by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      I actually am generally opposed to solutions that make the computer less flexible for the end user. All too often the systems administrators simply don't have a good enough feel for what truly is useful. Fortunately, thin client does not preclude user installed software. The user simply has to know how to install the software in their home directory. Since nearly all software can be safely installed in this manner, you still end up with a solution that is the best of both worlds. End users can make sure that the computer does what they want and systems administrators end up with a system where no user can adversely affect another (no one has write access to system files).

      That way if a user absolutely has to have a different Window Manager, or a beta version of some piece of software they can have it. If something goes wrong they can either have their configuration from yesterday's backup or a quick refresh of their important configuration files from /etc/skel.

      Yes, some of your users will spend their time playing games, downloading MP3s, or reading Slashdot. But with all of the users on one machine these sort of abuses become fairly easy to spot. That way you can deal with those that misuse company time and resources without punishing those folks that need something other than "corporate approved" software for legitimate reasons.

      The good news is that this sort of a setup is becoming more and more viable thanks mostly to Linux. X Windows has always been a useful model for rolling out applications, but until Linux came along the only way to develop X based apps was to purchase expensive UNIX based tools and then purchase even more expensive X Servers for your Windows desktops. Linux has allowed even hobbyist coders to develop X based applications, and an explosion of X Windows applications has been the direct result.

    43. Re:A catch-22. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Yes, some of your users will spend their time playing games, downloading MP3s, or reading Slashdot. But with all of the users on one machine these sort of abuses become fairly easy to spot. That way you can deal with those that misuse company time and resources without punishing those folks that need something other than "corporate approved" software for legitimate reasons.

      That sounds nice in theory, but if you have 1000 users, and 250 of them are abusing their accounts (more like 750 in my case :( ), the ability to cut off those installs is still good to have.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    44. Re:A catch-22. by Stary · · Score: 1
      but really slowed down when I had MS Word 97, Netscape and an MP3 player running at the same time.
      [...]
      Emacs, Netscape 4.7x, XMMS could co-exist peacefully

      Ok. No matter how we all love it (ergh..), please do not compare Emacs to MS Word. It's simply not the same type of application. We could spend a day or two discussing whether or not they're comparable in "heaviness", but I think that'd be rather useless.

      Try the same system with Staroffice, KOffice or ABIWord or whatever. Otherwize we can go compare my system running Mozilla with a Windows system running windows help... it's simply not comparable.

      --
      Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
    45. Re:A catch-22. by spongman · · Score: 2
      you forgot the most significant: (BTW: the checked build of NT/W2K contains much more than just the debug symbols, the code itself, including the memory manager's heap allocator contains many more runtime checks (ASSERTs) - for example the arguments to Win32 APIs are much more vigorously checked... it's a hog. one useful thing you can do is force every memory allocation to reserve it's own commited page with the subsequent (guard) virtual page always being uncommitted, the pointer returned can be pushed right up to the end of the page so any buffer over(read|write)s will immediately cause address-exceptions in the guard page - very handy for those cases when the usual 'heap-check-on-free()' doesn't help because your app is heavily multithreaded and the order of your allocations isn't deterministic, but i digress...)
    46. Re:A catch-22. by stilwebm · · Score: 1

      In a way yes, at least relative to the current cost per megabyte. That is why I specified machines with SDRAM. Because of tax depriciation rules and accounting practices (not to mention normal equipment attrition and growth), few companies are likely to have large installations of machines with anything less than EDO. The ones that do have much older installations likely use old legacy applications in DOS, or even VMS (or worse, VMS apps ported to DOS!).

    47. Re:A catch-22. by Albanach · · Score: 1

      Hasn't it been well established that that hardware detection bit at the start of the WinNT startup is where Microsoft Determine how much the OS should be slowed down after checking how fast the hardware is.

      That way they can ensure it runs just as slowly on a PIII 800 as on a PII 400, and make folk always want to upgrade to the newest, fastest version... or perhaps I am a cynic.

    48. Re:A catch-22. by Ivan+Raikov · · Score: 1

      I do agree that Emacs is not the same type of application, but I thought it won't be an over-exaggeration to compare them in terms of memory footprint.

      I use Emacs fairly intensively -- usually I have 20-30 buffers open, and I keep my Emacs sessions open for days and weeks; according to top, the RSS of my Emacs processes takes anywhere from 10MB up to 20-25 MB. Indeed, I don't know what's the average memory usage of MS Word 97, but I figured 15-20 MB is not a bad guess.

    49. Re:A catch-22. by Shelled · · Score: 1

      If the goal of a Linux desktop is to provide an easy transition from Windows, it's hard to argue with IceWM. Light, extremely fast, and operationally very familiar to Microsoft users. Personally, I don't like the Windows paradigm and stick to fast and configurable managers such as Windowmaker or FVWM2. Instantaneous response on my 1.3 GHz Athlon w/ 3/4 gig of ram. Even Mozilla starts quickly!

    50. Re:A catch-22. by jaju · · Score: 1

      * Compile a new Kernel (preferably with the new VM) and take out all of the unneccesary items and compile as much as possible into the kernel instead of modules.

      Does this really help? AFAIK, it does not.
      In fact, if you have, for example, sound support compiled in as modules, it helps if you don't load the sound modules if you are not going to listen to any audio. Less RAM. This is not possible if it's compiled into the kernel.

      There are other reasons. Once, apparently, my 8139too driver had a bug, and i couldn't connect anywhere. I shut down my network, unloaded the module, and reloaded. It was fine again (atleast until I hit that bug again, which I don't remember hitting again ;-)

      Had it been compiled in, rebooting would have been the only way out! (And that blemishes my machine's records of uptimes ;-)

      --
      People will do tomorrow what they did today because that is what they did yesterday.
    51. Re:A catch-22. by commanderfoxtrot · · Score: 1

      Switch over to the Xaudio mp3 player. On my P70 mp3-playing box, it hardly ever skips, even if I'm doing big nfs/disk tranfers. It only uses around 35% cpu for 256bit/s mp3s.

      --
      http://blog.grcm.net/
    52. Re:A catch-22. by bfree · · Score: 2

      Is that mozilla on a P133 w/32? I've seen it on a Windows 95 box (my mother got mozilla'd) and it is too slow there for my liking though she can use it once she is patient. I wouldn't like to see her trying OpenOffice on that box (so I guess I better give her a new box :-)

      --

      Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

    53. Re:A catch-22. by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      That doesn't sound like it will handle my Ogg files. ;)

      Thanks for the suggestion. I'm fine running mpg321 or ogg123 on the CLI, but not sure how those stack up CPU-wise, so I will check out Xaudio. It would be nice to do two things at once on that machine every now and again.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    54. Re:A catch-22. by Puppet+Master · · Score: 1

      I run a full FreeBSD shop... From server to workstation... Runs fast, secure, and efficient.

      --
      The day Microsoft creates a product that doesn't suck, it will be known as the Microsoft Vaccuum Cleaner!
    55. Re:A catch-22. by jeffphil · · Score: 1

      Freeing RAM is the main concern with removing unnecessary items, here is a link in the Kernel HOWTO pointing to this 8.2 Huge or slow kernels .

      And yes, I did mix that up (dyslexia) in that compile as much as modules and not into kernel to free more memory of unused device drivers. I run a laptop, so SCSI is compiled as a module because I only use SCSI when I'm burning CD's which is maybe twice a month. And yes you get the side benefit of being able to restart devices, debug, recompile patches better if compiled as modules.

    56. Re:A catch-22. by Y+B+MCSE · · Score: 1


      It could be debated that is true. However, for now the economy is on a downturn and I am comfortable and that is enough. When the economy picks up it won't be.

    57. Re:A catch-22. by tekmate · · Score: 1

      I disagree Mandrake picks up my sound blaster live yet 98se and ME tell me it has a problem. OK then it must be a Microsoft problem but no W2K works fine with the card too, although W2K won't work with my network card that worked fine under NT 4. I install Linux and I'm done, I install any Microsoft product and I have to scour the web looking for drivers. If I had to pick which OS was ready for prime time well I'll let you guess and here's a hint the company doesn't ryme with Winblows.

  2. nice, but not likely by programic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. --
    1. Re:nice, but not likely by ichimunki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just like it's hard to find people who are willing to man tech support call centers as an entry-level job in the IT industry? Besides, for some level of what's needed, admining a Linux office can't be any tougher than admining a Windows office.

      So guess who would be the first to undergo a quick training-- yes, the old Windows admins. I think it would be a pretty poor business policy to just can the folks who've been doing the sysadmin job up to this point just because they have a slightly different experience. Linux isn't advanced magic at the desktop/office LAN level.

      But frankly, I don't want sysadmins around anyway whose attitude is "you're a moron if you need your password reset"... sysadmins don't get paid to be wizards, they get paid to make sure the systems stay maintained and the users stay productive (from a technical perspective).

      --
      I do not have a signature
    2. Re:nice, but not likely by stilwebm · · Score: 2

      Well, in an office situation the cost of supporting Linux should be as low as or lower than the cost of supporting a Windows installation. The catch is that the system architects have to take maintenance costs in to account while setting up the office infatrsucture. Ideally, the applications could run off of an NFS (or similar) mount. The $HOME files could be local or remote, though remote is ideal. The operating system could be installed remotely or locally, as well as temp files. With proper user permissions, you can restrict users from installing programs other than in their $HOME. You can even use diskspace quotas. You can do similar things with Windows, but user installed software (think AIM, Napster, ActiveX/VBS problems etc.) always seems to be a problem except in the most tightly controlled installations. A well thought out Linux installation can be almost self maintaining, except for of course resetting passwords. But you have to do that for Windows too.

    3. Re:nice, but not likely by zangdesign · · Score: 1

      The BOFH would hopefully be fired the first time s/he opened his/her mouth or at least sent for some social re-training with a large stick. Ops are trained to do work, not abuse the users or the system.

      The persistence of the BOFH mythos can only hurt Linux in public perception. Perhaps it time to introduce a new ideal that doesn't have the social skills of a rabid badger on acid.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    4. Re:nice, but not likely by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

      I think many IT managers are going to find much to their chargrin that the so-called free Linux isn't as cheap as they thought.

      Especially if you're converting from a Windows-based environment--the retraining costs alone will send the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) soaring into the stratosphere when you have to retrain the vast majority of the people in the company organization to use Linux.

      Now, if the company had started with Linux in the first place, that would be a VERY different story indeed. I believe that's how both Google and TiVo got started, more or less.

    5. Re:nice, but not likely by Meech · · Score: 1

      you can pay for Linux admins with the money that you will save for all of the damn software that Microsoft will make you buy. There is the software itself, then user licenses, then upgrades. Wait, you want more users? Buy more licenses. You want to buy a new machine? You have to buy new software. Running Microsoft is *not cheap*, plus it is so bloated (and buggy) that you need someone to keep it running all of the time.

  3. Really?!?!?! by FortKnox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Really?!?!?! by Christianfreak · · Score: 2

      That's the problem, many PHB's don't know it because M$oft is always touting the whole "The system costs less but then you have to pay more support!" What we really need to do is tell the world that most people still need a high payed system admin for windoze machines as well as linux.

  4. Linux ready? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Linux ready? by jd142 · · Score: 1

      I don't want users on my network to install stuff on their office pc's. 75% of the time, a trouble call can be resolved by uninstalling the screen saver or cute e-card that the secretary just clicked on.

    2. Re:Linux ready? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Most users would like to shove their pencil up the ass of the 'sysadmin' who decided in all his glory what they are allowed to install on their workstation.

      yes, we know. It's your job to keep all those machines up and humming. It's OUR job to bring in the revenue, using the software we know best, to pay for the power to keep the machines up and humming.

      Nope. Nobody is gonna let the eggheads in IT grab back control of the computer equipment. That's soo soo 70's.

    3. Re:Linux ready? by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Wrong, the power is being taken back by the admins and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. And its not an OS thing. On Windows, Linux or Mac OS X users are being put in their proper place. If you can't take it tough. You aren't paid to like it.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    4. Re:Linux ready? by gutigre · · Score: 1

      Try Ximian's Red Carpet, which automatically determines each RPM's dependencies, downloading and installing them too, and removing old packages where necessary. It even manages to do things line update the Gnome libs or the system's C libraries without restarting. The program runs instantaneously on my machine (tho I have an Athlon 1.4 and 512MB) and wow is the interface beautiful! Admittedly, not all of the packages are up-to-the-minute recent, but the end user won't care. All in all, Red Carpet is the best software manager I've seen for ANY platform.

    5. Re:Linux ready? by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 1
      really
      can you type rpm -i?



      Or use a package manager like kpackage...

      When I click on a file with extension .rpm it starts up kpackage.

      --
      You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
  5. Depends on your office... by van+der+Rohe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work in an electronic music studio. I'd love to use Linux, but the apps just aren't there.
    The fact that there's almost no development community addressing this potentially enormous market amazes me to no end.
    But, until then, I'll use Windows. Not because it's great, but because it has the apps I need.

    1. Re:Depends on your office... by FortKnox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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!
    2. Re:Depends on your office... by mirko · · Score: 2

      What about GSMP?

      Not as complete as VST butnot bad either.
      Actually if Gimp is GNU's Photoshop, then GSMP should be its VST...

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    3. Re:Depends on your office... by DrCode · · Score: 2

      In other words, people who are working for free shouldn't write what they're interested in, but should work on what you want.

      If that's your attitude, I can see why you find those developers 'code and abusive'.

    4. Re:Depends on your office... by maeglin · · Score: 1

      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."


      Beautiful vision... except for the developers. It's no longer good enough to freely give your works away for the benefit of everone. No... now we're all arrogant asses because we're not doing what you want. It's considered rude to even remind people that they're getting stuff for free and that if they want a new feature, maybe they should do some of the work.

      A community is about mutual benefit... people who do nothing don't benefit anyone. *We* are our community. Not grandma, auntie Mae, or Joe Sixpack.

      I'm not ready to become a Morlock just yet, thank you.

    5. Re:Depends on your office... by FortKnox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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!
    6. Re:Depends on your office... by RisingSon · · Score: 1

      The fact that there's almost no development community addressing this potentially enormous market amazes me to no end.

      http://www.demudi.org/

    7. Re:Depends on your office... by FortKnox · · Score: 1

      I've worked on Open Source projects, but not because I wanted to add my own personal stuff that I needed to the project, but because I wanted to help the community.

      Where's the greed? In the people that write free software for their own needs, or those that can't code and innocently request something be made?

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    8. Re:Depends on your office... by gmhowell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Frankly, I could care less about M$, and REALLY don't care about what other people use. I need end-user apps. Cheap ones. I pay for games (because nethack doesn't cut it for me.) so that means I have Win98 at home. But why should I pay for a $1500 computer to browse the web? (My brother. Idiot.) Why pay $200-$300 for the operating system, when it doesn't do anything? Okay, maybe the web browser. But why don't Amazon, GM, IBM, etc pay for my browser/OS?

      I want to program a bit. But I'm not so into it to purchase Visual C++ for $???. I occasionally type a letter or resume, but $200 for Word/WordPerfect? I don't do that much letter writing.

      So I use Linux. Most of the stuff I need is out there. For games I have M$. But when games require XP? I think I'll just go buy a PS2. Or go outside and look at that bright yellow thing.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    9. Re:Depends on your office... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Of course, here people are going to complain how open-source developers are too elitist or something, but this is really a market that's probably better served by a proprietary company since it doesn't cater to general computer users.

      My suggestion to you is you should contact your electronic music software vendors, and suggest they port their software to Linux. Call them every month or so and keep bugging them about it, so they start to get the idea. Complain that you need their professional-level software, but that Microsoft's unprofessional OS crashes, causing you business losses. If enough users of expensive niche-market software complained to their vendors like this, maybe there'd be better availability of this software for Linux.

    10. Re:Depends on your office... by van+der+Rohe · · Score: 1

      Yes, Demudi looks to be the best contender.
      But it's simply not ready for prime time yet.

    11. Re:Depends on your office... by Isle · · Score: 1

      You sound like an american so here's an american answer:

      Where's the greed? In the people that work to make money, or in those don't wish to learn a proper profession and innocently request to feeded?

      Not that I agree with the sentiment in my reply, but it conveys the point.

    12. Re:Depends on your office... by mj6798 · · Score: 2
      When Open Source advocates realize this, they'll start developing software the community needs, not just themselves.

      You have a basic misunderstanding of how open source works. People write open source software to get their own work done and they share it with others in hopes of getting improvements back.

      There is no incentive for anybody to write software for some nebulous other "community" nor do most people have some master plan to replace all commercial software. If there is no open source equivalent of some piece of commercial software, that simply means the commercial market must be serving its users well enough. In that case, by all means, please do stick with the commercial software.

      While there may be some "zealots" who want "to bring Linux to market", you'd be foolish to rely on them for your computing needs. In real life, when it comes to open source, either you roll up your sleeves or you pay BillG; whining and hoping that others will do your work for you for free is pointless.

    13. Re:Depends on your office... by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      'code and abusive'

      Sounds like a great job description to me. Or at the very least, something I'd like on a t-shirt.

      --saint

    14. Re:Depends on your office... by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly fine if Open Source programmers create whatever they want. The point is that if they want the world to adopt their software, they need to consider a broader audience. If they don't aspire to displacing Closed Source - great. If they do, they'll have to accomodate the so-called Lusers.

    15. Re:Depends on your office... by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      " I work in an electronic music studio"

      Well I guess that market is shot then. You and the three thousand other people who work in music studios will have to use other software. What amazes me is that you work in a studio but use PCs and windows. You represent one of the smallest niches in software I would not hold my breath for any open source alternatives. Fork over the bucks and move on.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  6. I couldn't agree more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Windows cause sun glare in everyone's monitor, hence decreasing productivity.

  7. Cheaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Linux is only cheaper than windows if you don't value your time" - I don't know who said it, but it is true!

    1. Re:Cheaper? by c13v3rm0nk3y · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry, but if I added up all my time spent fixing broken Windows, and compared it with the cheerful hacking I do on Linux or BSD, Windows would come out far more expensive.

      Of course, YMMV, but in our 300-plus node network of Windows boxes, you can always guarantee one thing: they break when you need them most.

      Personal computer systems are brittle as hell, and, as far as I'm concerned, running Windows is no guarantee that your day won't be wasted. Perhaps NT decided to blue screen because there wasn't a PS/2 mouse plugged in (true story).

      My personal obsvervations indicate to me that it is a fallacy that Windows is easier to maintain. Tell that to our IT guys.

      --
      -- clvrmnky
    2. Re:Cheaper? by haruharaharu · · Score: 2

      should have renamed the OS, would have confused the hell out of the Linux morons such as yourself.

      You got that right. Keeping all the names that MS uses for its OSes confuses the hell out of me.

      --
      Reboot macht Frei.
    3. Re:Cheaper? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I'm jumping in here...

      It's not that the OS is less stable, it's that there are fundamental design problems that cause my department hours of lost work simply trying to get the OS to work they way we want it to...problems we didn't have when we used Linux.

      Most importantly, these revolve around permissions problems, file sharing, software installations - all things that require even more expensive software to be added to Windows to compensate for the short comings.

      Now, here is a great example: this morning I got a call from someone whose account mysteriously "disappeared". That is, when they logged into their machine, it was if they had logged in for the first time - they lost all their settings, configurations, local files that had been stored in their directory - it was all just gone. This is on your stable Win2k box.

      Now, the kicker is, understanding these things happen (although they didn't under Unix), he had a backup of his profile stored in another directory. But Windows wouldn't let us just copy his information back - I honestly can't tell you what went wrong, but this guy missed doing any "real" work all morning, while our over worked/underpaid administrator was busy tackling other similar types of problems from other users.

      Now, it was probably a simple solution - but it was a simple solution to a problem that shouldn't have manifested itself to begin with. This animator lost several hundred billable dollars this morning.

      We NEVER had these kinds of time wasting stupid problems with Unix - and yet we "upgraded" those expensive Unix boxes to WinNT/2K boxes...to save money?

      So, sure, NT/2K might be stable - in that it doesn't BSOD often or at all (frankly, it hasn't BSODed me since I've been using it - about a year and a half), but there's a lot more to it - ease of use being more of a "my way or the high-way", when we need something specific done and can't do it.

      I really can't tell you how much time we've lost because of stupid Windows problems. And all of the animators who were accustomed to Unix have a much harder time adjusting to Windows - they ask questions like "why can't I just do this?", referring to something was quite simple and always worked in Unix.

      No, I can only believe that people who claim, all things being equal, that people are MORE productive in Windows are the ones spewing BS.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    4. Re:Cheaper? by Tyrian · · Score: 1

      "Linux is only free if your time has no value"
      -- Jamie Zawinski

      I'm assuming you're misquoting this jwz one, which I'd have to agree with. Though Windows is no learning cakewalk, to become a Joe Bloggs user of Linux certainly takes much, much more time than becoming a Joe Windows.

      I tried setting up my first Linux system when about 7 years ago, the first thing I had to do was learn how to edit the X configuration to enable resolutions my video card could handle -- this sort of thing [though certainly less prevalent today] is what makes Linux a long shot at least for many people.

      Getting things like newer soundcards to work, CD-Rs, Cardbus NICs, these things require large amounts of time to get to work. Without a lowered techincal demand from the fundamental level & more preinstalled systems, Linux will have a significantly hard time penetrating markets.

      jwz uses Linux. I use Linux. But that doesn't mean I haven't spent endless hours fiddling to be able to use the operating system effectively. Of course, I'm still in college, and my time is relatively cheap, but many others cannot afford this initial startup cost of knowledge. I'm hopeful [and have seen good signs] of forthcoming simple, idiot proof computing using an OS with the idiology of the future.

    5. Re:Cheaper? by gutigre · · Score: 1

      I've used Win2K and a recent Linux build extensively on the same machine. While Win2K crashes about once a week ("rarely" by most people's standards), Linux never crashes. NEVER. Not once. Admittedly this is a home computer with very little network activity, so you could probably get Linux to crash with heavier use... or could you? Win2K is only "stable" in comparison to, well, Windows 95, 98, and ME.

    6. Re:Cheaper? by c13v3rm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Others have replied to your one-liner with sufficient detail, so I'll just add my $1.49.

      You indicated that I have two choices: I'm lying, or I haven't used Win2K/XP.

      May I suggest a third alternative: neither. I am talking from several years of development experience here. Prior to my coding job, I did years of technical support. As I took pains to state in the original posting, you experience may differ, but in my experience, the downtime of our Windows workstations must be taken into consideration when measuring "productivity" on any scale.

      I have been constantly thwarted by various Windows problems (OS and app-level) when getting my work done. This is echoed by our IT guys.

      I was merely pointing out that, for this hacker, running Windows at work is no guarantee of productivity.

      Check your attitude at the main page, AC.

      --
      -- clvrmnky
    7. Re:Cheaper? by c13v3rm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Perhaps.

      At least I'd know how to fix the problems. As I've stated earlier, all workstations tend toward the brittle. How easy it is to patch back together is an important quality, and one that Windows NT/2000/XP do not have. At least in my experience.

      Windows boxes have their good qualities; maintainability is not one of them.

      --
      -- clvrmnky
  8. Re:Pointless by geomon · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    What is the intrinsic value of "easy to learn"?

    If that were true, why would people work on their own cars, or modify them to make them perform better?

    Are you saying that if physics were easy to learn, then it would be better?

    Better than what?

    The 'ease' argument is only valid for the marketplace. In that context I would agree that Linux has an extreme uphill battle.

    But to question the validity of studying something due entirely to its ease of use?.....

    Then why study anything?

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  9. exposure is good by Transient0 · · Score: 1

    I can't help but think that this is all stuff that everyone reading slashdot already knows. Nothing new or exciting here.

    As always, the real trouble is simply overcoming consumer momentum("but we ran our LAST network on Windows") and overcoming the support problem("but were is the analogous army of MSCEs?"). Linux may be the best solution, but that doesn't mean that people will choose it. On the other hand, it's always nice to see a little exposure: No such thing as bad press, and all that.

    I can already hear the people complaining about the article not mentioning Debian.

  10. Two Critical Appps that will help... by ayden · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As reported in Slashdot this morning, Evolution 1.0 Released and ThinkFree Office an MS 2000/XP Office compatible suite that works in Linux. Combine these with the TransGaming's WineX software, there is no longer any reason to use MS on the desktop.

    --
    "I'm The Bounty Bear. I will find him anywhere. I'm searching."
    1. Re:Two Critical Appps that will help... by cowboy+junkie · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...there is no longer any reason to use MS on the desktop

      Yeah, I'm sure that the only applications of any merit on Windows are Office and the Sims.

    2. Re:Two Critical Appps that will help... by Neumann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

    3. Re:Two Critical Appps that will help... by van+der+Rohe · · Score: 1

      "there is no longer any reason to use MS on the desktop."

      Sure, provided that all you do is play games and use word processors.

      See my post above about professional quality music production.

    4. Re:Two Critical Appps that will help... by Ogerman · · Score: 2

      ThinkFree Office is a joke. The word free belongs nowhere in its name. I'd rather be forced to use MS Office than that crap. But fortunately, with OpenOffice, I need neither. Subscription apps are epitamy of what any Linux user loaths.

    5. Re:Two Critical Appps that will help... by Mignon · · Score: 2
      No Vendor support for Emulator == No Linux

      It's too bad your summary didn't look like this instead:
      No Vendor support for Emulator == No Vendor

      It takes a lot of clout for that to happen, though.

  11. dead horse by flipper28 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:dead horse by stilwebm · · Score: 2

      That is true for some offices, but it's not true for all (most?) offices. Many companies use only a few applications, which usually are some kind of database interface. Think of call centers, shipping warehouses, etc. The applications are often either custom applications or created in house. Combine those core applications a basic office suite and an email client, and you cover most of the needs of many large companies. You might have a few people who still need Quark or some other specialized software. For those applications it is often more cost effective to just let those users stick to their Macs. Since you use open standards for most everything, they can still send/receive email and open PDF's.

      So basically consumer oriented applications only play a small part in the office environment. It is the home environment where there is a need for the consumer applications.

    2. Re:dead horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Correction: The apps have to be *better* than the Microsoft ones.

      You won't get people to adopt linux if all it does is mimic the Windows environment. What's the point?

    3. Re:dead horse by flipper28 · · Score: 1

      Consumer and office applications have merged much more over the past few years - I use the same office/internet apps at work and at home.

    4. Re:dead horse by stilwebm · · Score: 1

      I agree. I mostly meant things like Quicken and games - that shouldn't be used in a work environment (unless it is uhh a team building tournament).

  12. Re:School by c13v3rm0nk3y · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...they run mostly Win95 on a Novell network.

    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
  13. But Microsoft abuses the users because they can by Walter+Bell · · Score: 1, Troll
    The article raised many good points and showed the many enormous advantages of using Linux over Windows. As somebody who has tried to do the same for my home PC, however, I realize that there are some substantial hurdles to completely replacing Microsoft products. Why is that? Well, think about why Microsoft is able to get away with screwing their users: the market allows it. If users actually had a choice, don't you think they would have already taken it? Why wants to be burdened with spyware, the upgrade treadmill, file format incompatibilities, GPFs / blue screens, cost, and general instability? If 95% of PC users really had a choice, why would they ever choose Windows?

    Well, here are my own personal reasons why I have a Windows box in the middle of my shelf of Linux boxen:
    • Mail. I need to access a Microsoft Exchange mail server. Alternatives, anyone?
    • Office documents. StarOffice, Koffice, and the like don't even make an attempt to read Powerpoint documents correctly. Word docs render correctly on a good day, and show up formatted wrong and in Arabic typefaces on a bad day. Staroffice and Koffice required me to upgrade my memory and CPU. I have no choice and businesses have no choice but to accept that Microsoft file formats are the standard. We can't turn down customers just because they send us .doc's instead of .ps's.
    • Web browsing. I love Mozilla and it is getting better every day. I used to use Konqueror quite a bit and it was fairly decent as well. But neither browser works as well as IE, just because almost every web page on the Internet was designed with IE users in mind. Don't believe me? Ask your average artsy web designer what Linux is and he will probably give you a blank stare.
    • Games. The majority of my favorite games will not run on Linux.


    I love Linux - it is the best all-around OS I have ever used. Linux isn't the problem; third parties are the problem. Microsoft made the brilliant move of leveraging its monopolies to reinforce each other and it has worked like a charm. I'd drop Windows in a heartbeat but M$ gets my upgrade dollars because I really have no choice. And I suspect that any office that tried to transition to Linux will fail miserably for the same reasons. Linux just isn't ready for widespread desktop use.

    ~wally
    1. Re:But Microsoft abuses the users because they can by alen · · Score: 2

      For mail you can setup Exchange as an IMAP server and a linux desktop as an IMAP client. You will lose the address book feature so it's worthless except for while travelling.

    2. Re:But Microsoft abuses the users because they can by ichimunki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      *mail: set up an auto-forward of all mail sent to your Exchange account. send all mail from a non-Exchange account. eventually wean people off the exchange address.

      *office documents: demand that people send you the data as XML or HTML or RTF or TXT or any of the other zillions of formats available. if they will not: pout.

      *web browsing: the only place Linux falls down is on terribly designed web pages and Flash. those sites are not worth viewing anyway. consider yourself rescued from bad web pages. :)

      *games: you kids today and your fancy 3D rendering. in my day, games had 256 colors if they were lucky... some games were drawn in mono as vector graphics, other games relied solely on that faculty known as the imagination-- and presented the entire experience using only the written word. In fact, the more I play the new games, the more I like the older games. Once in a while I even use these analog games that rely on having people in the room with me. It's kind of fun!

      As you can see, either you have an employment-related restriction and you can either try and find a new job (I know the desire to not use Windows at work makes me think about this once in a while, but on the whole it's unrealistic-- and they're paying for MS stuff, not me) or you have a comfort level that you seem to think you need. If you fall into this latter camp, all I can say is that comfort is relative, you have to weigh the comfort of interoperability/etc with the comfort of Free Software.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    3. Re:But Microsoft abuses the users because they can by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      So now we know why *you* use Linux, but those last two didn't really address the points of the parent. Recent-game lovers aren't going to switch, and people who want to view all websites as they were meant to be seen won't switch.

    4. Re:But Microsoft abuses the users because they can by Drunken_Jackass · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight....you are advocating conforming to a lower standard so that you can, what, stick it to M$??!

      That's rediculous!!!

      The question is not "How can i downgrade to a non-M$ system and lose functionality?" But rather "Where are the apps that give me the functionality to do at the level that i'm accustomed to?!"

      Asking someone to give you a document as XML, HTML, RTF or TXT will give you more strange looks, and cause more problems then having them send it to you in "Microsoft" format. MSOffice is popular because is can create documents in formats other than plain text...and XML and HTML doesn't cut it.

      And saying "those sites are not worth viewing anyway" when talking about a flash site is just moronic!!

      Any who gives a rat's ass if you like 4 color atari 2600 games better than Q3 or UT?!?! Kick-ass games are built for people who want to play kick-ass games. Why wouldn't you want to play a kick-ass game on a Linux box?

      I'm so sick and tired over the petty bullshit that goes on between staunch linux-or-die-everything-else-is-a-monoplolistic-pl oy-to-implant-chips-in-your-penis camp, and the M$-is-the-greatest-company-in-the-world-just-look- at-my-MCSE camp.

      It's over. M$ is here to stay. Yes, Linux has made great inroads in the past 24 months and has matured at a scale that exponentially exceeds what M$ has done to date. But M$ will alwaysbe around. Face facts.

      As far as the windowless office is concerned, i would love to move to a pure Linux based network, but i have too many mission critical apps that need to run on Windows...some on Windows 9X!!

      --
      There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
    5. Re:But Microsoft abuses the users because they can by red_dragon · · Score: 1

      You don't have to lose the address book feature if your IMAP client can use LDAP. I have used both Netscape, Pine, and OS X Mail.app as IMAP/LDAP clients with Exchange, and haven't lost any e-mail functionality (other than the viruses, that is). You don't get to access the Calendar, Contacts, Tasks, Journal, or Notes that way, though, but that's obvious.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
    6. Re:But Microsoft abuses the users because they can by elmegil · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you used StarOffice for office compatability? Last time I needed to look at a PowerPoint presentation it did just fine.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    7. Re:But Microsoft abuses the users because they can by AppyPappy · · Score: 1
      StarOffice, Koffice, and the like don't even make an attempt to read Powerpoint documents correctly.

      I remember when I couldn't get our department to move from Lotus to Excel because Excel didn't run the Lotus macros correctly.

      --

      If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem

    8. Re:But Microsoft abuses the users because they can by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      The question is not "How can i downgrade to a non-M$ system and lose functionality?"

      I prefer not to think of Linux as less functional. We zealots like to refer to it as differently functional. ;)

      As for Office formats, unless someone is paying me to use the documents they're sending me, sending them in a file format my friends/family know I can't view is no different than me translating everything into Latin before I send it. How do you think they would react to that?

      My comments on Flash are moronic? I'll give you moronic! The only people being punished by not being able to see Flash are kids! KIDS! I've never run into more sites that were utterly dependent on Flash than those sites geared towards children. I suppose I should run Windows-- for the children? Of course, the Flash has never actually added value to the web pages, it wrecks navigation, and it might be neat, but if I wanted to watch TV, I'd watch TV. HTTP stands for Hyper-Text Transfer Protocol, not "cheesy, useless animation protocol". Hypertext != moving graphics. Hypertext == text with links in it. :) *whoa, where this soapbox come from?*

      Games... gaming is not relevant in a discussion about a Windows-less office. Linux has mine sweeper and solitaire and all those other good Windows games that come on a standard Windows desktop. Unless there is something inherent in Linux that prevents gaming software from being written for Linux, I think game manufacturers will continue to target dominant platforms just as they always have. Most games are available for more than one OS/platform/architecture already (Windows, Mac, Playstation, etc). I assume Linux is not going to get great games until it's more apparent that there is revenue to be generated by porting. This seems unlikely since the people mostly likely to insist on those games are the same people most likely to have a Windows partition handy and to not have a problem with that. Since it's practically impossible to buy a new computer without Windows pre-installed, the odds that someone who wants to use the computer for video games and them not having Windows is essentially zero.

      But your last statement is the most telling, and is actually no less true now than it was about 20 years ago the first time I heard it said... "you don't decide on your OS or platform first, you decide what applications you want to run, then you make sure you have a machine and OS that can run them". Obviously the answer to this question for most offices right now includes Microsoft Office, and the best place to run MS Office is a version of MS Windows.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    9. Re:But Microsoft abuses the users because they can by beer_maker · · Score: 1
      Well, I've never been a fan of the Journal or Notes, but I use the Calendar & Tasks every diddly-damn-day, so this fix just doesn't cut it for me.

      I also REALLY LIKE using Contacts! It's your own little CRM database, if you take the time to use it. Have you?

      Oh sure, I could probably find a shareware database app that let me enter/find/sort/etc but it wouldn't tie into my email system, would it? And no, writing one or paying you to write one is not an option. This one works NOW, and ties in seamlessly with the email system. Could you do that for the price I paid for Office?

      For pity's sake, let's stop stroking each other about how program(foo) can easily substitute for M$program(bar). If it could, people would be buying it!

      The nice folks at CRN who wrote the article are geeks like you & I, not the average Office user. They don't have the faintest idea what the average Office user thinks/feels/wants. They know too much about the software to make the fumbling choices of the average user, as do damn near all /. readers. They don't have the blind faith in "the program that writes the reports I need on Friday, you know the one I mean."

      In the end, this is just another "feel-good" article by linux-lovers with a job in journalism. There's no news here. Move along now, nothing to see, move along...

      --
      Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    10. Re:But Microsoft abuses the users because they can by CoyoteGuy · · Score: 1

      First of all, your comments on Flash are entirely unsubstanciated. Do you want to know why Linux hasn't caught on? It's because Linux users and developers are self-centered, egotistical, psychotic people. Seriously, I am a young professional, and I use Linux for our network services at work. But for someone to write off Flash as a medium to communicate is ridiculous. You have this beautiful technology that will work on 85% of the worlds browsers.. And on 90% of the sites that incorporate Flash, they give you the option to use HTML, why would you say something like Flash is a cheesy, useless animation protocol? It is a change from watching plain, boring, stagnant information.

      Linux is fun, but with narrow-minded thinking rom Linux users and developers.. We're not all sitting at shell prompts all day, some of us actually work in the multimedia industry, where image is a vital part of a product. If you can't display flash in your browser, that's like saying... This car has tires, but you can't travel down the nice highways. It's just not capable/nor made to do that.

      Please rethink your stance on Open software, and the linux movement. I am keenly waiting for the moment that Linux meets all my needs, and I WILL migrate. But until the Linux user/developer cliche lives on, I'm sticking with Windows.

      Coyoteguy

      --
      Slashdot.. Land of nerds, trolls, and FlameBait..
    11. Re:But Microsoft abuses the users because they can by sideshow · · Score: 1
      *web browsing: the only place Linux falls down is on terribly designed web pages and Flash. those sites are not worth viewing anyway. consider yourself rescued from bad web pages. :)

      Yeah except for the fact the half the fonts are about one pixal tall.

      --

      Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.

    12. Re:But Microsoft abuses the users because they can by scrytch · · Score: 2

      > *mail: set up an auto-forward of all mail sent to your Exchange account. send all mail from a non-Exchange account. eventually wean people off the exchange address.

      And watch as people complain because they can no longer send meetings through mail and check for scheduling conflicts.

      > *office documents: demand that people send you the data as XML or HTML or RTF or TXT or any of the other zillions of formats available. if they will not: pout.

      I don't think I really need to correct you here, because anyone in possession of two brain cells to rub together who wants to keep his job is not going to go demanding that customers reformat their data to suit your inability to read it (rtf generated from word2k is still useless in wordpad if it contains tables). God forbid pout. You can suggest, but in the end, you are in no position to demand.

      > * web browsing: the only place Linux falls down is on terribly designed web pages and Flash. those sites are not worth viewing anyway. consider yourself rescued from bad web pages. :)

      I'll chase you from the left here: Flash works just dandy on Linux. Flash is tiny both in filesize and the size of the library, the runtime is cross-platform (and the development side has traditionally been mac-friendly), and it's a hell of a lot smaller and faster than java for eye candy. You can harrumph all you want about eye candy, but there's these places called museums that will demonstrate that such nonfunctional useless decoration has been with us for thousands of years. Some people are even in the business of selling it.

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    13. Re:But Microsoft abuses the users because they can by el_chicano · · Score: 1
      It is a change from watching plain, boring, stagnant information.
      "We mustn't let the content get in the way of the flashy graphics" -- the MTV-ization of the internet.

      In Gutenberg's time information was valuable. It's distressing to hear that it is now "boring"!
      --
      A man who wants nothing is invincible
  14. Re:Pointless by geomon · · Score: 2

    Ease of use is important because time is a limited resource and different people have different priorities, asshole. DUH!

    Then don't waste your time on it.

    But don't expect me to waste my time on working on *your* problems (natural gas exploration, nuclear waste management).

    After all, using your logic, only simple things should be useful.

    Somehow I doubt the average office worker would have higher productivity if they used a Linux solution instead of a Windows one? I think not.

    Is it fun arguing with yourself.

    I've never advocated EVERYONE moving on to Linux.

    But that is hardly the issue, is it?

    Posting as an anonymous coward means never having to defend your assertions.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  15. This might be very dangerous for a company. by Krapangor · · Score: 1, Funny

    When a company switches to 100 percent MS free they might have very much problems to exchange data with their customers.
    This will give their competitors very much advantage and they'll finally die in the end.
    Also there are very much legal problems with the GNU license and people are not sure if they must distribute their own work for free. This might be ok with open source but you must keep in might that a company cannot distribute their confidential data all over the world because their competitors would use their customer lists and have very much advantage.
    And there is the problem with reliability on open source systems because a single command: umount can wipe out the whole harddisk.
    A linux guy told me lately that you must do always umount to halt your computer, so a operation system which can't be switched off is not good for a company especially the running computers use much power all over the night and this is very expensive and bad for the environment, too.
    So you should stay with Windows which has not these problems. And the service is very much better from microsoft because of the programs which are installed on your computer and send every you do to microsoft so that they can help you all the time.

    --
    Owner of a Mensa membership card.
    1. Re:This might be very dangerous for a company. by schon · · Score: 1

      When a company switches to 100 percent MS free they might have very much problems to exchange data with their customers.

      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."

      A customer of ours tried to send me a network diagram (created with Visio). None of our Windows computers could open it (even the ones with Visio.)

      The data exchange problem exists whether you use Linux or not.

      The rest of your post is just trollish FUD, which I won't bother to address.

    2. Re:This might be very dangerous for a company. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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."

      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 .TXT, .PS, .RTF, .XML, or any other non-.DOC format for text documents?

      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 .XML. Unfortunately, that world is not here. We live in a world instead where many companies, probably most, send text with .DOC.

      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.

    3. Re:This might be very dangerous for a company. by Zapdos · · Score: 1

      You are right I always send my customers *.doc. Boy that would be dumb. Send them a file they can edit, or supply to my competition. I either send them a protected pdf or a hard copy via fax or mail.

      GNU license. if you use some preexisting GNU code to build your project then your project is GNU.

      Your Linux guy is not. All modern linux distributions unmout when shutting down automatically. "Just like Windows" or have you never failed to shutdown properly?

    4. Re:This might be very dangerous for a company. by davecb · · Score: 1
      Krapangor is concerned that When a company switches to 100 percent MS free they might have very much problems to exchange data with their customers.

      This is a problem that turned up back
      in the IBM "plug-compatable" era, and that
      was conveniently solved for us by the folks
      back then. You see, for IBM to continue to
      connect to their own older equipment, there had to be a backwards-compatablity mechanism. If there
      weren't, no-one would ever buy the new equipment
      unless they were planning on throwing out
      all their previous work!



      Microsoft can't give up on backwards compatability either, and so can't give
      up on compatability with their compeditors.
      Specifically, MS designed .rtf (rich text format)
      as a format that guaranteed that older versions
      of MS products could continue to use data
      from newer products. If you have Word
      99, and I have word 100, you tell me "save
      as rtf", and vice versa.

      RTF has the additional advantage that Word
      viruses can't be represented, so folks
      who don't like virii already require
      their windows files be saved/sent as rtf!

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    5. Re:This might be very dangerous for a company. by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      The umount thing was a bug in 2.4.15.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    6. Re:This might be very dangerous for a company. by killme · · Score: 1

      What's the latest version of 2.4 series? Oh, it's 2.4.16. And that bug was fixed in 24 hrs.

    7. Re:This might be very dangerous for a company. by schon · · Score: 1

      I can save the file in the old format with a couple of clicks.

      Is this a problem? I mean, really.


      Yes. Really. And the problem lies with you.

      YOU can save in the old format, but most (99%?) users don't know how

      Part of the reason why MS apps are buggy and bloated ... is because they make an effort, ... to retain backward compatibility with earlier formats.

      BWahahahahahaha

      This is completely beside the point, which is why does the file format change in the first place?

      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.

      BULLSHIT.

      Stop being a MS Shill/Astroturfer.

  16. What about MS Exchange? by alen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is OK for a small office, but what about a larger company? Many companies have deployed MS Exchange server partly because of the integrated global address list and the fact that you can store the email in a central database instead of downloading it to the PC like a POP3 server. Is there a Linux based mail server with these features?

    1. Re:What about MS Exchange? by Grapes4Buddha · · Score: 1

      If you want to store mail on a central server, just have your users use IMAP instead of POP. IMAP is supported by lots of mail programs.

      Also, my understanding is that you can tie Netscape mail to an LDAP server to get your global address list.

    2. Re:What about MS Exchange? by programic · · Score: 1

      LDAP and IMAP come to mind.

      --
      -- yawn. --
    3. Re:What about MS Exchange? by alen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But which software do you run on the server side? With Exchange all the email in a database file and you get single instance storage to save space. The user directory is in another database. Exchange is almost like a slimmed down SQL server. Even Oracle is going to this model for their new email server because it's awesome. Only time we touch our exchange servers is to add users.

      Since it's a database you have option called deleted item retention time. When a user deletes an email it stays hidden in the database for whatever amount of time you specify. If you have the storage it could be months or years. If someone deletes an email message restoration takes seconds from the client PC. Exchange 2000 takes it one step further to the mailbox level. If you delete a mailbox by accident or after a termination, you can restore the mailbox with all contents.

      Backup is easy. And Veritas even has an option called brick level back up which backs up the mailboxes individually. A company called Commvault takes this to a new level and can back up single messages. If you CEO deletes an email you just restore the message. If you delete a mailbox and someone needs it you just restore the single mailbox.

      Is there anything that runs on Unix or Linux that supports these features? On an enterprise level they are a requirement.

    4. Re:What about MS Exchange? by athakur999 · · Score: 1

      Between IMAP and LDAP you have most of the email-related functionality of Exchange. The major thing missing is the calendar related stuff (which is pretty useful).

      --
      "People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
    5. Re:What about MS Exchange? by omnirealm · · Score: 2

      'IMAP stands for Internet Message Access Protocol. It is a method of accessing electronic mail or bulletin board messages that are kept on a (possibly shared) mail server. In other words, it permits a "client" email program to access remote message stores as if they were local.'

      www.imap.org

      --
      An unjust law is no law at all. - St. Augustine
    6. Re:What about MS Exchange? by 1010011010 · · Score: 2

      With Exchange all the email in a database file

      An ACCESS (Jet) database.
      Shudder.

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    7. Re:What about MS Exchange? by Erore · · Score: 3, Informative

      Doesnt' Brick Level Backup destroy single instance storage? Meaning, I might have a 100GB .mbd file, but when I Brick Back it up, that might grow to 1000GB because all those single instance messages will get individually saved into each mailbox.

      Backing up 1000GB could take a long time. Brick Level Backup is considered a Bad Thing by the gurus of the microsoft.public.exchange.admin list.

      You are, however, 100% correct about Deleted Item Retention.

    8. Re:What about MS Exchange? by Telastyn · · Score: 1

      MS Exchange is an "Enterprise level requirement" because Microsoft has coerced people into believing the most efficient way to do office work is through one monolithic program. One massive thing that does everything (mail, contacts, calendaring, file storage, and on and on). Outlook/Exchange is NOT emacs though (perhaps the only program that does a bunch of disparate things well).

      Storage space isn't REALLY a liability in the age of $200 100gb hard drives. Currently bandwidth is actually the natural limiting factor (especially to offsite users). So why would you use a protocol system that overburdens the connection and requires multiple connections?

      I won't even comment on Outlook's horrendous security record.

      As for *nix's backup and 'restore' features, any half decent admin (with Veritas' backup software even if you want to waste the money) can make a system that is faster, more reliable, and more malleable that even follows standards:

      http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2060.txt

      Users cannot delete that which they have no permissions to write to...

    9. Re:What about MS Exchange? by alen · · Score: 2

      No. All the attachements are stored in a separate table. With individual email messages it most likely happened already since all the little one line answers and replies that get sent out as a result of each message.

    10. Re:What about MS Exchange? by Chang · · Score: 3, Informative

      Brick level backup doesn't destroy single instance storage until you restore something. Then a new instance is created for the restored items.

    11. Re:What about MS Exchange? by rufus+t+firefly · · Score: 1
      So how about the calendaring features? Can I send email to everybody inviting them to a meeting, including to the meeting room itself, so that when people click OK the item is entered into their calendar? Can I review people's schedules before setting the time for the meeting invitation?
      Try using Outlook for Mac and Outlook for PC to view the same calendar; calendar data mysteriously refuses to be shared that way. That was one of the reasons my installation moved from Exchange to Sendmail+CS&T+OpenLDAP using Netscape Communicator. (Don't get me wrong; Netscape is a pain in their own right, but at least they *somewhat* document what they are doing and *somewhat* use RFC standards...)

      Honestly, the biggest problem with Evolution is that it's still geared towards a single-user scenario, instead of a corporate setting. I was hoping that someone would build the XML RPC portions for it to interface with a phpgroupware server, but so far Miguel and the Ximian crew don't seem to care about that. Wonder why?

      --
      "He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
    12. Re:What about MS Exchange? by alen · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry but 100GB hard drives don't cost $200 in SCSI mode. Try close to $1000. The whole point of Exchange that makes it attractive is that you centralize everything including the email messages on the server. Once you configure it properly which is pretty easy there is almost no maintenance except adding user accounts.

      Service packs come out once a year. Trend Micro scanmail for exchange updates itself automatically without reboots. And it's a great anti-virus program that catches viruses before a user opens them in outlook. In fact it catches them before they hit the Information Store where all the email resides.

    13. Re:What about MS Exchange? by Telastyn · · Score: 1

      If you note the end was a perfectly good example of how to do all of the *email* parts that the orignal poster commented on, including backup, 'one message', and saving email from stupidity.

      The solution does not include calendaring. I'm of the opinion that calendaring should be a plugin or otherwise seperate from an email server (though perhaps not client). Outlook does not allow this.

      And you must be joking with the stone tablet comment... Seriously, have you ever taken a look at X.400? I'm not talking about the software, I'm talking about the protocols used and the operability of the software.

      I'm a professional Windows admin, and it rocks for alot of things, but for some things there is a better way. Exchange is not a better way.

    14. Re:What about MS Exchange? by Telastyn · · Score: 1

      True true.
      The rfc is for imap, which is supported by pretty much everything and will allow server side mail storage (and tweaking can allow single instance stores).

      I find that our Exchange server requires significant upkeep in the form of distribution list maintenance, email forwarding setups, security patches (because it takes 3-4 months for a critical patch to make it into a SP[win2k as well])

      NAV has a similar self updating product which is very nice.

      The original story though was about a 100% Linux office. If all the clients are running Linux, they won't have much use of an Exchange server...

      And my appologies about the flamish previous post... I had 3 calls this morning regarding our accursed Exchange server not playing nicely with things that aren't Microsoft. Go figure...

    15. Re:What about MS Exchange? by Grapes4Buddha · · Score: 1

      Bah!

      The only advantage that Exchange / Outlook have over your average standards-compliant IMAP/LDAP client is that Outlook is a great launching point for viruses.

      I grant you that I haven't found a decent group calendaring solution yet, though.

      Besides, any shop that standardizes on Exchange for their mail server automatically locks their user base into Windows. Not particularly nice if you are doing development on multiple platforms.

    16. Re:What about MS Exchange? by Shemp · · Score: 1

      Ummm..... LDAP and IMAP?

    17. Re:What about MS Exchange? by alen · · Score: 2

      If you want to improve the performance of your Exchange server dump NAV. It uses the old MAPI API. Basically it creates a maibox with admin rights that logs onto other users' mailboxes and scans for viruses. It's a memory hog.

      A better solution is called an ESE API anti-virus program. Sybari's Antigen was the first to do it. They hacked MS Exchange to do it. I forgot the specifics but I'm pretty sure they use the back up software API calls to do online virus scanning. The software sits outside the IS and scans messages before they enter the Information Store. And it uses a lot less resources. We use Trend Micro Scanmail 3.61 and it works great. MS tried to improve things with AVAPI, but the ESE is still the best. And with Scanmail you can even block attachments by file type.

      And as far as my post, for a small office it makes economic sense to deploy Linux. The Global Address Book isn't an issue along with other features of exchange. But as the size of your organization grows you need to have a total messaging solution and keep everything centralized. My company has over 600 people and I can't imagine everyone needing to keep an address book to email other people in the company.

    18. Re:What about MS Exchange? by alen · · Score: 2

      If you're worried about viruses use another POP or IMAP client with Exchange server. Who cares about the client anyway. The strength of Exchange server is keeping all email in a database and greatly easing administration compared to a regular POP server. Even Oracle is going to that model because it's the way to go.

    19. Re:What about MS Exchange? by alen · · Score: 2

      A good anti-virus program like Scanmail from Trend Micro based on the ESE API will stop any virus before it enters any of the mailboxes.

    20. Re:What about MS Exchange? by waa · · Score: 1

      Check out Teamware Office. They have a Linux Server version, but the clients are still win-only. Still a nice price and a very nice product.

      Teamware Office for Linux for 25 users (#139263)
      Price US$ 350.00

      http://www.teamware.com

      --
      Windows is not the answer.
      Windows is the question.
      The answer is "NO."
    21. Re:What about MS Exchange? by Telastyn · · Score: 1

      Outlook and Netscape (and 2 dozen other mailers) support LDAP for addresses. I remember reading that someone coerced most of these to ready directly from win2k's active directory.

      There's always more than one way to do things. You also comment in alot of your other replies that 'this is the way to go.' And pretty much it is, but I think quite a bit has to be done before the database centric email solution is available. Oracle might be on the right track to making something that doesn't suck, but given their history I'm not placing bets. Ironically enough the most likely canidate I see to "do it right" is Microsoft.

    22. Re:What about MS Exchange? by 1010011010 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, we know. You tried Access 1.0 It was icky. Run away and hide! Run away and hide!

      Your snide answer aside, all the other versions suck, too -- especially for use as an "enterprise message store."

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    23. Re:What about MS Exchange? by twinpot · · Score: 1

      If you really want to go that way, run Domino on Linux. You can then access mail via your browser, POP3 client, IMAP client or WINE/Notes client.

      A proper replication system, a manageable "global address list" and easy to restore. Proper security and very little worry of getting "done" by viruses. Cluster it across operating systems if you really want (cluster Domino/Linux with a Domino/Sun with a Domino/W2K with a Domino/AS400 etc.)

      But if you just want email, then IMAP will do just fine. And you have a choice of many different, extremely well tested servers.

    24. Re:What about MS Exchange? by 5KVGhost · · Score: 1

      "An ACCESS (Jet) database."

      Um, no.

    25. Re:What about MS Exchange? by 1010011010 · · Score: 1

      Um, no.

      So just what are those .edb files that MSFT says are Jet databases, then?

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
  17. Re:School by jd142 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  18. Pegged it with this quote: by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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)
    1. Re:Pegged it with this quote: by dillon_rinker · · Score: 2

      And as David Drake said in one of his novels (though I doubt it was original to him), "All human endeavour is political. Those who don't think they're playing politics are merely playing politics badly."

  19. Seen it already. by Nikau · · Score: 3, Informative
    A company that I worked for earlier this year used Linux on the majority of its computers, servers included. The company (don't want to reveal too many details about what they do) designs chips for electronics, so there is a lot of CAD work involved for designing.

    All but one of the servers they were using ran Linux (the remaining two were running Solaris and NT for software requirements). I worked under the network admin, and during the whole time I was there we never even had a glitch with the network.

    All of the engineers were using Linux on their desktops and it worked beautifully. The remaining desktops were running Win98 for the HR, marketing and finance groups because the software they were using required it.

    It's not quite the Windows-less office that the article was discussing, but it was pretty close. I've seen the wonders of the Linux-based network and I like it.

    --
    There is no escape from The Muffin.
    1. Re:Seen it already. by alen · · Score: 2

      We're on NT and it's the same thing. All of our developers and telecommunications people don't have any problems. All the HR and other admin people can barely type their password in without help. Linux isn't going to help.

  20. My office is Window-less by piecewise · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:My office is Window-less by Ratbert42 · · Score: 2

      ...people have gotten the impression we're an upscale successful business...

      That's funny. It reminds me of a client of mine. They've got Herman Miller cubes, including the Aeron chairs. But their machines are a collection of cheap no-name beige boxes built by a friend of the owner.

    2. Re:My office is Window-less by BWJones · · Score: 2

      and the myth that you "can't get applications for the Mac" is such a load of cr@p.

      Actually, for 97% of computer users out there you are right. But there are a few applications that are preventing me from going 100% MacOSX. Don't get me wrong, OSX is a major triumph. And I believe that the low to mid level workstation market will eventually go completely Apple because of OSX and some of the new features coming down the pipeline at Apple. SGI, HP, and others are in more trouble than they realize in the next few years.

      Back to my point. To go 100% OSX, I need Photoshop (coming soon), ImagePro from MediaCybernetics (M$ is deep in bed with these folks), PCI Geomatics (possibly, as they once were on the Mac and given that OSX is now the leading UNIX distro, they may once again be back), IDL (Currently on OS9, but there is some controversy over OSX right now). I would like very much to go 100% OSX but the absence of these programs prevents me from doing so, and the absence of any one of these programs will prevent others from going Mac and will keep them locked 100% in a Windows environment because they view it as simpler. However there are some very compelling features in OSX to make the trasition easier including built in SAMBA.

      As for the displays, you are not kidding! They are some of the most beautiful displays I have ever seen. And because of the image quality, fatigue is much less of an issue that with even other brands of LCD displays.

      The G4's are also competitively priced with other systems as well if you take into account all of the included features such as Firewire, Gigabit networking, built in wireless etc... And as for iMacs, they can be had by educational institutions and students for around $800. Not bad.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    3. Re:My office is Window-less by mrseigen · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's surprising how much the Mac has gotten better after a brief (2 year) stint with Windows. When I left, it was a bunch of boring, expensive, slow off-white boxen. Now it's a bunch of expensive, cool-looking, stylish boxen with more (open-source, mind you) software than most people need. Hopefully, it'll attract a lot more unix users, because as we all know, windows users are stupid and stubborn.

    4. Re:My office is Window-less by GrumpyOldManager · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This posting sounds like it comes from of our Mac sys admins, if so stop surfing the web and get back to work. Mac keyboards get just as dirty as Windows keyboards and they need the same amount of routine cleaning. Windex works best.

      We have multiple platforms including many MacOS, Windows, and linux machines. Our users range from complete computer phobics to folks doing heavy software development work. It has not been my experience that Macs are any cheaper to set-up or support. In fact we seem to need a higher Mac sys admin to Mac user ratio than we need for Windows or linux users. Part of the reason might be the natural selection process which appears to draw the least computer literate towards Macs. Then when something goes wrong they're the least equipt to deal with it. Or matbe Windows users have been "trained" to complain less.

      About three years ago I did a Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) study of our platforms. At the time the industry standard TCO was about $9000/yr for desktop machines. Our entire organization put it at about $4300/yr for Windows machines. Within my smaller group of departmental desktop machines the TCO was something like $1900/yr. An interesting tidbit was that for the big unix platforms (Sun/SGI) it was $4000-5000/yr, for Windows and Macs about $1700 and for linux machines about $1300/yr (I may not remember the correct number but linux was cheaper). These numbers were calculated based on the first three years of ownership. The highest cost items were hardware, staff support time, back room servers, and software licensing (we license an awlful lot of software, even on linux (stuff like Matlab, mathematica, Maple, Adobe stuff, etc) but get educational rates).

      While a Mac G4 at $1200 is cheap I can also buy a Dell P4 or a locally built AMD 1.5 GHz Athlon with more memory for $700. A number of non Apple vendors make LCD screens with 1600x1400 resolutions (Viewsonic, IBM, NEC come immediately to mind).

      Platforms come and go so it's best to not fixate too strongly on any one of them.

    5. Re:My office is Window-less by ass_sucker · · Score: 1

      noting that you're obviously a networking expert (able to point-and-click his way through an IDE, getting a sourceforge account, and whatnot, and even able to code some php), I would like to point out that cables as such have no speed associated with them. also, asses typically grow on backwards. except maybe in your case. similar stuff applies to the rest of your comment. please think twice before you pollute the slashdot news-space the next time.

      --

      check your speling

    6. Re:My office is Window-less by TheReverend · · Score: 1

      What, there's something wrong with no-name boxes? Personally I think they're better than most brand-names.

      --


      "Let me open these blinds so the snipers can see in." - Kevin Giffhorn
    7. Re:My office is Window-less by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2
      I would like to point out that cables as such have no speed associated with them
      Really? Well, then, I'll tell you what. I'll send you some Cat-3 network cable for your ethernet network at work, and you can send me the Cat-5 that you're probably using. If you're using Cat-6 or Gigabyte ethernet, even better.
      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    8. Re: My office is Window-less by kuma · · Score: 1

      okay fucker, i'll bite.

      os9 does not have a backward tcpip stack, asshole. give me a port on your 10-base-t net and i could flood the fucken thing beyond use with an imac. os9 uses mentat streams, get some education.

  21. Re:Windows to Mac by Genady · · Score: 1

    Ummm yes, there are those of us that have decided that a full featured next generation desktop over a UNIX underbelly is a good thing, especially when it's married to some of the best hardware in the PC world. Show me a Linux distribution with a Window manager based on PDF and support for Adobe applications and I'll switch.

    --


    What if it is just turtles all the way down?
  22. Wait for OpenOffice & KOffice by Eloquence · · Score: 4, Insightful
    While I agree that the time for moving stuff over is near (although a lot of business software is still missing), I would suggest waiting for the final release of Open Office 6.0 (or Star Office if you prefer the commercial variant) before switching a real-world office to Linux (designing a new one from scratch I might use Linux, but only with Win4Lin). Star Office 5.2 and Open Office 6.0 use different data formats, and Open Office is missing certain Star Office applications. KOffice may still require a few years to be recommendable, but the Open Office final should be relased soon. Also, by the time Open Office is finished, Mozilla is probably also ready, and most new PCs will come with more than enough RAM to handle KDE easily.

    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.

    1. Re:Wait for OpenOffice & KOffice by Eloquence · · Score: 2
      Hey,

      yes, I agree that Access has a lot of problems. I haven't used it much personally, but I've worked on a pretty large erp system with a RAD package called Visual dBASE (which is really quite neat in its latest version). Multi-user support was poor, too, so we had to write our own login system, encrypted password database etc. But for a small company these should not be show-stoppers.

      The main advantage of using RAD tools is that you can create and customize stuff easily. You still have to write source code, but basic stuff can be generated even by amateurs. (Yeah, I know that the result will probably suck and be neither scalable nor portable, but for typical tasks, you would provide lots of free templates.)

      I'm not a great friend of web-interfaces for data entry. They still lack many of the features of native interfaces and can severely hamper productivity. Our "hotsearch" and filters were blazingly fast and quickly operable from any entryfield -- you can mess around with JavaScript until only one version of one browser is supported, and you still don't get the nice autocompletion and direct data display features (without latency) that a native interface can offer. This may change with XML, but looking at some of the more dynamic Mozilla demos, I don't see this change coming soon (the more complex stuff is often buggy and slow).

      Not that it doesn't have its advantages, but if you were indeed standardizing on Linux, using a native interface would be easy anywhere, thanks to X11. Preferably, a RAD tool would be able to generate both interfaces dynamically. Java in the browser? Yes, perhaps, for this kind of stuff it should be fast enough already.

      For anything non-web, PHP would obviously be a bad choice, but I could imagine something like a combination of QtDesigner, Python and MySQL (or BerkeleyDB, but I haven't used that) to work quite well.

    2. Re:Wait for OpenOffice & KOffice by RGRistroph · · Score: 2
      I concur with your opinions on Access.

      But there is one thing that Access did do, and that is it made (mildly) complecated database queries available to the unwashed non-programming masses. Ok, it wasn't Access that did it first, it was probably hypercard, (hey, remember this cool story about the guy who used hypercard to extract unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls from a consordance?) or even something earlier like the first ingres, but the fact that is that by using Access dumb people can do things that they couldn't otherwise.

      It's true that a php/apache/postgres system is better, but it also makes those people dependent on us to set up apache, php, and postgres. It may also make them have to figure out how to structure their queries in php or some other text interface instead of clicking and grunting.

      There is a definite need for a system that presents a click-and-drool interface to suck in large amounts of data and parse it (with a gui based fill-in-the-feilds manner of making the conditions or regexps) and then present the results in enticing graphs. It doesn't have to do any network stuff, it can simply be a single user manipulating a file. The type of users I'm talking about often use sneaker net or email attachements for all file transfers inspite of the existence of database servers and networked drives.

      Every time I research this I'm left feeling dissatisfied, because it seems that someone could wire/kludge together a system that was a locally running apache (even in userspace, talking only to the local user that started it) running a pretty generic php interface talking to mySQL or postgres. The interface would have to allow you to save queries somehow, and do all the other things that Access people are used to. Even an idiot like me could probably wire together a buggy piece of shit in a week or so, so I would expect some admin at a low-budget shop such as a school or non-profit had already wired that together. I can't believe I'm the first on to think of this.

      Since I last tried out various things, I've discovered MySQL Navigator. Has anyone had any experience giving this to Access-addicted users to see what they say ? The screenshots seem full of pointy-clicky stuff to keep them happy.

    3. Re:Wait for OpenOffice & KOffice by JahToasted · · Score: 1
      Perhaps the best is PHP/APACHE/POSTGRES. Use the PHP PDF support for reports and maybe something like Bluefish (non-gui) or dreamweaver for HTML coding and you have a much better behaved environment the Access will ever have.

      as someone who has had to deal with access I agree whole-heartedly. Anything more complicated than a single table and access behaves extremely poorly. I have seen it give errors on certain computers with functions like Now() which is an internal function. From now on, all new databases I'm gonna deal with will be PHP/Apache/PostgreSQL. If someone asks me to use access I'll simply refuse. Access is just evil.

    4. Re:Wait for OpenOffice & KOffice by xurble · · Score: 1

      Why does everyone assume that an office suite is the only thing that a corporate desktop needs?

      Every company I've worked for has a raft of applications built in house from from the quick and dirty apps up to large, complex mission critical systems.

      The bulk of these are written in Visual Basic, so what are you going to do with them in your ideal Linux world?

      At my current job we're about to start quite a complex database front end and of course we're doing it in Visual Basic because a straw poll of the developers in the office showed that everyone had some VB from quite basic to expert.

      I can't see how any company (particularly mediam sized ones) can ditch windows until their developers can wade into in house apps quickly and without extra training.

      So now we're ditching all the Macs, which is nice in and of itself but we ain't ditching them in favour of Linux that's for sure.

      If we'd gone round the developers and a large proportion of them had been confident they could produce the same app, as quickly on Linux as they could in VB then perhaps we'd have ditched the Macs and Windows in favour of it.

      Until then it just ain't practical.

    5. Re:Wait for OpenOffice & KOffice by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      "The bulk of these are written in Visual Basic, so what are you going to do with them in your ideal Linux world?"

      Linux has no shortage of programming languages. From perl, python to java to kylix. There is nothing you can do with VB on windows that you can't do in linux using one of the above mentioned tools.

      If a company does switch to linux then the VB programmers will have to learn a new language. It's also very likely they will quit as VB developers buy into the MS religion pretty heavy. For those remaining behind they fill find switching to java or kylix is no more difficult then switching to VB.NET or C# (neither of which is very VB like).

      Most likely your core of VB developers is completely unaware of competing products or simply has accepted MS as a religion. As I said they will all have to learn a brand new language called VB.NET anyways. It seems like they would rather learn a new MS language then a new non-MS one.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  23. Slackware 8.0 running FVWM by peter_gzowski · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That runs fast enough for me on moderate hardware (a standard 500 MHz sort of box). If Mozilla runs too slow for you, run Opera. FVWM may not have the nice desktop graphics of KDE or Gnome, but it doesn't have the overhead either. And learning to tweak out your .fvwm2rc file is half the fun!

    --
    "Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
    1. Re:Slackware 8.0 running FVWM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      And learning to tweak out your .fvwm2rc file is half the fun!

      Wow! Make sure that's a bullet point in the presentation to the IT Manager. He'll make sure all the middle managers hear it.

      They're gonna be EAGER for the new Linux desktop rollout.

  24. Re:Pointless by c13v3rm0nk3y · · Score: 1
    Somehow I doubt the average office worker would have higher productivity if they used a Linux solution instead of a Windows one?

    Depends what you mean by "productive", doesn't it?

    I certainly wouldn't advocate yer average business user switch to Linux. Then again, I wouldn't advocate they use Windows 2000, either.

    --
    -- clvrmnky
  25. Why? by PyroMosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why? by Verteiron · · Score: 2

      You are right on the money here, and if I had mod points today I'd mod you up. If more people actually understood the structure of the system (even simple things like directories), then there would be far fewer problems in a Win32->Linux migration. Unfortunately, I've seen too many people that read every step to save a file in Word off of a sticky-note attached to their monitor. God help them if a step doesn't give them the expected response; they're stuck until, as you say, a tech comes and straightens them out. Then it's back to the sticky-notes.

      What we really need here is a little training. Anyone(!) can learn to use a file system to keep their stuff organized and find it on their own. The vast majority of people can pick it up in under an hour of patient, hands-on instruction. But very few companies actually provide that sort of most basic training, and so their techs have to spend time getting these people back onto their little sticky-notes. Switching to Linux will present almost no problems at all, if, and ONLY IF a little basic training is provided first. But I don't believe it will take much more than that.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    2. Re:Why? by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      Just replying to my own post because my misguided atempt at humor went wrong (damned Mozilla).

      In both instances of "helluva well?"
      The "?" should have been a (TM) symbol.

      For some reason, it didn't post that way.
      Just clarifying in case since it looked bugg-eyed confusing to me.

    3. Re:Why? by c_chimelis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      Perhaps we shouldn't try to make the like computers at all...maybe we should just ignore them. Put your argument into a different context for a moment and say that driving a car is too difficult for 95% of the population of the world (which it was back when cars were first around) because of the complex actions needed to drive (let's face it, to a five-year-old, there's too much to keep track of and too much to do). Now, according to your argument, we should try to make driving simpler for the average person and if we have to modify the car to do that, we should, correct? Well, then, why have cars become increasingly complex since their inception, yet many more people are capable of driving them now?

      The key is to your argument is that the average computer user's skill (and intimidation level) will always remain the same. I disagree and say that the "average user that is afraid of anything but Windows" is around 35+ years old and have much less of a "career lifespan" in today's world anyway. Eventually, the knowledge base shared by that generation will be replaced by the younger, more computer-friendly generations that have followed. It's very rare that I find kids that don't at least know (or have tried) Linux yet, but I'd be hard-pressed to find an over-40 businessman that has even heard of Linux. The key thing is, how much longer do you think the over-40 businessman will be running the show? The mentality of that generation is already fading fast and being replaced by the more technology-aware principles of the 20+ generation. My grandmother is afraid of email...should I try to make a friendly email client for her, or just write her a letter on paper? There's no need to force technology at all on those who fear it, but this is what you're attempting to do by dumbing down software in a vain attempt to satisfy the aging generation's mindset and fears. Let them use typewriters or WordPerfect, if they want...it still gets the job done for 99% of today's office tasks...as would just about any text editor (let's face it, only 8% of the Word users actually use more than just the basic functionality of the software anyway...they wouldn't care if you gave them a text editor, so long as they could bold or italicise characters, spell-check, and indent paragraphs here and there). As for me, I'd prefer something a bit more advanced because I can cope with changing technology better than most of them can.

      Times change..as does the world and the "basic" skillset of the working populace. I don't see adopting Linux as "taking a step back", as you put it, but rather in adding a bit more complexity to everyday office tasks, but it's the complexity that will eventually allow them to be even more productive than the supposedly idiot-proof MS interfaces (in other words, there are people that use more than just the basic features of MS software...for those people, it takes infinitely more time to get work done simply because MS has purposely hidden those needed, but advanced features in an effort to make it simple for the novice user). When it comes to idiot-proofing things, it just can't be done. Every time you think you've idiot-proofed something, society will come up with a bigger idiot and you will also end up alienating the more savvy users. Now, if you force the curve up a bit, then perhaps we'll actually reduce the amount of idiots rather than encouraging them to develop.

    4. Re:Why? by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is everyone trying to shoehorn Linux into something it's bad at?

      This just plain isn't true. The basic structure of Linux is so versatile that it can be used anywhere for anything. Perhaps the user interface leaves something to be desired for the completely clueless, but my parents and grandparents could be given a Redhat 7.2 CD and be running it by the next day, no problem.

      Windows architecture isn't what makes it clueless-friendly, it's the pretty picture they put overtop. It would be trivial to make KOffice always point to a "My Documents" folder in the user's home. To steal an example from a previous poster, is it any harder to have a sticky-note that says
      K-Menu -> StarOffice -> Word
      To Save : File (up at the top) -> save

      than the windows equivalent?

      If that's all people want from a system, I don't think that it's anything that Linux can't handle. No, it's no better than Windows for these applications, but it *is* cost-effective, which was one of the main thrusts of th article.

    5. Re:Why? by CamelTrader · · Score: 1

      And since every tech support guy I've known or been is too busy/impatient/both to take an hour with every user to teach them, all they do is put them back on the sticky notes. A few weeks later...back to the same user with the same problem, and still no clue.

      --
      Your .sig is important to us. Please hold.
    6. Re:Why? by PyroMosh · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Your arguments are completely baseless and outright wrong. Cars WERE more complicated TO OPERATE when they first started to produce them. How many cars on the road today do you have to do the following to:

      Manually turn on the electrical system to crank the engine.

      Manually adjust the timing of the engine WHILE DRIVING with a spark timing lever(!)

      Manually crank the engine (!)

      Manually shift gears (some)

      Manually operate a choke (most of you'll probably ask what that is)

      Wait for the car to "warm up" (recommended but not necessary for most cars on the road today)

      Actually use a parking brake. (most people with automatics never use them any more)

      Just for fun, try going here to try and go through the steps of starting a Ford Model T. A bit more involved than just getting in your car, turning the key, putting it in gear and going, isn't it?
      Now, to address the statement that cars have gotten more complicated. In a sense they have. But only in unnecessary things. Not to operate. The oldest car I've owned was an '81 Chevy Camaro. My current car is a '97 Olds Aurora. Let's compare the two:

      The Camaro had a carburetor. It was finicky to run and to start. It had drum brakes that needed to be adjusted from time to time. It had a coolant system that had to be changed every 40,000 miles. Oil, every 5000.

      Now my Aurora, by contrast has a modern sequential fuel injection system. I don't have to give it gas to start it. I don't have to let it warm up or worry about it stalling (but it's a good idea to anyway for reasons outside the scope of this post). I believe the recommended interval for coolant changes is 100,000 miles. Oil is something like 7500 miles, *but* the really cool thing compared to my Camaro is that it *tells me* when to do these things. It has a computer on board that takes into account how many miles I've driven AND how hard those miles were (city / highway). Then it lets me know when to do these things. I still don't listen to them, I change my oil every 3000 - 5000, but it's certainly a more complex system that is more simple for the end user.

      What else is more complicated about my Aurora? The onboard computer has lots of features for calculating fuel mileage, ETAs, etc. But do you need to know how to use it to drive the car? No, not at all. Even the switch for the power seats is simpler than the manual levers in the Camaro. The seat switch is in the shape of a seat: _/ just push the part of the seat in the direction you want it to go and the seat moves. The car turns the lights on for you when it's dark out. IT has power mirrors which are a lot easier to use than rolling down the windows and adjusting them manually, I could go on and on...

      The only things the newer Aurora adds to the complexity are things that you can pretend don't even exist and still be able to drive the car. (The computer for instance)

      The point is that GM and Ford and Toyota, and everyone else are making cars simpler to use. Many cars can't be had with a manual transmition any more. I know of no major production cars built since the Jeep CJ5 (I believe 1986 was the last year) that can't be had with an automatic in some trim level. And The CJ5 was a special case since it's wheelbase was too short.

      Next to address the notion that old people don't understand computers, young people do. Why I must agree that the number of youth that embrace technology vs. the number of older generations is disproportionate, it's not nearly as much so as you are assuming.

      A couple of months ago, I would have agreed with you, but something changed my mind.

      A couple months ago, my best friend who works for Bristol Meyers Squib as a Java / Perl programmer / general intranet developer. Built himself an Athlon box. When he did that, he decided to send his old Celeron box, which had served him though college to his younger brother who's about 14 and is a very bright kid. He packed it up and mailed it to him. About a week or two later, he got a call from the young lad. Apparently he was upset because in the state the box was sent to him, java was turned off. This upset him as he was used to going to certain sites to play java Tetris or some such nonsense. Well, my friend refused to tell him how to turn it back on. Saying instead to figure it out for himself. He never did. He just gave up. It's still not on.

      This kid isn't alone. My ex-girlfriend is currently going to Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University studying Aerospace Engineering (literally rocket science). When Napster shut down, she ran to me to help her find MP3s. With much reluctance, I set up a Gnutella client for her. She had trouble using it. Then when ERAU blocked whatever port it used, she was completely lost. She no longer downloads MP3s. She's 19 years old and quite bright. But she's lost when it comes to computers.

      I don't know where you are meeting all these kids that swarm all over Linux, but it sure isn't anywhere *I've* ever lived. Most kids today think they're "leet" by using macro programs in AOL chat rooms. Why? Because a big percentage of kids today aren't evolving beyond AOL. Let alone ditching windows for Linux.

      These examples above serve to illustrate a trend:
      15 or so years ago, being computer literate meant knowing how to program. Then it meant understanding a command line file system. Then it meant being able to navigate a GUI. It's rapidly reaching the point where it will mean being able to use a handful of standard applications such as AOL, Office, and Solitaire.

      You're anti-Microsoft bias comes through loud and clear in your post. Wake up!!! This isn't *about* Microsoft. Making things easy for the novice user isn't something only Microsoft is trying to achieve. It's something EVERY software company with a product aimed at the novice user are trying to achieve. If they're not, they're fools. It just so happens that Microsoft is one of the leaders in that field with OSes. Weather it's because Windows is what people are used to, or weather it really is more intuitive is debatable, of course.

      You're right, times *do* change. But you're absolutely backwards in your assertation that making things harder will encourage people to learn more and will make people embrace a technology. There is a difference between core usability and extended feature sets. The idea, weather you're designing a car or an OS is to make the basic usability foremost and s-i-m-p-l-e. Then you can start adding bells and whistles so long as they are not necessary to use the basic product.

    7. Re:Why? by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      Except that you're forgetting that most users today have a PC at home. And more likley than not, that PC is running Windows. Hence, it's an interface they are more used to and more familar with. That's worth a lot of stickey notes.

    8. Re:Why? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      >Well, then, why have cars become increasingly complex since their inception, yet many more people are capable of driving them now?

      You're missing something here: cars are certainly much more complex, electrically and mechanically, but are much easier to use. The key invention here is the automatic transmission. Before automatics became commonplace, many people simply didn't drive, especially women. Even now, many people simply aren't capable of driving a stick. The automatic made it possible for many people with poor coordination to drive.

      Of course, the overall effect of this is a bunch of bad drivers on the road, who pay more attention to their screaming kids or cell phones since they don't need to worry about things like engine speed (or road speed), current gear selection, etc. Watch how manual drivers drive compared to automatic drivers; there simply aren't a lot of clueless manual drivers because you have to pay attention just to get anywhere with a manual transmission.

      So is it a good thing that automatics became commonplace, making it so easy for anyone with half a brain to operate a motor vehicle? This is where we have the tie-in with more complicated operating systems. There are pluses and minuses: on the one hand, the automatic caused a transportation revolution, allowing much more transit and travel than ever before since almost anyone could now drive themselves, instead of finding someone to drive them. This had big benefits in commerce, GNP, etc. On the other hand, we have an astonishing number of deaths every year on the road, many of which could be prevented by better-trained drivers and not allowing bad drivers to drive.

      Now, with the comparison to Windows, it's not so clear-cut. Windows doesn't really make it so easy to use a computer. Anyone with clueless Windows-using relatives knows this: they get called every time Windows screws up (and it does this a lot). Windows only gives the appearance of easy-to-use, unlike automatic-transmission cars, which these days really are reliable and fairly simple to use. Also, it can be argued that in this society, it's extremely difficult to survive without auto transportation (although this is partly an effect of the popularity of cars). You don't need to be able to use a computer to survive, or even get a job. Sure, you probably need to be able to use one for any remotely technical job, but not most basic ones. Cashiers and the like have to use computers too, but that doesn't compare too well since the computers they use aren't even remotely like Windows; most cashiers don't seem to have much trouble learning the limited set of functions available on a modern cash register. What about Grandma? Definitely a case where someone really doesn't need the technology, unless they actually have a genuine interest in learning. Being able to get emailed photos from your grandchildren is a luxury, not a requirement of modern living.

    9. Re:Why? by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      I was just addressing the assertion that Linux isn't good at desktops. I wasn't saying anything about user migration, which is the larger obstacle to mainstream use.

    10. Re:Why? by mpe · · Score: 2

      Except that you're forgetting that most users today have a PC at home. And more likley than not, that PC is running Windows. Hence, it's an interface they are more used to and more familar with. That's worth a lot of stickey notes.

      Whilst they might have "Windows" at home they are unlikely to have it connected to a large LAN, various bespoke applications and customisations of MS Office, etc (or even the same versions of Windows, Office, etc...)
      So you may just as well end up with people who think they know more than they do.

    11. Re:Why? by charon.de · · Score: 1

      Manually shift gears (some)

      May be true where you live, but in other countries, Ie. Germany you'll find that most cars don't have automatic transmissions, german driver don't like them, a used car is always cheaper, if it has automatic, as no one wants it.

      Wait for the car to "warm up" (recommended but not necessary for most cars on the road today)

      Common miss-beleave, you shouldn't warm up any car build in the last 30 years, just drive.

      Michael

    12. Re:Why? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

      PyroMash,

      I'm surprised you haven't been modded way down as a Troll for what you just said. :-)

      I personally think that for server environments, Linux has become a major force because with the release of the 2.4.x kernel, it now enjoys both stability and the ability to handle high-volume transactions, something very necessary for servers that handle an entire company.

      Anyway, contrary to what some people think here, Windows XP Professional users can be easily integrated into a Linux server environment, thanks to TCP/IP, IMAP and LDAP support (it's not necessary to sign up for a Microsoft Passport account--Passport is to access certain functions on Microsoft's own sites at least for now).

    13. Re:Why? by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      PyroMash,

      You know, over the last week or so, my handel (which I've used for 12 years now) has been taken a beating. PornoMosh, PyroMash and someone on a half-life server calling me "Moshy". I'm insulted. (:

      Okay, now *this* should be modded down.

    14. Re:Why? by Myxorg · · Score: 1
      Well, then, why have cars become increasingly complex since their inception, yet many more people are capable of driving them now?

      Cars have become increasingly complex, and exponentially easier to use. Ever heard of automatic transmission, power steering, self starting engines, power brakes, shocks, pneumatic tires. All of these things add great complexity, but they increase the user experience of driving a car greatly. Have you ever driven a big car without power steering? It is a real workout. All this extra complexity, and modern cars still manage to go 100,000 miles without any major problems.

      I think cars are a good example of the way computers should be. You get in the car turn the key and go. You don't worry about how the whole thing works, you don't care.
    15. Re:Why? by ColaMan · · Score: 2

      (Apologies, this is just a rant)

      Cars - Simpler to use - yes.

      Easier to fix when something goes wrong - speaking as a qualified auto electrician, No,NO,NO!

      You new fuel injected car breaks down? You're shit out of luck. Try and jump start your car one winter morning? Oops - jumper leads the wrong way round? Oh, it was just a little spark! Wrong. That'll be a few thou' to replace all the components you just fried.

      I have wiring diagrams for late model cars that take up *5* A0 pages for chrissakes! For just the interconnect wiring!

      Computers and software in my opinion are in the same category. If they're smooth on the outside, they are real nightmare on the inside. (Hmm.. some girls I've known are like that as well)

      (End rant - I'm just going to have a little lie down now ...)

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    16. Re:Why? by mpe · · Score: 2

      And since every tech support guy I've known or been is too busy/impatient/both to take an hour with every user to teach them,

      Also these people are not likely to be trained as one to one end user tutors. Certainly they are not paid to do that.
      Whilst it may be only an hour for the user remember to multiply by the number of users :)

    17. Re:Why? by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      DEFINATLY TRUE!

      Of course, design wasn't the focus of my rant, usability was. But as for repair and working on newer cars, you're of course right. Much more of a pain. Although, I must say, I do think that cars after say, 1992 or so started getting simpler to work on again. Durring the period from 1972-1992, the auto industry hadn't really figured out electronic controls and emmisions. It was all a haphazard mix of wires and vacume lines that created a rats nest condition under the cleanest of hoods. Then around 1992 when they started figuring out better fuel injection and ditching vacume almost completly, things got easier. I'd rather replace a wiring harness than trace a vacume leak any day. Prior to 72, cars were as simple as they ever were. But I honestly think that emmissions controled vehicles with electronicly controled carburators are more difficult to work on than say, a modern LS1, LT1, Triton, VTEC, Northstar, or your choice of new wiz-bang engines.

      I've worked on both and understand why you think they're a pain. They are. But they're still better than the 80s (AKA the dark ages of auto technology).

    18. Re:Why? by Jens · · Score: 2
      "Why is everyone trying to shoehorn Linux into something it's bad at?"

      Because many people are fed up with Microsoft's politics.

      And because Linux's desktop usability is getting better faster than Microsoft is thinking of new ways to screw its customers (which is saying a lot).

      "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."

      So you seem to like the fact that a company with a terrible security and honesty track record has control over every aspect of your data, and even says so in the EULA. Well, that's your choice. Microsoft reserves the right to deactivate (or rather "un-activate") your WXP any time they like, without having to state reasons.

      They have no FUCKING business on my computer after I paid the license fee. If you don't care, well... it's your choice.

      "For my needs Win32 works helluva well? on the desktop. (Not to mention that I like to play games)."

      In the office?

      "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?"

      Loser argument. You've never seen a real computer novice attempt the first steps. I have, I have done some computer courses e.g. for teachers and parents, and believe me, the kind of problems they have have nothing to do with the operating system. Absolutely nothing. Your grandparents will more likely have problems with hand control (how fast is a double-click?) and precision (ever seen a novice try to work with this ergonomic desaster called 'mouse'?) than with "how do I set up USB?" (what's that?).

      Having said that, I have parents that tried two years to work with Windows and after they had the second big system crash and had to reinstall everything, they (*NOT* I!) wanted Linux (because they'd seen it in my office). THEY installed it (SuSE 7.3) and for them, it works perfectly. Office productivity, scheduling, networking, E-Mail, internet apps and so on. They liked especially that they didn't need to re-install 10001 drivers and utilities after installing Linux (Windows needed additional USB drivers, printer drivers, TV card drivers, sound drivers, graphic drivers, Acrobat Reader, MP3 player, shall I go on?)

      "I'd venture to guess that 99% of *windows* users never figure out *it's* features"

      So? Is that a reason to take them out? This is one of the ideas that seem to come only from Microsoft users. "Almost nobody uses that feature anyway, so let's disable it!" If the feature doesn't disturb the non-knowing people (and doesn't hurt performance or stability or whatever), where's the problem?

      WHY oh WHY does Windows think in order to be beginner-friendly, it has to be anti-expert?

      "The file structure on win32 is a mystery to these workers."

      That's the beauty of Unix systems. the ONLY place where you can 'lose' documents is your home directory. no more searching for office documents in windows system folder, the root directory, other 'drives' (what's that? Letters? why can't I put the new drive in a directory where the additional space is needed?) or wherever.

      Oh yes: no more being afraid of accidentally deleting system files or clicking on the wrong icon, the premier fear of the computer novice. "You can't break anything, so keep trying.".

      "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."

      And if the Porsche were free and the Outback would cost you big cash (and only allow to run on 'licensed' roads)? Would you still buy the Outback "because she'll never use the extra power"?

      "The point? Win32 is easier than *nix."

      This can not be generalized. I've seen Windows installations that were a HELL of a lot harder to use than some Linux desktops.

      It all boils down to "can you ask your friend/neighbour/... to give you a hand if things break": If your neighbour uses Linux, use Linux.

      It doesn't matter to the users you are talking about, whether Windows 2000 is missing a DLL and spitting error messages, or if Linux wants to be fscked: Those users will want external help. And if they find the right kind of help, they will stay happy - with Linux or with Windows.

    19. Re:Why? by pyat · · Score: 1

      warming up is not a bad thing. My '92 car, has a manual choke. By letting it warm up it is possible to drive it with less choke (Engine already heated up) which reduces the chance of flooding the engine and makes drive smoother too. Had a really shitty experience not doing this when i was just starting out driving!
      m

    20. Re:Why? by charon.de · · Score: 1

      Actually, you let the car to warm up so that the oil has enough time to properly lubricate the inside of the engine so it doesn't start ripping things apart when you take off.

      Really? I thoughed that the oil pressure would be OK if this little red light (with the oil sign) would be out. This should be the case if the engine runs, if not, well you have a problem.

  26. Integration with other systems is harder by TheEnglishman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Integration with other systems is harder by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      My grandparents have had a computer for a year now, and my grandfather uses Word to do his consulting documents.

      I put him in front of a computer with fullscreen Abiword, and he was none the wiser until I pointed him to the About box.

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
  27. Windows less office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's been done.

    Most geeks work in offices without windows. The window offices are usually reserved for upper level execs.

  28. Re:School by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  29. Sparkle me a wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

  30. Desktop Support by LordBeaver · · Score: 1

    I cant imagine the majority of linux types i know racing to support the linux desktops in there organisation. Telling a user to read the man pages doesnt suffice in most businesses

    1. Re:Desktop Support by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I know you were trying to be funny, but since when has anyone bothered reading man pages for Star Office, or Netscape, or any other of the END-USER applications that users use?

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  31. I don't buy it.. by Xzzy · · Score: 2, Troll

    ..because I've lived it.

    A year ago I was working at a smallish startup. Cheap was king, so linux was the desktop of choice.. except for a couple PHB's who wanted their Outlook and were running NT.

    It was a hassle, day in and day out. In the interests of brevity I'll leave out details, but suffice to say that linux is NOT the best choice. This isn't to suggest that there's a "best" choice out there, I'm just saying linux is still too unstable and too quirky to make life easy for a desktop support guy.

    What you save in software costs ends up in costing support staff more in terms of headaches. "Cost" is not always defined by how hard something hits the pocketbook..

    1. Re:I don't buy it.. by Shadowin · · Score: 1

      A year ago I was working at a smallish startup.

      That was a year ago. The fact is, Linux is becoming more and more user/admin friendly.

    2. Re:I don't buy it.. by TheFrood · · Score: 2
      In the interests of brevity I'll leave out details, but suffice to say that linux is NOT the best choice.

      If you really want to make your case, you're going to have to include those details. No offense intended, but without them your argument boils down "Linux on the desktop doesn't work; just trust me."

      TheFrood

      --
      If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
    3. Re:I don't buy it.. by NotoriousQ · · Score: 1

      Just one question....Were you using Mozilla 0.6.4 and whatever was the previous version of Staroffice?

      --
      badness 10000
    4. Re:I don't buy it.. by Otter · · Score: 2
      It was a hassle, day in and day out. In the interests of brevity I'll leave out details, but suffice to say that linux is NOT the best choice.

      Brevity is appreciated, but I'm sure people here would be very interested to hear more detail about what issues you had. What distribution and hardware were you using? What problems did you run into? What are the 3 or 4 things that might have made the biggest difference?

      One real-world experience with trying to run an office under Linux is worth any amount of yapping from dual-booting teenagers.

    5. Re:I don't buy it.. by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 1
      I do all the office work for a small organic market garden on a linux-only box with kde and SO 5.2

      I produce invoices, payroll and everything else on StarCalc. I type correspondence in StarWriter and I use Kmail as my email client.

      It all works fine on my K6-2 500 with 64Mb RAM.
      I also use it as an MP3 jukebox with kjukebox, a handy little prog that came with my SuSE disks.

      --
      You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
  32. Re:School by ret · · Score: 1

    I could be wrong as I honestly haven't done much research with this, but I believe ACLs on linux will allow that kind of very granular control over who can do what with the files.
    --

  33. Re:School by sphealey · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Thats why they run mostly Win95 on a Novell network
    Thus speaks a student with no experience in large corporate networks. Start with Netware's stability, add the flexible set of access control permissions, then start looking at NDS. When you can match that with any other OS, including Linux, let me know.

    sPh

  34. Dreamweaver equivalent? by mshiltonj · · Score: 2

    My "boss" (read:wife) won't consider switching to linux unless I can show her something she can use that is equivalent to Macromedia Dreamweaver. Netscape Composer didn't impress her.

    Any other options I can look into?

    1. Re:Dreamweaver equivalent? by diesel_jackass · · Score: 1

      what's wrong with vi?

      c'mon, it'll put some hair on yer chest.

    2. Re:Dreamweaver equivalent? by denjin · · Score: 1

      I know you were being sarcastic, but... :) In this case it'd be a her that we're putting hair on. And if she's like me, she doesn't want hair on her chest. hehe

    3. Re:Dreamweaver equivalent? by kindbud · · Score: 2, Troll

      A gun. And a bullet.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    4. Re:Dreamweaver equivalent? by clasher · · Score: 1

      Not sure if this is exactly what your looking for, but supposedly BlueFish is pretty nice html editor.

    5. Re:Dreamweaver equivalent? by Listen+Up · · Score: 1


      Okay, right. Who the fuck moderated this piece of shit parent post at a +3? A gun and a bullet?
      If Slashdot is going to be run by moderators who are nothing except female hating assholes, ignorant asshole high school kids, or just plain idiots, then fuck this place.
      I am sorry if you feel that sharing responsibility and everything else in a relationship is a problem for you. Welcome to joining the ranks of the "divorced statistic". Maybe you should be shot in the head with a bullet for being a pig headed piece of shit. You are also the exact type to have illegitimate kids with some whores or have some kids with a female and then destroy your life, her life, and your children's lives...simply because you are an ignorant, pig headed, chauvinist piece of shit. Fuck you.

    6. Re:Dreamweaver equivalent? by kindbud · · Score: 2

      Hey. Dude. Calm down. I got the +1 bonus, so it only took one person to mod me up to 3. Haven't you figured this place out yet?

      Oh, and by the way, the gun and bullet were for him, not his wife. Kinda changes the whole slant, doncha think?

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
  35. Linux installation experience by gUmbi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It seems like every year I get infected with the pro-linux bias of slashdot and rip Windows off my machine.

    I ripped Windows off at about the same last year and installed Linux. I wasn't impressed. The desktop managers seemed slow (I was running a P3-800) and the web-browser sucked and generally, the applications weren't as good as their Windows counterparts. Not to mention that I managed to crash the system and have ext2 throw away some files.

    So, this weekend I tried it again. I ripped off Windows 2000 and installed RedHat 7.2. In one year, Linux (and Gnome / KDE) has improved ten-fold. The KDE browser rocks, KMail is very good and the ext3fs filesystem is much better. However, it still took me hours to get ADSL PPPOE and a VPN client up and running and the soundcard (VIA 8233) and tv-card (Brooktree) still don't work. Apparently, the concept of writing a device driver without patching the kernel is still impossible even though Windows/Mac have been doing it for many years. And the system (now an Tbird-1.33) is still slower than Windows 2K (ex., the mouse gets jerky when my apps thrash the disk).

    I'm a developer, so I'm thinking of writing support for some of these things (such as an easy VPN installer). Or, maybe a universal driver installer that would automagically patch the kernel and say 'You must reboot now', ala Windows. But the thought of having to support different distributions and versions makes me cringe.

    Alot of the problems in Windows can be attributed to Microsoft trying to be backwards-compatible. But with Linux, the kernel and major libraries (ie. glibc) are always changing underneath your feet. This is a major design flaw that I not sure can ever be rectified.

    Jason.

    1. Re:Linux installation experience by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 2

      You *can* install drivers in linux without rebooting. They're called kernel modules. You can either download an rpm with a collection, or else compile the exact modules you need from the kernel source tree. No rebooting required, in most cases.

      You do have a good point about ease of install, though. For systems that are in the M$ databases, the installer wizards are pretty slick.

    2. Re:Linux installation experience by Legion303 · · Score: 2
      And the system (now an Tbird-1.33) is still slower than Windows 2K (ex., the mouse gets jerky when my apps thrash the disk).

      My system (PII-350, 192M RAM, KDE 2.2.1) has never done that. Do you have enough memory? Large swap space on its own partition?

      In fact, the only reason I've considered getting a faster system in the past few years is because vmware runs Windows a bit slow on this one. If your 1.33 GHz system can't handle disk reads/writes without slowing down, something is probably misconfigured.

      Note that I'm not trying to convince you linux is better than Windows. Use whatever meets your needs. I use both.

      -Legion

    3. Re:Linux installation experience by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2
      Apparently, the concept of writing a device driver without patching the kernel is still impossible even though Windows/Mac have been doing it for many years.

      In other words, they offer the same functionality as modprobe by dynamically loading kernel modules. Guess what - your Linux install has been capable of doing that for years now.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    4. Re:Linux installation experience by gUmbi · · Score: 1

      In other words, they offer the same functionality as modprobe by dynamically loading kernel modules. Guess what - your Linux install has been capable of doing that for years now.

      I'm sorry, of course I should have said that not all drivers require this. But I must have recompiled the kernel about 100 times this weekend trying to get alsa-sound and bttv modules to load.

      Jason.

    5. Re:Linux installation experience by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      Others have said it, but I'll add:

      I run a Celeron 433 with 320 of RAM. Can't remember swap size. I run sshd, samba, apache, and a few other things (all with only one client). I had been using Progeny and now use Debian Potato. I run KDE 2.x Things seem fine. The only time things really bogged down was when working with a 10 MB image in gimp. (That was when I had 192 megs of ram. Things are better, but not perfect with 320). My root partition and /home are reiser. /boot is ext2.

      So, maybe you are having problems. Or, maybe you are more picky than I am. I DO admit that on my wife's K6/2-233 with 32MB, things are a bit slow. Slow enough that I'm thinking T-Bird, and she gets the handme down Celeron.

      I used to have a BT848 tv tuner card of some sort. Worked okay, but I uninstalled it, figuring that TV is better watched on the 36" screen in the living room.

      PPPOE? Simple. Roaring Penguin. I believe it is mentioned frequently in the HOW-TO's. I dl'ed it before needing it. Installed per directions. Been working for months with Verizon. (That's at work. I have Comcast at home. Had to recompile the kernel. I originally had the ethernet compiled in, which was fine with one card, but it didn't like to do two cards. Had to load as modules, it seems. Of course, if I hadn't put in a custom kernel in the first place, I wouldn't have had that problem.)

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    6. Re:Linux installation experience by gUmbi · · Score: 1

      My system (PII-350, 192M RAM, KDE 2.2.1) has never done that. Do you have enough memory? Large swap space on its own partition?

      256 meg DDR + 512 meg swap. I think it's a problem with the IDE driver and the KT266 chipset.

      Jason.

    7. Re:Linux installation experience by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry, of course I should have said that not all drivers require this. But I must have recompiled the kernel about 100 times this weekend trying to get alsa-sound and bttv modules to load.

      I'll grant that can be annoying. Still, look at the option that's really being presented: ship distributions with giant kernels with the prerequisites for every possible driver compiled in, or ship a smaller kernel with the options that most users will want. Most distros choose the latter path for many reasons, not the least is that they want their kernels to be as lean and efficient as possible.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    8. Re:Linux installation experience by Alioth · · Score: 2
      Apparently, the concept of writing a device driver without patching the kernel is still impossible even though Windows/Mac have been doing it for many years...

      That's simply not true: you can load kernel modules without having to reboot (Windows always makes you reboot when you install a new device driver).

      I use Linux as a server - and that's one of the BEST features of Linux on a remote server - it never needs to be rebooted. You can install new device drivers (kernel modules), new software - no reboot. Windows 2000 systems need a reboot just for installing new software.

      With a server, the probability of the box rebooting is inversely proportional to your distance from the server, so not having to reboot even for device drivers is essential (especially since I live 40 miles from the box). Linux provides this, and has for at least five or six years.

    9. Re:Linux installation experience by int0x80 · · Score: 1

      I use Linux as a server - and that's one of the BEST features of Linux on a remote server - it never needs to be rebooted.

      That is absolutely true, and that is one of the main reasons why I use Linux.

      However, they (the linux programmers) should not forget to create more awesome features because sooner or later Windows won't have to reboot constantly.

      A similar situation is the windows-crashes-a-lot thing. Sure, linux is very stable but I hear people saying all the time that Windows 2000 is very stable too.

      --
      Order is for idiots, geniuses can handle chaos!
    10. Re:Linux installation experience by kcbrown · · Score: 2, Informative
      And the system (now an Tbird-1.33) is still slower than Windows 2K (ex., the mouse gets jerky when my apps thrash the disk).

      The mouse jerkiness probably happens because your system isn't using DMA to talk to the disks.

      This is easy to fix from the command line (until the next reboot) but really should be something that the OS installer just gets right the first time.

      To turn on DMA to your hard drive, do this as root:

      # hdparm -d 1 /dev/hda

      Now, that presupposes that your hard drive is /dev/hda. The following command, while rather a bit more complicated, will turn DMA on all of your currently mounted drives:

      # hdparm -d 1 `df | awk '{print $1}' | grep '^/dev/hd' | sed 's/[0-9][0-9]*$//' | sort -u`

      A brief explanation of the latter command:

      1. The output of the command between the backticks is substituted for the backticked portion of the command. The command between the backticks does the following:

        1. df gets a list of all of the filesystems that are currently mounted. The output consists of the device name, the size of the device, the amount of space used on it, the amount of free space, the percentage of space used, and where the device is mounted. This output is handed to...
        2. awk, which gives us the contents of the first column (hence the $1) and hands that to...
        3. grep, which gives us only those entries that begin with /dev/hd, which are IDE hard drives, and hands it to...
        4. sed, which removes any trailing numbers from the input it was handed. So now /dev/hda3 becomes /dev/hda. Anyway, the output is then handed to...
        5. sort, which has a -u option which tells it to produce only unique results. So if the input consists of multiple lines that are /dev/hda, sort will give us only one such line.

        Now, the output from this is in the form of a list of hard disk device specifiers, which are the devices we want to turn on DMA to.

      2. hdparm -d 1 turns on DMA to the devices that are listed. The command in the backticks gave us those devices.
      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    11. Re:Linux installation experience by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      hdparm -c 1 -d 1 -m 16 /dev/hda

      add that to your rc.local startup file.

    12. Re:Linux installation experience by scanman857 · · Score: 1

      Switch to Mandrake. I heartily recommend it for ex-Windoze users. It's really the only distro that isn't aimed at "power users". Ret Hat expects you to know how to do things like recompile the kernel; Mandrake comes with everything pre-compiled. Linux is really an "adolescent" OS*. I'm looking forward to using Linux in the next few years, when it really grows up.

      *Not that this is a bad thing, it just needs more time.

    13. Re:Linux installation experience by pyat · · Score: 1

      you don't need to recompile more than once to get alsa to load. All you need is basic sound card support enabled in the kernel. Then compile and install alsa (which will put a bunch of modules in your kernel's module directory). Then start trying to load the appropriate modules (which CAN be a bit tricky, in my past experience).
      m

  36. Only problem by rikkards · · Score: 1

    I worked at a small (60 users) office who had 2 applications that about 80 percent of the work revolved around. Unfortunately it was based off of Windows OS. There are only 3 companies that make a database that did this work and all of them used some form MS proprietary format and the other one was a docketing program that was also only Windows based.

  37. not so true anymore by horster · · Score: 1

    most college grads cs or not are getting some linux exposure these days, those that arent are getting it in the work place.

    the fact is, linux isn't that hard to administer and someone with basic experience can do a decent job; especially for an in house lan which doesn't get too much traffic or exposure.

    your comment about unix admins not wanting to reset passwords for morons, represents a very windows centric view in my opinion. i've been around windows enough to know that it is so frustrating when things continually don't work that you just end up venting a lot of that on the users because your time is so limited and the repeated duties (rebooting, patching, etc.) are so high.

    frankly, with linux/unix, while everything is far from perfect, most things are designed better to begin with. reset passwords? write a quick shell script, or just set them to expire. it's really not that big a deal, and neither is anything else you will think of.

    saying there is lack of experienced workers is just an excuse, and a poor one at that. people are realizing that linux is quite friendly to admin, more so than unix, and allows the organization to save on upfront licencse and hardware costs as well as ongoing maintance and headache costs.

    linux is a win win, period

    1. Re:not so true anymore by mpe · · Score: 2

      frankly, with linux/unix, while everything is far from perfect, most things are designed better to begin with. reset passwords? write a quick shell script, or just set them to expire. it's really not that big a deal, and neither is anything else you will think of.

      Rather easier to reset passwords in unix systems all you need to do is type one (possibly two) commands. With NT you need to bring up the user manager, then find the username, then click on it, then click on the appropriare section, fill the new password in, then click ok.

    2. Re:not so true anymore by horster · · Score: 1

      good point!
      if other slashdot posters are like me, its been so long since we had to deal with a windows box that we don't know how to diss it anymore :)

    3. Re:not so true anymore by el_chicano · · Score: 1
      most college grads cs or not are getting some linux exposure these days, those that arent are getting it in the work place.
      I guess I am kind of lucky in that regard. Houston Community College uses Linux (and Solaris) in their Unix courses, and my Oracle DBA II course used Oracle 9i on SUSE 7.2. I also work for HCC (in Distance Education) and I got to install Mandrake 8.1 on my workstation. I haven't booted into Win2K since late Sept - early Oct and I couldn't be happier!

      As as matter of fact, I used my workstation to set up some web apps while I was waiting on my server. I think that it is kind of neat that I was able to tell users beta testing my web app forms to go to my workstation's IP with their web browser to test the apps for me.

      linux is quite friendly to ad min, more so than unix, and allows the organization to save on upfront licencse and hardware costs as well as ongoing maintance and headache costs.
      I am currently developing a PHP/MySQL setup that will eventually be migrated to a Red Hat 7.2 server to replace a DOS-based DBase (!!!) system. Even though I think MySQL rocks, I am considering putting SUSE 7.2 on the server so that I could run Oracle 9i -- and after Mandrake Red Hat seems positively prehistoric! :->

      Total cost? A few hours to download some ISOs, $10.00 for a box of CD-R disks, and a little time and effort on my part. I feel that Linux has an amazing amount of functionality out of the box for next to nothing. The best part is that I can save the taxpayers a few dollars in the process!
      --
      A man who wants nothing is invincible
  38. Re:School by ret · · Score: 1

    Actually, due to win9x being most widely used out in the business world today, I believe win9x is the right choice for schools to run. Why teach kids how to use linux, and only at it's most basic, not a useful amount of linux, when they're likely to never have to use linux again, but not teach them to do the basics of the OS they will use (or the OS future ones they use will most closely resemble) for quite possibly the rest of their life?
    --

  39. Re:School by 1010011010 · · Score: 2

    One day, Linux will have ACLs. Until then, forget it.

    --
    Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
  40. my office by hyperstation · · Score: 3, Interesting

    windows clients, i can live with it. however, samba has evolved to the point where it's a better domain master than NT, so NT is gone. all of the other misc servers (mail, a few databases, web) are linux. everyone can use the databases from windows with the simple ODBC drivers and our custom VB (ack) programs. everyone is happy. i am happy.

  41. Wrong by schon · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Linux is only cheaper than windows if you don't value your time"

    Wrong. Both in the quote, and in your assertion that it's true.

    The quote is actually something like "Linux is only free if you don't value your time."

    Windows costs much, much more, both in initial purchase price, and in administration costs. (Downtime, fixing problems that shouldn't be there in the first place, etc.)

  42. yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:yet again by denzo · · Score: 2
      I think it's important to bring up these discussions every now and again because of the ever-changing state of the Linux desktop environment, especially within the last 5 years.

      Five years ago, asking whether Linux was ready for the desktop in businesses and homes was a no-brainer answer for the most part. The answer has been changing since then on a year-by-year basis (and even shorter timespans for certain developments).

      It's important to reevaluate our options at least every year. Can Linux sufficiently support Company ABC's office environment, and increase net profit? Is it worth it for a home user to switch from their current software base in a Windows/Mac environment to what Linux/KDE/Gnome currently offers? The answer is always changing. Granted, each user has their own needs; but as time goes by, more and more homes and businesses will find that Linux offers more of what they need at the present than in prior years.

      Therefore, this topic will be brought up multiple times, despite it making some people irate about having to read about it again.

  43. Linux/Afterstep/LTSP/Clueless roommate by slashzero · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Here is my setup. I have a roommate that hardly ever uses the computer for more then surfing, email, and IM. My main computer (750mhz, 512ram) is in my room and he doesn't really want to set on my computer and surf the internet, so what I did was get ahold of a p133, got ahold of a tv-out card. and plugged it into the TV. I used the Linux Terminal Server Project's files and turned it into a X Terminal. With Afterstep, I just put the apps he needs into the wharf and away he goes. It works just fine, since all the processing is done on my main machine, the puny p133 just has to handle the display and input. Cost me about $300-$400 dollars. Not bad for basically creating an extra machine that is the equiv to my other machine. Granted he can't play OpenGL games because it uses the machines graphics card, but who cares.

  44. the real barrier to linux in the workplace... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    is getting it to work with all the hardware. by the time i got all my stuff configured on my own systems, my head was swimming. hunting down drivers on google and editing config files by hand was very educational, but not particularly speedy. when i imagine doing the same for every machine in even a small organization, my head wants to explode.

    of course you could just buy a machine with linux pre-installed, but then you get the choice of a dell latitude model X, or dell latitude model X. and installing linux on a machine that came with windows on it rather mitigates the lower cost argument, since you've already paid for the windows license. or you could buy individual components that have linux support and form a santa's workshop to assemble machines. again, not particularly cheap or speedy.

    so, it's not the lack of windows app alternatives that's holding linux back in the workplace, because staroffice, gimp, etc., cover 99% of what your average user would need to do. it's also not the vaunted inertia that everyone makes a big deal out of, because the interfaces for open source alternatives almost completely mimic their windows cousins. believe me, the learning curve is no higher for telling people how to use the OSS version of a spreadsheet program than the windows version itself.

    imho, once it's as easy to get linux running on a given machine as it is windows, the major obstacle to moving your business platform from windows to linux will be gone. until then, all the security, stability, and financial arguments in the world are not going to outweigh the perceived headache of having all your tech staff running around for years trying to get the workstations config'd properly.

    1. Re:the real barrier to linux in the workplace... by pi_rules · · Score: 2

      What hardware are you talking about though? What do you need for an office machine? A simple video card (drivers exist for anything but whiz-bang-gotta-have-it-to-play-my games cards if you ask me). A sound card? Nope, not -needed- in an office but most of them are well supported too, in fact very easy. A network card? Yep, gotta have that. Again, drivers here are easier to install than in Windows by 10 fold if you ask me.

      The only thing that I find a bear are printers -- but that's because I dont' use them very often even in Windows.

      Quick tip for getting you drivers loaded... run /sbin/lspci, look at what the -real- name of the card is (not what they say on the box) and find the driver for it, they're all in the kernel source. Once you're familiar with common hardware it's just one /sbin/lspci, a few modprobe's and edit /etc/modules.conf so it's all replaced on reboot and you're done in under 10 minutes.

      Lack of drivers for -sane office hardware- is no longer an issue for Linux if you ask me.

    2. Re:the real barrier to linux in the workplace... by sunset · · Score: 1
      Why does crap like this count as "insightful"? It's as if a team of microsofties is posting anti-Linux stuff and modding each other up.

      hunting down drivers on google and editing config files by hand was very educational, but not particularly speedy.

      That's nowhere near realistic. I'm finding recent Mandrake releases, for example, much more painless to install than Windows. Everything is included.

      of course you could just buy a machine with linux pre-installed, but then you get the choice of a dell latitude model X, or dell latitude model X.

      Bull. Plenty of companies, including mine, will happily custom-build a Linux box for you with your choice of components.

  45. Re:Windows to Mac by BACbKA · · Score: 1

    It looks like this is a real trend now.
    I know several people, too, who moved to the
    new iBook from a Windows machine. Maybe
    Apple should promote itself with success
    stories coming from all those guys...

    --

    VKh

  46. MailOne for Linux by BillyGoatThree · · Score: 2

    MailOne is a descendent of MailWORKS from DEC. Not only does it do what you want, it also has POP and IMAP servers and will talk Exchange/Outlook via MAPI. The only thing missing (which you don't mention you are looking for) is calendaring.

    www.openone.com

    --
    324006
  47. Needed: a replacement for PowerPoint by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting
    There's no open-source software replacement for PowerPoint. I'd suggest writing an authoring tool for Macromedia Flash format, which is openly documented. Then you can show the same content on web pages and presentations, or run the presentation from a browser. The files would be much smaller than PowerPoint, too. For some wierd reason, PowerPoint files are huge.

    It's a good open source project. The initial version doesn't have to support animation, but design in the hooks, and it will probably be added by others. Perl code to read and write Flash exists, so there's something to look at. A good student programming project.

    1. Re:Needed: a replacement for PowerPoint by kindbud · · Score: 2

      How about replacing PowerPoint with competent sales people? You'd think no one ever closed a deal before PowerPoint....

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    2. Re:Needed: a replacement for PowerPoint by Roblimo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      StarOffice makes PowerPoint-type slide shows, no problem. Saves them in .ppt format, opens .ppt format, even. I've given *many* "Linux on the Desktop" demonstrations to Windows users whose Linux-loving friends have told them (falsely) that there is no way to make/present slideshows in Linux. They are always surprised when I show them slides and, if time permits, make a few as part of my demo to show them how easy it is.

      I also have trouble with the people who run around saying Flash Web pages won't open in Linux. They do for me, no problem. Netscape + Flash plugin.

      I use Linux to perform common home and office computing tasks all day, every day, without even thinking about it. Right now my net connection is through a Wavelan card that worked "out of the box" with no fuss in Mandrake 8.0.

      What am I doing wrong with Linux? Apparently there is *something* I haven't figured out that makes Linux hard to use. I have grandchildren who use Linux without any problem (we're talking five years old). My wife's great aunt, who is in her 90s, learned how to make at least minimal use of Netscape on Linux in a few minutes. Her biggest problem is that arthritis makes it hard for her to type.

      Perhaps what I'm doing wrong is using point/click "user friendly" distributions like Mandrake and SuSE. Yeah, that's it! Maybe if I dump this silly X Window thingie and use Slack from the command line only, I'll have trouble performing simple home/office tasks with Linux.

      Now, I can see an ubergeek sysadmin or developer trying to teach a bunch of journalists or other non-tech people how to type in a string of commands that look something like 0adsfkf($#@!) to open and edit a simple text file and getting a lot of bemused stares in return. Mr. Geek affirms his superiority, and everyone else decides Linux is too hard for them and goes back to Windows.

      My wife, an artist-type person without a tech bone in her body (psych major, spent most of her working life before she met me as an IRS clerical employee), learned to use Linux as an online working tool in (I swear) less than two hours.

      I mentioned my wife's great aunt. She's black, she grew up in rural poverty, only got through 4th grade, and has been a cleaning woman/maid for damn near her entire life. When I hear someone with a college degree, working in a white collar job, complain about Linux being hard to use, something is wrong with either the person doing the complaining or the person who taught them.

      But to each their own. I am not as smart as most Slashdot readers, so I have to do things the simplest way, not the most technically elegant, and I have learned to accept the fact that this makes me uncool, even though it allows me to get one hell of a lot of work done in Linux without having to know very much about what's happening behind the monitor screen,

      - Robin

    3. Re:Needed: a replacement for PowerPoint by romanski · · Score: 1

      I will suggest not applicatation (you will choose whatever you like), but format:
      HTML
      I used to make presentation in PowerPoint, but after switching i have found the format nearly perfect. There might be some issues for printed versions, but hothing which can not be rather easily solved.
      And guess what: you can present your work on any computer and any platform - no need to ask: do you have PowerPoint / WhateverPresenter installed? You can put the work on your server etc.

    4. Re:Needed: a replacement for PowerPoint by dunstan · · Score: 1

      Me, I use Magicpoint (now bundled with RedHat7.2, so you don't need to compile it yourself). I use it instead of PowerPoint, so in that sense it replaces it.

      Clearly it *doesn't* replace powerpoint in having a GUI based composition facility and IMHO this is A Good Thing. Most documents I write in plain text in emacs, and if a PHB wants it in a different format I'll do format jockeying as a separate exercise after the content is done.

      Magicpoint fits in with this very well. I can put down the visual content and presenter's notes into a single text file, and then add markup for the slides (in the presentation itself you add generalised markup, and then have an imported file which maps generalised markup to rendering markup). When you print out the text file, you have the slide content and presenter's notes together in the same source file which you will be using when you present. And even a big presentation won't be bigger than a few kilobytes.

      It's *much* faster than using PowerPoint. For this reason you should make sure that your PHB continues to use PP, so she has less time to spend interfering with your work.

      Dunstan

      --
      The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
  48. on X by horster · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think in general, Linux is more efficient and faster. X however is a different story, and it has nothing to do with the fact that it runs over a network.

    X windows sends a refresh event every freaking time a damaged window is revealed. this doesn't make sense, and it means that switching windows and creating menus looks sluggish and cumbersome no matter how fast the hardware.

    other window systems like plan9 simply store the overlapping layers and let the server (read the display) do the work rather than sending a refresh event.

    now, there is work being done to resolve some of this. Keith Packard is implementing this in X as we speak, but it takes time, X is filled with a lot of cruft from years of being pulled in many directions.

    unfortunately, for now - X is just not the best example of Linux's effeciency. so anything that runs on top of it is going to be slow and big, at least compared to windows. then again, the killer feature that windows simply , can't do, and it shops should drool over is the fact that you can run it over a network! so all in all, I think it is a fair trade off, though there could be a better solution, granted.

    1. Re:on X by seann · · Score: 1, Troll

      putty to.the.computer.at.home
      login: root
      password: eatMYpenisCHUrN

      hit:#! export DISPLAY=my.computer.at.school:1
      hit:#! kwrite ~/public_html/default.php 2>/dev/null &

      mmm, remote x windows.

      --
      I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    2. Re:on X by johnnyb · · Score: 2

      If you want X to run faster, renice it to -20

  49. in essence by sewagemaster · · Score: 1

    in essence, i think it's pretty much implying that this company's not going to have an HR department.... they're just going to complain without IE...

    and people arent going to be happy without MSOffice for their technical docs....

  50. Re:Pointless by tato22 · · Score: 1

    Windows is only esay to use because people don't know any thing else exists. I been using linux for 2 years, and now even my mom and my little sister use Linux(Gnome) with no problems at all

  51. It's really not too difficult... by Mr.+Gus · · Score: 2, Funny

    The main problem is financial capital. First off, most companies lease their offices, and I'd expect, can't afford not to. Larger companies that own their campuses are less likely to try something so radical, unless there's a specific purpose to doing so (testing light sensitive products or something-- but why in an office setting?).

    If the money is there, simply give your contractors that are either modifying or building your office building instructions not to include any windows.

    More economically, you could try putting tin foil over the windows. If you put the foil on the inner panel on the inside and the foil on the outer panel on the outside, you can even open the window if you wish. If that defeats your purpose, put bars on the windows.

  52. Mac CAD? by mr.ska · · Score: 2
    Oh, I long for the day that the big-name CAD packages are supported on the Mac platform. Even just AutoCAD would be a good start... but it'll take more than that to get my office to switch. We need 3-D modelling, and AFAIK, there just isn't such a thing available for Macs right now.

    If I'm wrong, PLEASE let me know. I'd love to get rid of my f*&#ing Wintel box...

    --

    Mr. Ska

    1. Re:Mac CAD? by BWJones · · Score: 2

      Check out http://www.architosh.com/

      To my understanding (I am not a CAD/CAM type, although a research question we have may push us in that direction for a massive retinal reconstruction project) there are moves being made and significant interest by makers of CAD/CAM software in OSX. The future could hold great promise.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  53. A hope for linux on the desktop...? by megadodo · · Score: 1

    Linux, in most cases is current just not ready for the desktop, or rather, the desktop isn't ready for linux.

    Most universities now teach Java to comp sci students (well they do here in the UK), and java is multiplatform, so hopefully when these java knowing people start to filter down to writing apps, there will be a few more platform independent apps.

    A lot of very user friendly systems I have seen designed, have been done so in java, including the software that powers those absurdly expensive quiz games you see in bars these days, although they run it on top of win2k (i know this cos I crashed one and watched in reboot), it could quite easily run on java.

    I think machines in general are fast enough to run java software and a decent pace now- and this could be very beneficial for linux (also note IBM are big advocates of both java and linux).

    --
    ..Barny
    1. Re:A hope for linux on the desktop...? by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      I know and love Java, but even simple apps can be SLOW!

      Unless you want to run inside browsers, I still say C/C++ is a better route. gcc supports compiling for all major platforms I've ever used.

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
    2. Re:A hope for linux on the desktop...? by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      I'll believe it's "only an average C compiler" when someone compiles the Linux kernel with a commercial compiler and runs various benchmarks against the same version kernel compiled with gcc.

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
  54. It Worked For Us by bamm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Our small initiative started out using systems that could no longer support the corporate desktop. Our workstations run Linux, as does the main server (uptime of 132 days BTW). Our Firewall, VPN Concentrator, and IDSs are FreeBSD. Our lone, non-opensource system is a sparc/solaris DB server. We still keep dual boot laptops around for PowerPoint (StarOffice still doesn't render PPT well), although I cannot remember the last time I had to boot into Windows. Linux and FreeBSD have migrated to the local corporate side of the house too, recently replacing the mail server, web server, name servers, and BDC. It seems the biggest obstacle facing our admins in getting Linux to the local corporate desktop is a true standards based document exchange.

    --
    www.sguil.net
    The Analyst Console for NSM
  55. blackout blinds are a good substitute by Akatosh · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have a corner office and found that thick canvas curtains provide a decent substitute for a windowless office.

  56. Finally got a corner office. by bstadil · · Score: 1

    I worked very hard to get a corner office. Why on earth would I want to get rid of the windows. ;-)

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  57. Linux office? I Quit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful


    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.

  58. whatever by usrlocalbinladen · · Score: 1

    "They just cannot handle the truth. Remember, some people have better things to do than to read 900 page Unix tomes all day."

    You know I never had to read a 900 page unix "tome" but then I guess you have to state the truth to get the truth.

  59. A thinking excercise by usrlocalbinladen · · Score: 1

    "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. "

    That's really impressive to me any actual hard numbers? Remeber there is *much more* material that is avaible in a linux distribution than a windows CD you know.

  60. Does this make sense to you? by skrowl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The article mentions lower total operating costs, but then goes on to say that they installed win4lin / vmware to get windows compatiblity.

    Think about that for a moment.

    How can windows + linux be cheaper than just windows?

    --

    Prevent linux based DDOS's!
    http://linux.denialofservice.org/
    1. Re:Does this make sense to you? by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Presumably windows was only used for a few select tasks in this case and so only a few copies (oh I am sorry - "licenses") were purchased, rather than buying it for everyone. Which would work out to cheaper.

      At least that would be my guess.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:Does this make sense to you? by Jason+Earl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  61. No *nix AutoCAD? by MrResistor · · Score: 2
    The single biggest obstacle to Linux everywhere is specific Windows applications with no direct portable equivalent, like AutoCAD...

    I can't say that disappoints me really, I personally hate AutoCAD. Granted, it's as easy as anything else once you've learned it, but it's the most difficult software to learn that I've ever worked with, and I've never been able to get the alleged 3-D design tools to work. All in all, I can't say no AutoCAD is a bad thing. I know AutoCAD has it's place, but for what I do (mechanical design) it's only the tool of choice for Engineers who are too old to learn a new software package. I do like the option of a CLI, but that's the only positive point I can think of.

    I recall, though, that AutoCAD used to be available for Unix, and many of the CLI commands are named after standard *nix commands. Is this not still the case?

    I haven't used it since R14, so my info may be a bit out of date...

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    1. Re:No *nix AutoCAD? by skrowl · · Score: 1

      Excellent! This is an exact example of what I was looking for to put into my paper about Linux for my 400 level IFS project. This is what I call the classic "My OS doesn't do it? Well then you don't need it!" argument.

      Also look for linux zealots to use the famous "It's more stable / faster / etc. because I said so" and the widely-known "It's good because it's not Microsoft or Apple.".

      Please allow people to CHOOSE their own OS. If they choose the most popular (over 90%) choice, just LET THEM.

      --

      Prevent linux based DDOS's!
      http://linux.denialofservice.org/
    2. Re:No *nix AutoCAD? by Zapdos · · Score: 2, Informative

      In less then 5 minutes I find.

      Qcad http://www.ribbonsoft.com/index.php3
      CYCAS CAD http://www.cycas.de/
      Jcad http://jcad.gnuchina.org/
      OCTREE-CAD http://www.octree.de/
      VariCAD http://www.varicad.com/index1.php

    3. Re:No *nix AutoCAD? by MrResistor · · Score: 2
      For the record, my CAD package of choice is SolidWorks, which is heavily tied to VBA and Excel, and therefore Windows only. My comment wasn't a dig on Windows software, but on AutoCAD specifically, which has historically been available for Unix. If SolidWorks was available for Linux, I would be thrilled. But it isn't, and won't be in the forseable future, so I use Windows for CAD.

      Autocad is outdated and extremely difficult to learn. Do I want Linux to do CAD? Certainly. But I don't want an AutoCAD clone. The usability bar has been raised significantly for CAD software in the last 10 years, and it would be a shame to take such a giant step backwards when there are such better models available to work from.

      I never advocate Linux to people who aren't ready for it. When I build PCs for family and friends I install Windows, because that's what they know and are comfortable with. If I know someone that's ready for Linux, I talk to them about it and help them get started if they decide that's what they want.

      As far as letting people choose their OS, you seem to indicate that the average computer buyer actually has a choice now. People "choose" Windows because that's what their computers come with.

      Say I'm buying a new truck and the salesman says "The standard engine is a straight 6, but you can buy a V6 or V8 and install it yourself." How much of a choice is that? How is this hypothetical situation different from the "choice" offered to the average consumer when they buy a new PC? 90% of consumers "choose" Windows because they aren't given a choice.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    4. Re:No *nix AutoCAD? by MrResistor · · Score: 2
      I just pulled the quote from the article, I never said that they guy I quoted wasn't an idiot. He also said there wasn't a equivalent to Adobe Illustrator. Personally, I prefer the GIMP to Illustrator or Photoshop, but then again I abandoned the visual arts for music 15 years ago, so what do I know...

      Thanks for the list, though. I'll have to check some of those out.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  62. Re:What about supporting non-linux clients? by Zapdos · · Score: 1

    Do you mean server? or Client? Evolution is a linux client. So saying it supports only linux clients is weird. For a exchange replacement "server" you can use http://www.bynari.net/groupware.html not free but allot less expensive then Exchange or Domino.

  63. Lack of desire to learn by bmeiers · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  64. Strongly disagree... by gfxguy · · Score: 1
    Of course, it depends on the size of the workplace, but even moderately sized workplaces (20 machines) can benefit enormously from Linux's maintainability - the ability to install software in one place for all machines (without having to TOUCH a "client" machine), the ability for an administrator to remotely log in and do all the tweaking necessary - often without disturbing what the "user" is doing.

    The fact is, a Unix system administrator might cost 50% more, but you'll need half as many - maybe even a third or quarter as many, maybe even less than that if you take the approach that West Palm Beach did (thin clients). I won't rehash that story, but you can find it here if you want to refresh your memory.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  65. Re:Windows to Mac by daviddennis · · Score: 2

    I moved from using a Windows machine to run productivity software and graphics and using a Linux system as a programming workstation and web server to being almost all Mac. MacOS X let me perform both functions with a single machine, and when I feel like developing outside of my home, I can run all my favourite Unix applications on my PowerBook G4.

    I'm delighted with my Macs, especially since they have vanquished X-Windows irritations (ugly screens, hideous fonts). I know you can at least somewhat relieve those problems, but it's difficult, time consuming, and I don't get the impression the result is that great.

    D

  66. Re:School by ret · · Score: 1

    True, for servers, linux is a better choice, although novell, when setup right, kicks ass...
    One other thing to consider though, although from a technical standpoint, linux would be a better choice for the servers, you've got to remember schools usually have a fairly limited budget and so commonly one of the teachers that has figured out the difference between left click and right click admins the network, and lets face it, as a general rule, you're not going to find a teacher in a highschool that knows linux (not ALL highschools, but most of them are this way).
    --

  67. Re:School by Chang · · Score: 1

    They exist now. XFS and ACL's work extremely well in combination with SAMBA.

    Granted, I think the only major distribution with all of these by default is Mandrake, but the software exists today and is pretty sweet. Even an MCSE would feel comfortable once it was set up.

  68. Re:School by Asic+Eng · · Score: 2
    I can see how these granular rights could be useful. However thinking about a possible application of this: wouldn't it be better to use CVS?

    Once you have two people editing the same file you're probably in trouble, no matter how good your permission system is.

    If you use CVS you can restore previous versions easily, too.

  69. Free (beer) isn't free (beer) by Bikku · · Score: 4, Interesting
    (dons PHB beancounting suit)

    Things "get into" the office environment when they make business sense to do so. Which happens when the benefits exceed the costs, the reward exceeds the risk, and when these are exceeded by an amount greater than the next best alternative.

    In the case of office platforms, the big "corporate IT" issue re this analysis in representing the complete true costs - Total Cost of Ownership - which includes the relative expense of good Unix sysadmins or the cost of retraining Win admins (clue injection), the cost of managing the environments, the cost of supporting moronic end users, the costs of reduced application availability (sure you can have a nice GUI, but where's the Linux industrial-strength Accounts Payable system?), or of building interfaces to whatever the rest of the world uses (eg., the cost of reverse engineering .doc format for word processing). The actual cost of the OS (free beer) is almost irrelevant.

    On the risk side, corporate IT departments value stability of the infrastructure above all. So, the corporate IT folks are herd-following conformists. No one will move to Linux office until everyone else does. And there will have to be a huge TCO advantage before that inertia gets overcome.

    It's actually a rational position, but not very cool or fun. Sticking with the herd, and moving en masse with the herd has advanatges. The herd is big enough that it gets what it wants: robust techinical support, business applications developed for the platform of their choice, peer groups and conferences in Boca Raton, whatever.

    Of course, you lose out on the advanatges of doing something different/better than competitors. It all depends on what you value more.

    (PHB off)

    Just kidding of course. This was posted from a Linux system hiding in a 50,000 person company.

  70. File compatibility by ChrisWong · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:File compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Oh, so I should use Microsoft Office because the other company uses it. Isn't that the same as saying you cannot dictate what they use? So, what about all those law firms that use Wordperfect? I guess they are just going out of business left and right because they can't communicate with their clients running Microsoft office.

      Why don't use address the real issue of file compatibility? Microsoft doesn't really want anyone to have true file compatibility with their products.

      As to your final comment. Pure BS. StarOffice works fine on my RedHat 7.2 K6-III 400 MHz 256MB box. So what if it sucks up 75MB of ram to run, if the OS is stable and the app is stable it can use 200 MB for all I care.

    2. Re:File compatibility by raindog2 · · Score: 1

      Most of the bigger companies I've been familiar with are still forced to keep a couple of DOS boxes around to talk to this vendor or that bureau, so keeping a Windows box or two around to run legacy apps is to be expected. In a pinch, those same boxes can be used to handle the few MSOffice documents not readable by StarOffice 6.

      "Mega apps in Excel", meanwhile, are no different than the "mega apps in Lotus 1-2-3" from a decade ago. People have hired me to reimplement that kind of thing in dBase, Excel, VB, and more recently LAMP. Generally the biggest hurdle is the lack of design, not the complexity, and it ends up being much more cost-effective to turn it into a real app. Lately the craze seems to be "oh my god, our business is running on a couple of Access MDB's, let's make it into a web app." No one *wants* to keep their entire business in a big set of macros just for the sake of doing so, and there's a fiduciary incentive for *not* doing so after a certain point.

      And then, after the third or fourth software audit, each resulting in thousands of dollars spent replacing a small handful of misplaced or obsolete licenses, "the reality of business" starts looking pretty different to the guys in corner offices. Believe me, Microsoft is Tux the penguin's best friend right now in corporate America.

  71. Re:Windows to Mac by diesel_jackass · · Score: 1

    Only people with one finger. the 2 button mouse just doesn't cut it for them (and god forbid if you throw a wheel in there too).

  72. Think "subscription model" by MarkusQ · · Score: 2, Funny
    and ThinkFree Office [thinkfree.com] an MS 2000/XP Office compatible suite that works in Linux

    It's so XP Office compatible it even requires a subscription (~$50/y IIRC) to use it. Now that's what I'd call full compatibility.

    -- MarkusQ

  73. Sun pushing Linux? by non-poster · · Score: 1, Informative

    "What's more, many potential clients simply haven't recognized Linux as a viable platform. But that is beginning to change. With major vendors such as IBM and Sun Microsystems touting Linux's capabilities, solution providers now should be able to demonstrate the platform's practicality to customers."

    I don't remember hearing Sun push Linux more than Solaris. I actually thought that Sun was more interested in selling it's own Unix products...

  74. CoverStory.asp?ArticleID=31793 by glwtta · · Score: 1

    Coupled with the actual content of the article, somehow that's one of the sadest things I've seen.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
    1. Re:CoverStory.asp?ArticleID=31793 by hearingaid · · Score: 2

      I thought it was ironic too.

      From the server headers:
      Server: Microsoft-IIS/4.0
      Set-Cookie: ASPSESSIONIDGGQGGQDS=IBPCOIMCAGJLEOMDGOFPMCIJ; path=/

      Couple that with the godawful CSS code in the source... I dunno. Scary stuff. Like this:

      <TD ALIGN=center BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC WIDTH=55% HEIGHT=10 VALIGN=TOP><font size="-1"><a style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, sans-serif;FONT-SIZE: 10px;FONT-WEIGHT: plain;LINE-HEIGHT: 14px;COLOR: #000000;TEXT-DECORATION: none"href="http://www.channelweb.com">Tools And Information For<br>The Solution Provider Community</a></font></TD>

      Man, guys. If you're going to use CSS, use it how it was meant to be used. Get a CSS file editor.

      It could be worse. At least they haven't gone to 2K.

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

    2. Re:CoverStory.asp?ArticleID=31793 by glwtta · · Score: 1

      I wasn't trying to say anything about the relative merits of ASP (I've used it, its OK).

      I was merely pointing out that they have to be completely married to MS even on the server side to be using it, which makes their waxing poetic on how great it is to replace the desktop with Linux, a bit ironic.

      PS ASP may "blow out of the water" it's variants, but that's not true for other scripting languages ;)

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    3. Re:CoverStory.asp?ArticleID=31793 by glwtta · · Score: 1

      ok

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    4. Re:CoverStory.asp?ArticleID=31793 by hearingaid · · Score: 2
      You are wrong. ASP is not tied to MS.

      Theoretically, no. Practically, yes: the vast majority of sites running ASP are running IIS, and most of them are programmed in VBScript, a most bletcherous language.

      In this particular case, they're running IIS 4: see my other post.

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

  75. no window??!? (troll warning) by reverse+flow+reactor · · Score: 1

    But I don't want a window-less office. I happen to enjoy sunshine I want to be able to look outside and see the whole world that exists outside of my office. Then I can look out the window and think "wow, I should eat lunch outside today", or "look at that snow fall, it is going to be rough driving home tonight".

    Oh wait, the article is about an office without MS Windows... sorry.
    -

    --

    The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. -Einstein

  76. Given: Openoffice Impress, kpresenter by Moritz+Moeller+-+Her · · Score: 5, Informative

    Both OpenOffice Impress and kpresenter are stable mature applications that can do most things a rational person would ever expect in a presentation.

    So if you write
    " There's no open-source software replacement for PowerPoint."
    you are right. There is not one, there are TWO GPL apps to replace powerpoint.

    Now if I look at the fact that SVG is a vector format (not a presentation format) and the fact that openoffice641 opens all ridiculous powerpoint stuff I get mailed by people, I think you should look harder before you propoese new projects to other people.

    See http://www.openoffice.org and http://www.koffice.org for the apps.

    --
    Moritz
    1. Re:Given: Openoffice Impress, kpresenter by cvd6262 · · Score: 1

      Right on.

      My laptop dual boots Debian and Win98. I have StarOffice 5.2 on both sides, and use it instead or MS office. I have been most impressed with it's PPt clone, and have received, edited, and sent back several .ppt files and no one's seen a difference.

      I also used the spreadsheet program in my stats class. It has just about every stats function I needed. The graders couldn't figure out how I was doing 5 decimal accuracy when the charts in the book only went to 3.

      PS - Yes, the professor knew I was using it.

      --

      I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.

    2. Re:Given: Openoffice Impress, kpresenter by Azog · · Score: 2

      And KPresenter is even usable. I recently ran a slide-show thingy for my brother's wedding, and I did the whole thing from KPresenter on my Linux machine. My presentation ended up being huge - over 50 full-screen pictures at 1024x768, with some text overlaid, a few transition effects, etc.

      It's the first time I had ever used any kind of presentation software, and I was able to learn my way around it pretty well in less than an hour.

      Two little gotcha's:
      1. Make sure you get the latest version. This applies to almost all Open Source projects, they change so fast.

      2. Turn off Autosaves. With a very large presentation, the every-5-minute-autosave completly froze the app for 30 seconds at a time while I was working on it. It took me a while to figure out what the problem was. Of course, that was with the Mandrake 8.0 kernel, now that I'm running a custom-compiled 2.4.16-low-latency I'm sure it would be much better...

      But hey, I'm happy. I did the whole presentation with Linux and other free software - scanned the images with my USB scanner with SANE, did photo retouching and color balancing in the GIMP, loaded the images into KPresenter... no problem.

      And now that the Linux binaries for Return to Casle Wolfenstein are out, I don't need Windows at all.

      --
      Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
      "HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
  77. Migrating between platforms is not impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Migrating between platforms is not impossible by jchristopher · · Score: 3, Interesting
      That's what Linux, Macintosh, and any other Operating System vendors need to do.

      Unfortunately, very, very few people involved in the development of the Linux operating system care much about usability. They are much more interested in adding the latest whiz-bang feature, but it doesn't seem to bother them that their app must be installed on a command line that is unintelligible to 99% of the computing population.

      The few folks that DO care about usability (Ximian) are doing great things - unfortunately, it just isn't enough. They are working on the GUI, an email client, etc. but there are so many more usability problems with the OS than just that.

    2. Re:Migrating between platforms is not impossible by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      > In order for people to use Microsoft, they had to > switch operating systems (waaaaay back when).

      Really? Part of Microsoft's success was tying their OS to a cheap, widely cloned system that was many peoples (non-geeks) first computer. In any case, there's a huge difference between changing between Commodore 64 and MS-DOS or MS-DOS and Win 3.1, and Windows and Linux.

    3. Re:Migrating between platforms is not impossible by jchristopher · · Score: 2
      Then get in and help us!

      The power is in your hands.

      Not being a coder, I find that it is next to impossible to contribute to Linux. When you point out usability problems:

      1) I find that coders generally aren't interested, it it works for them it's "good enough".

      2) The coders generally want to work on what they want to work on, not what you want them to work on.

      3) Writing documentation doesn't help - the point of 'usability' is that you shouldn't NEED to read man pages to get it working.

      Let's say I wrote out specs for some widget to be used on desktop Linux systems that scanned the system for new partitions/drives everytime KDE starts. (Can't believe this doesn't exist already). For each new one, it throws up a dialog with a suggested mount point and an "OK" "cancel" "don't ask again" button. Seems like a great idea, right? You can't convince anyone to build it.

    4. Re:Migrating between platforms is not impossible by johnnyb · · Score: 2

      Actually, they don't care about _either_ the latest whiz-bang feature or usability. They care about doing things the right way. This takes longer, but produces better results in the end.

  78. Re:Pointless by jchristopher · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Windows is only esay to use because people don't know any thing else exists. I been using linux for 2 years, and now even my mom and my little sister use Linux(Gnome) with no problems at all

    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.

  79. Re:So Sad by thelen · · Score: 1

    Right clickable context menus are something that the average secretary or insurance broker or customer service rep has probably never heard of.

    context menus are *the single most useful thing in GUIs*, yet most users don't know about them and avant-garde techies pleasure themselves to thoughts of the next great interface paradigm

  80. Cyrus IMAPd by petej · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Cyrus IMAPd has single-instance store. Mail is stored in files, but metadata is stored in a DB, so you can back it up with normal backup tools. There's nothing about deleted item retention time, but the mailing list is active, and the source isn't bad to work with -- I'm sure someone else is interested in the deleted item retention time feature, and you could cooperate on getting it done.

    Also, it's a sealed environment, so you don't have to have OS-level user accounts for mail users -- a security bonus.

  81. Window-less Office by spatrick_123 · · Score: 1

    I am a software developer who has the joy of working in a window-less office. Unfortunately, this is only because they recently moved us to the basement, and we have no windows. I'm not sure which I would rather - Linux on my desktop or natural light. :-)

  82. But not Microsoft-less by mike449 · · Score: 1

    The Office is still there in your office.

  83. Re:Windows is free too by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  84. DirectFB + (PWM, flwm, ...) by MongooseCN · · Score: 2

    We need some kind of super light window manager. For example take a window manager, like PWM my current wm, running on DirectFB. No bloated Xserver in the background and no bloated window manager just a simple frame buffer and a 2meg window manager.

    With DirectFB though no old Xwindows dependant apps could run, but if you're using Gtk or some similar widget set for your gui then porting the widget set to DirectFB should be all that is needed to use your applications on DirectFB.

    With that little overhead companies can use virtually any hardware to run their office applications. Beat that windows!

    1. Re:DirectFB + (PWM, flwm, ...) by scrytch · · Score: 2

      We need some kind of super light window manager. For example take a window manager, like PWM my current wm, running on DirectFB. No bloated Xserver in the background and no bloated window manager just a simple frame buffer and a 2meg window manager.

      Both Gtk and Qt have framebuffer ports, presumably including a mouse driver to at least handle movement and clicks. This means the hard part has been done, the rest is a matter of porting the local operations of window managers and ditching the X protocol. You might have to implement more windowing behavior, it's possible that the fb ports don't even grok overlapping windows. I don't think X is so much fundamentally broken as it is just crufty, but I am all for reductionism, as it tends to make what's left a lot more elegant.

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
  85. Re:You don't need help creating a windows-less off by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 1

    WTF is a cubical? It that something like per-seat licensing for a cubicle?

    --
    Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
  86. Re:Pointless by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Windows is only esay to use because people don't know any thing else exists. I been using linux for 2 years, and now even my mom and my little sister use Linux(Gnome) with no problems at all.

    Can they run all the games that are released each year, even low-tech stuff like Roller Coaster Tycoon? Can they run all the kids' software available at Toys 'R Us? Can they shop at Internet Explorer-specific web sites? Can they run Photoshop and Premiere, if they needed to?

    The bottom line is and always has been this: People want to be able to run the software that's out there. That's it. That's all. I've been a Mac user in the past, and it is frustrating any time you have to do something where all users are assumed to be running Windows. It's not worth being idealistic about it.

  87. Re:Windows to Mac by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

    Thats funny. Mac OS X seems to be dealing with my 3 button trackball just fine. Oh wait I forgot you were just trolling.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  88. Re:Pointless by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 1

    Linux will never be as easy to learn and to use at the workplace than Windows. They just cannot handle the truth. Remember, some people have better things to do than to read 900 page Unix tomes all day.

    The end-user wouldn't be using Linux, they would be using KDE (or gnome if you prefer, but KDE is probably easier).

    The end user doesn't even need to know that linux is the kernel underneath the gui somewhere.

    FUD: To use Linux you have to read 900 page Unix tomes - Hahaha.

    --
    You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
  89. Recession by Weezul · · Score: 1

    The wonderful thing about a recession is that you can find good people to do almost anything. You may have to promote them when the recession is over, but you should be fine for a while.

    You should have some Linux admins currently since Windows can not run a firewall to save it's market share. The IT staff will notice when the Linux people are getting promoted faster and they will all learn Linux. It's not really any harded then Windows.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  90. MS Will Make Up Costs... by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Insightful
    If they can't lowball on price, they'll start making up costs -- one of their favorites currently is that you have to hire administrative staff, but you can administer your Windows machines with a bunch of monkeys, so (they say) Microsoft software is still less expensive.

    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?

    1. Re:MS Will Make Up Costs... by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      If they can't lowball on price, they'll start making up costs -- one of their favorites currently is that you have to hire administrative staff, but you can administer your Windows machines with a bunch of monkeys, so (they say) Microsoft software is still less expensive.

      You can administer windows machines with some barely trained people who read Win2K Administration for Dummies, but if you do, your machines are going to behave like crap. You can get more skilled people and your machines will behave better. Put the skilled people to work on Linux and it will be wonderful.

  91. won't work here in .de by psych031337 · · Score: 2

    ...because office space regulations state that anyone has to have a clear view of the sky (aka windows) at his desk.

    SCR

    --
    +++ath0
  92. VB by JMZero · · Score: 1

    People are ashamed of using VB, but it's really not that evil.

    I realized this a while back while working on a standard data app. They wanted a look at what the screens would be like so I drew them up in VB (because drawing screens is easy in VB), with the intention of doing it for real in VC++.

    Then all the sudden the prototype was done, and it worked, so I stopped. No complaints.

    It might not be the language to use when you want to be proud of something your hands have made - but it works good for removing things from your desk.

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...
  93. StarOffice slow to load by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 1

    StarOffice seems to take an eternity to load, but once loaded it runs fine

    I read somewhere that you can speed up the load time (and perhaps the runtime performance) by not installing the Java component. IIRC the Java component slows it down big time.

    --
    You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
    1. Re:StarOffice slow to load by dogma · · Score: 1

      I don't have the Java Component installed, and I think it takes forever. You're telling me it could take longer!!!!

  94. linux on the desktop by tarzeau · · Score: 1

    www.linuks.mine.nu/workstation it's already there, and i use it, at home, at office.. heck even my aunt uses linux

    --
    Windoze not found: (C)heer, (P)arty or (D)ance
  95. The community isn't huge but it's definitely there by CoughDropAddict · · Score: 4, Informative

    I work in an electronic music studio. I'd love to use Linux, but the apps just aren't there.
    The fact that there's almost no development community addressing this potentially enormous market amazes me to no end.


    On the linux-audio-dev mailing list, many things are discussed and software developed such as Ardour, digital audio workstation software for Linux, JACK (JACK Audio Connection Kit), a low-latency infrastructure for connecting audio applications, and several wave editors. Dave Phillips maintains a list of Linux sound applications--many are not that advanced but some are.

    Work in this area is progressing, and many smart people are involved. In particular, Paul Barton-Davis, author of Ardour and the main force behind JACK, seems to be pursuing commercial possibilities of selling linux-based sound workstations under a company named Linux Audio Systems. You can read Paul's slashdot comments to see some of his opinions on the situation of Linux audio.

  96. Re:totally doable by geomon · · Score: 2

    >"What is the intrinsic value of "easy to learn"?"

    that which is not more difficult than a certain percentage within a standard distribution


    That is a definition of ease of use, not a description of intrinsic value.

    >"If that were true, why would people work on their own cars, or modify them to make them perform better?"

    work on cars dosn't really fit within that area I don't think


    The point I was trying to make is that 'ease of use' should not be the all-defining criteria for doing everything in life.

    If ease of use were the sole basis for living, people wouldn't hang off of Zodiac on 165' ropes. They would take the nature trail up the back of El Capitan.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  97. My First Linux Box... by Greyfox · · Score: 2
    Was a 386SX with 8 MB of RAM. It didn't run X but the install was beautiful once I re-downloaded the first 3 slakware diskettes, which I'd FTPd as text. The a.out->elf conversion was painful, though. I reinstalled for that.

    My second one was a 486/66 with 16MB of RAM. It ran X and netscape and a few X games (Netrek heh heh heh) pretty well. The libc->glibc conversion was pretty painful though. I reinstalled for that. They introduced these newfangled kernel modules about that time. I still don't trust those things, though folks tell me they work pretty well.

    My third Linux computer was a Pentium 166 with 64 MB of RAM and a diamond monster 3D card (With the pass-through.) It played GL Quake nicely, ran X quite well, ran Netscape quite well. They did some cool things with those newfangled kernel modules -- now you could have the system automatically monitor devices and insert the right kernel module when you chose to access one. After you stopped using the device, the kernel module would go away after a couple of minutes, freeing up a little memory. Taligent was supposed to do that. Taligent was supposed to do a lot of things.

    My current Linux computer, which is getting a bit old now, is an Athlon 700 with 390MB of RAM. It's pretty snappy for everything except Tribes2 and Mozilla. I'm looking at upgrading to a dual one with 2 GB of RAM in the next few months.

    I've been Microsoft free at home for about 7 years now. I finally managed to persuade my room mate to stop asking me Windows questions too, so I don't have to spend 5 hours cursing windows and trying to reinstall !#%! video drivers every time she installs a new game.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  98. I have a windowless cube! by Capt_Troy · · Score: 2

    I finally have a job where I can use Linux on my desktop, it's quite nice but ironicly, my cube is on the inside of the building and I have no windows.

  99. The truth of the matter by sting3r · · Score: 2

    I used to run Windows but I have converted my desktop over to Linux. What users need to understand is that with Linux, they need to use different tools for different types of jobs; the diversity of software for Linux discourages a "one-size-fits-all" solution like the Office/IE duopoly and encourages specialization. For instance:

    Mozilla and Konqueror are both excellent browsers. But I use Mozilla for fast rendering of W3C compliant pages (and avoiding KDE library overhead), and Konqueror for better IE compatibility on pages that break standards. Instead of picking a favorite, users should learn both and use each when appropriate.

    Koffice and StarOffice are both good at certain things. StarOffice is much better at handling Word DOCs than Koffice, and Koffice is much better at handling PPT slides.

    This is not unique to Linux. Windows systems have MS Word, Notepad, and Wordpad preloaded. Users learn that Notepad is good for text files, Wordpad is pretty useless, and Word is good for word processing.

    If you know your software's abilities and learn to use the right tool for the job, you can use Linux in just about any office setting without incident.

    -sting3r

  100. Re:The community isn't huge but it's definitely th by van+der+Rohe · · Score: 1

    Right, but every time I look into this stuff I always see the same key phrases:

    "in development"
    "plan to release soon"

    Meanwhile, apps like Cubase are on version 5.x and going strong. The Rewire protocol is on version 2. VSTi and DXi software synthesis is created FLAWLESS emulations of commercial historical synthesizers.

    When I can do THIS in Linux, I'll make the move.

  101. Don't replace programs only by Advocadus+Diaboli · · Score: 1
    From my point of view its not sufficient to replace a MS-Office with a StarOffice, K-Office, Open-Office or whatever.

    I think that the main advantage in productivity I can get is by going away from the "office thinking" that is nothing else than generating a lot of documents that serve only the purpose of being printed. We are still lightyears away from the paperless office and all office tools give us just a metapher that enables us to handle the paper in electronic form.

    My employer (a big PC manufacturer) is suffering a lot from thousands of technical docs that are in *.Doc and can only be re-used by copy & paste. In fact the technical documentation is a mess since there are no tools available in the MS-Office suite that would enable the user to write content instead of layout.

    I can imagine that we could solve the problem of outdated documents, wrong information buried on NTFS servers and so on easily by migrating our way to think from "preparing paper" to "preparing content" by using XML for example. And here Linux comes in with a wonderful set of tools to get the job done.

    Unfortuantely changing also the way of thinking requires more ability to learn and that's why its so difficult to convince people of the advantages. Well, I've given it a try and I didn't regret it so far.

  102. denial by dildofire · · Score: 2, Interesting

    why is it that every time someone posts something saying that they have NT/2K/XP running smoothly and that linux didn't work for them, they get attacked by people saying that they obviously know nothing about linux and they should learn to configure correctly before they criticize? isn't this a sign that linux needs to be made easier to configure, when trained sysadmins screw it up regularly?

    1. Re:denial by talks_to_birds · · Score: 1
      No.

      It's an example of how "trained" sysadmins groomed on wizards and radio buttons and checkboxes and other tabbed hand-holders don't really know how to administer something that may require editing the actual configuration file by hand.

      It's a classic fact of Window$ "Administration" that most sysadmins don't have the faintest clue as to what all the options they're selecting from various configuration frontends are actually *doing* behind the scenes where data is written to disk...

      Just 'cause you can select a bunch of stuff with a mouse and click "OK" doesn't mean you know what you're doing.

      t_t_b

      --
      I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
    2. Re:denial by dildofire · · Score: 1

      thank you for making my point for me. that's the exact attitude i'm talking about. it's the "why-don't-the-users-get-smarter?" atttitude. shouldn't the question be "how-can-we-make-things-easier?"

      it's really great that you know how to do all your configuration in vi. but it's still not the fastest or easiest way to do things. there shouldn't be a 6 month learning curve to correctly set up a server.

    3. Re:denial by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      No, actually it's a fact that unless your a direct and active part of the community, you're already behind the curve. As was said in the 'Linux and the Meaning of Life' thread the other day, if you write a TCP/IP driver to the RFCs, you can't even make a connection. Well, if you install Linux according to the books, you won't get a fully functional system.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  103. bug off, troll by Sunda666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Weird... I have *really* cheap (almost 4 year old crappy k6-2) with 128 megs, and it runs Linux 2.4+GNOME/enlightenment(primary)+KDE(some apps)+netscape6(ugh!)+staroffice 5.2, all at the same, and pretty decently.
    It surely runs 98/nt pretty well too. But forget about win2k. Too much bloat for the old k6. Tried once, no luck.

    --


    ``If a program can't rewrite its own code, what good is it?'' - Mel
  104. You sound like ... by TheViffer · · Score: 1

    a Microsoft salesperson making a pitch.

    --
    -- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
  105. Re:The community isn't huge but it's definitely th by CoughDropAddict · · Score: 2

    I didn't say you should switch to Linux today. I was only providing evidence to show that there IS an active audio development community.

    There's nothing negative about the terms "in development" or "plan to release soon." I think the same things could be said of the Linux kernel, but people use it in production every day. In particular, the snd editor "snd" is very powerful and mature, and Ardour is very capable right now. The latter isn't ready for casual users yet, but that doesn't mean it's vaporware--very substantial functionality is already in place, if anything it's the difficulty of the build process that keeps it from being useful to the general public.

    Again: you don't have to switch to Linux if you don't want to. But don't claim that there's no development community or no useful software available, because that simply isn't true.

  106. Still not there by b0bby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  107. Re:School by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 1

    due to win9x being most widely used out in the business world today, I believe win9x is the right choice for schools to run

    In that case, schools should have used Macs in the late 80s and early 90s, because the Mac environment then was closer to today's Win9x than the old Win 3.1 was.

    --
    You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
  108. Widow less office starts at the server. by MrLinuxHead · · Score: 1

    It is possible to duplicate an M$ Echange server with lots of stuff out in the Linux world. I haven't used them all but Bynari TradeServer and Communigate Pro come to mind. I can The last place I worked I set up a Linux box with Apache, LDAP, Samba, and Sendmail. I used both IMAP and POP3 to connect Outlook clients running in Internet Only mode. The users shared thier Free/Busy files on a Samba share. I set the Outlook clients to publish and search their .vfb files to the same shared folder. Worked like a charm for those wishing to set up meetings with others. I also set up shared calenders with the main phone person to do a group calender for our deparment. Save as a web page to same server. Everone could see if someone had the day off, was in class, or on the road. All you had to do is bookmark it. It Worked Good. For a address book we coded a script to pull a CSV list from the AS/400 used by payroll. Fresh Address Book Daily on demand. It was formatted to import directly into Outlook. That worked well, but I left before I coded a LDAP import. Bottem line is Suits still use Outlook and Office. I still think we can show a major ROI by useing OSS tools to replace MS in the glass house. Too many companies still can't relace their desktop OS at all, time is too important. They want something to set up fast and go. It looks like Ximin wants to sell a M$ Exchange MAPI connnector for Evolution.I say, Good for them. The fat MAPI cliient is a bit more complicated, is a bitch to code for, and must have taken a few months to get working. Kudos. Hopefully most businesses will see they don't need M$ in the server room, and then they will try it on the desktop. My 2 cents.

    --
    I may be bad with names, but I'll never forget your IP address
    1. Re:Widow less office starts at the server. by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      The other thing to remember is, I don't know an applicable term, but fourth party stuff. The guiding rule is 'figure out what you need, then use the tools so required.' Well, if the suits want a Customer Relationship Management system that drops things into exchange mailboxes, there you go. Or an Avaya style phone system, that will read you your email or email you your voice mail...Exchange. Exchange itself is pretty solid, if you know what you're doing. Add an Anti-Virus solution, one that lets you block attachments by extention, or just write an event sink and do it yourself. To make full use of exchange, outlook. Outlook, windows or mac. Other cool windows stuff, like SMS to allow for package distribution and imaged desktops, windows. And there you are.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  109. Congratulations by doublem · · Score: 2

    Congratulations Sir,

    You are the exact kind of person that Linux needs in the Desktop.

    A non-Ubergeek who uses Linux for everything they'd otherwise do on a MAC or Windows machine.

    Your statements are exactly what more people need to hear, and what the uneducated need to know.

    Thank you for posting. No doubt Bill Gates will send the re-education squad to your home to beat you into submission for daring to say Linux is easy to use.

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  110. Re:Pointless by Weh · · Score: 1
    ...use whatever gets the job done the fastest way. That's why when it comes to writing reports, creating slideshows, spreadsheets and graphs I use Office. In my youth I almost fucked up my graduation because I was foolish enough to start writing the last, crucial essays with LaTeX. Now, LaTeX is not a bad tool once you learn it but learning it takes LOTS OF TIME which I didn't have so much at the time.


    Does it really take more time to learn LaTeX than Word? Sure, if all you want to do is print typed text Word might be a lot faster. My experience with Word and large reports is not so good however. Word has it's own way of messing up things especially with pictures/objects. LaTeX takes some time to learn but once learned it's the fastest for creating big reports IMO, especially if you have lots of equations. I think LaTeX usually looks a lot better too. There's got to be a reason why most academic papers/reports use it...
  111. Re:School by ddillman · · Score: 1
    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.

    Speaking as an IT Staffer at a Technical College, I can share a little insight into why the school may still be using Win95/98/etc and Novell.

    Colleges (at least the ones here) have an Advisory Committee made up of people from the community in various industry areas. That committee makes recommendations as to what to use and teach based on what they are using and would like to see graduates have as knowledge when they start working. Since those represented companies will be supplying jobs for graduates, the colleges tend to take their recommendations very highly. Corporate usage in this region is very largely Windows on the desktop and Windows on the server. That we still use Novell as a primary network OS is testament to the strength and security of the OS, plus some nice licensing deals that Novell cut with this state.

    They don't push Windows because they want to make your life miserable; they push Windows because that's what the job providers tell them they want to see in graduates, plain and simple.

    --
    Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuse. -- L. Long
  112. the "single" most important thing.... by jasonu · · Score: 1

    - "The biggest single challenge, in my experience, is inertia," Liebovitch said.
    - "The single biggest problem at the enterprise level is politics," said Leon Brooks
    - "The single biggest obstacle to Linux everywhere is specific Windows applications ...," Brooks said

    I think maybe we should agree on a single most imporant thing, or agree on the collection of most important issues. Who wants leadership that can't make up their mind?

    --
    ...I don't have enough faith to believe in the "big bang"...
  113. Out-of-Office Maintenance and Troubleshooting by Vilk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Much to the chagrin of Linux zealots everywhere, many companies choose Windows and will continue to do so because support by third-party companies is much more plentiful and cheaper than support for Unix- or Linux-based solutions. Our head of IS was an MCSE for the sole reason that there is no major, recognized certification for the Unix or Linux platforms, Brainbench and other small, web-based or obscure ones aside. Perhaps one of the greatest drawbacks to Linux is what many people consider one of its most endearing qualities: lack of centralization. However, if it is ever to become a major force, progress will have to be made on this front.

    --
    Vilk, from the ranks of the freaks
  114. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  115. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  116. Re:A catch-22. -- What's the alternative? by Leeji · · Score: 1

    I agree that a Linux console is a beautiful thing, but what do you reccomend to host a desktop other than X? What about all the user-friendliness that Gnome / KDE offer?

    I like using Linux, and I enjoy the freedom it gives. However, every time I watch the whole screen flicker and flash when I switch windows, I have to simply take it as the "cost of running Linux." When I watch a Konqueror window take 5s (or more) until the text stops moving around new images, I have to simply take it as the "cost of runnning Linux."

    In big business, productivity is a very big thing. Although not scientifically sound, Linux starts to look a lot more expensive when you multiply 5 s lost here and there by the cost of many developers' salary. It gets even worse when you watch guys run around the office on a sneaker net because they can't figure out how to resolve \\server1\shared_dir

    --
    It all goes downhill from first post ...
  117. Hancom by FudgePackinJesus · · Score: 1

    Hancom is about to release their Linux/Win32/MacOS X office package very soon. It's all build with Qt meaning it will blend in very well with the KDE environment (cut and paste, etc...).

    Given the cross platform nature of it, it is also very likely you'll see it stocked on shelves where as pure linux apps tend to be neglected by retailers due to their low sales. Hancom Word is a very mature application and is quite popular in Asia. The pro package a will contain applications from theKompany who contributes to open source(especially with their very usefull PyQt). Even tho it isn't open source it should be a good thing for linux in general.

  118. what a troll hole this is. by Erris · · Score: 1
    I work in an electronic music studio. I'd love to use Linux, but the apps just aren't there. The fact that there's almost no development community addressing this potentially enormous market amazes me to no end.

    Ahem. I suppose you are unaware of the Debian Multimedia Release. No? How about the hundreds of applications that people are building that form the foundation of that release? If that's not a large enough community, I'm not sure what is. A quick google search will turn up plenty of sites about movie making and sound editing on Linux. It's only a mater of time before it becomes much easier to use. But, until then, I'll use Windows. Not because it's great, but because it has the apps I need.

    Woops, you are a troll. If you really cared about sound, you would be using a Mac. Dr. Watson? What's that about? I've never been able to make all the Windoze multimedia trash to behave and work together. The one computer I tried to work with M$ on was unstable, half working, and produced inferior product. I suppose I was just not leet enough to spend enough, but something makes me think my experience was more typical than the adverts at CompUSA.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  119. roll up your sleeves by mj6798 · · Score: 2
    I work in an electronic music studio. I'd love to use Linux, but the apps just aren't there. The fact that there's almost no development community addressing this potentially enormous market amazes me to no end.

    Well, ask yourself: why aren't you developing the open source software you want? That will probably tell you why others in your community aren't working on it either. Most open source software comes about because end users with a specific problem can't find a good/affordable commercial solution and write their own. Then, they share the results with the community.

    If the Windows software you are using is cheap enough, good enough, and extensible enough, then there is no need for open source software and you'd be foolish to switch. If, on the other hand, it leaves something to be desired, well, get going and write something better yourself and share it.

    1. Re:roll up your sleeves by maaleron · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps it is because he like many in the field are artists and would not know where to begin to create his own solution. Just because a person uses a software solution in his/her work does not mean that they have the means or skills to write their own software. Because the Linux/OSS community is generally comprised of people whose job it is to write software/know computers inside and out, they forget that not all of us have the skills to do the same. So the likely reason that he isn't developing the OSS himself is because he can't and many in his field are in the same boat. Until someone with the proper skill set (music/software) creates the OSS, users like myself must rely on Windows audio software which is normally not cheap but usually is good enough and extensible. It is not a lack of need which impedes progress, but a lack of ability.

    2. Re:roll up your sleeves by mj6798 · · Score: 2
      would not know where to begin to create his own solution. Just because a person uses a software solution in his/her work does not mean that they have the means or skills to write their own software. Because the Linux/OSS community is generally comprised of people whose job it is to write software/know computers inside and out, they forget that not all of us have the skills to do the same.

      I don't forget that at all. I'm just saying that free software doesn't fall from the sky. If you don't get the free software you like on Linux, it's not because Linux developers are too nerdy to recognize your needs, it's because they have no interest in fulfilling everybody's needs for free. When you get free software, it's because someone is developing something for their own needs and sharing the results freely.

      Until someone with the proper skill set (music/software) creates the OSS, users like myself must rely on Windows audio software which is normally not cheap but usually is good enough and extensible.

      Yes, that's the way the real world works, and open source or free software doesn't change that.

      You do have lots of options, however. You could get together with other musicians and pay someone to develop the software for you. That might be expensive in the short term, but in the long run, it's cheaper because you get the features you want and don't pay for every upgrade.

      You could learn programming yourself like lots of other professionals have done. It's not hard. Really.

      Or you could figure out how the existing music software on Linux works (of which there is actually quite a bit).

    3. Re:roll up your sleeves by maaleron · · Score: 1

      You do have lots of options, however. You could get together with other musicians and pay someone to develop the software for you. That might be expensive in the short term, but in the long run, it's cheaper because you get the features you want and don't pay for every upgrade


      Or i could use that same amount of money to pay for proprietary Windows software (and likely every upgrade i would require for many years) and not have to worry about migrating to another platform.


      You could learn programming yourself like lots of other professionals have done. It's not hard. Really.


      I can and do program my own tools when it is feasible to do so. However, to replace many of the tools I use on a daily basis is not a viable option. I can't afford to spend months (years) to recode every app I use in Windows for a *Nix platform. That's time better spent creating (and earning money for important things such as food)


      ould figure out how the existing music software on Linux works (of which there is actually quite a bit).


      None of which compares to its Windows counterpart in stability, functionality or ease of use. Many of these projects were started to provide a *Nix replacement for an existing product (whether Mac or Windows). Again, the time and effort required to migrate to a new platform outweighs the advantages gained (especially if the new tools i have to look forward to are just one offs of the ones I currently use)

    4. Re:roll up your sleeves by mj6798 · · Score: 2
      None of which compares to its Windows counterpart in stability, functionality or ease of use.

      Actually, a lot of the music software for platforms like Linux is more powerful than what you get on Windows. It simply caters to a completely different crowed.

      Many of these projects were started to provide a *Nix replacement for an existing product (whether Mac or Windows).

      Not at all. Much of the non-commercial music software comes out of research projects.

      Again, the time and effort required to migrate to a new platform outweighs the advantages gained (especially if the new tools i have to look forward to are just one offs of the ones I currently use)

      As I was saying: open source neither aims nor functions to maximize the number of random users on open source platforms. In different words, if you won't contribute, nobody really cares whether you use open source or not.

  120. Re:School by adamjaskie · · Score: 1

    Well, it might be good if its set up properly.
    They are using an old version of netware, and it runs horribly. Actually, they have two networks. One is a novell network with win95 boxes on it, the other is an appletalk network with a buch of imacs on it. This is the first year i have actually even had access to a windows box in school. Also, i never said windows was better than novell. Im sure novell is quite good, when it is being set up by a competent administrator, and almost anything is better than the windows fileshareing network.

    --
    /usr/games/fortune
  121. Re:The community isn't huge but it's definitely th by wishus · · Score: 1

    Well, I selected (+1, Informative), but for some reason it used (-1, Overrated). I am posting here in hopes that it will erase my moderation.

    I'm very sorry.

  122. KDE performance is good by Erris · · Score: 1
    I know less about the newer KDE releases with regard to frendliness, performance, and bloat. If someone would be kind enough to fill me in on how KDE is in these respects, I'd appreciate it.

    The KDE desktop and applications work just fine on my wife's 500MHz K6/2 with 128M RAM. By just fine, I mean faster than M$ Office on a nicer machine at work I'm forced to endure. It's faster by a factor of two. XP might not even work. Print services work just fine and were as easy to configure as Red Hat could make them.

    For a fast clean window environment, you might check out Window Maker on Debian. Fast, clean, beautiful and functional.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  123. Re:School by adamjaskie · · Score: 1

    "...probably the biggest nerd in your school."

    No, but im up there ;)

    --
    /usr/games/fortune
  124. Re:School by adamjaskie · · Score: 1

    Well, most of the pcs at my school are pentium classic 166 with little 2GiB hard drives. They run OK if they are properly set up, but then, even with all the "security" crap (hiding desktop icons and removing the shortcut keys for run and explore) stupid students install netscape 6.2 and morpheus on them. Do you have any idea how SLOW netscape 6.2 is on a pentium 166?!?!?!

    --
    /usr/games/fortune
  125. no quick fix by mj6798 · · Score: 2
    Apparently, the concept of writing a device driver without patching the kernel is still impossible even though Windows/Mac have been doing it for many years.

    Linux has had dynamically loadable kernel modules since before MacOS even had a kernel. Your standard distribution comes with lots of them; use "modprobe" to insert them. Even third party device drivers almost never require "patching" the kernel, but merely are compiled separately and then dynamically loaded. Device drivers can be compiled and loaded/unloaded on a running system.

    I'm a developer, so I'm thinking of writing support for some of these things (such as an easy VPN installer). Or, maybe a universal driver installer that would automagically patch the kernel and say 'You must reboot now', ala Windows.

    Please don't. It's pretty clear that you don't know all that much about Linux. You can bet that most of the "problems" you think are there already have perfectly good solutions. Like any other system, it takes a while to figure them out.

    Alot of the problems in Windows can be attributed to Microsoft trying to be backwards-compatible. But with Linux, the kernel and major libraries (ie. glibc) are always changing underneath your feet.

    You've got to be kidding. Linux has had a stable, fully documented system API since its beginning, an API that is compatible with numerous other UNIX implementations. I can run code from 10 or 20 years ago on my Linux machine with no problems, taking full advantage of the more powerful processors and memory.

    Long-term stability of APIs is one of the big advantages of Linux over Windows.

  126. Re:School by adamjaskie · · Score: 1

    "...novell, when setup right, kicks ass... "

    But, its not ;)

    --
    /usr/games/fortune
  127. What about file sharing by wfrp01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!
  128. Our office has no windows by gklyber · · Score: 2, Funny

    I work at a large, international corporation. Our office has no windows at all. It's really quite depressing at times. I miss seeing the light of day.

  129. Re:sigh. not again. by jchristopher · · Score: 2
    i am not trying to create flamebait, but linux, with its current UIs, will not be successful in the desktop market.

    it is clunky, inelegant and unsophisticated. secretaries will like it even less than windows.

    Ximian Gnome is a nicer GUI than Windows. The problem isn't with the GUIs, however, the problem is with the rest of the OS - loading and unloading drivers, compiling things, etc.

    As an example, please briefly explain how to add an external USB hard drive to a Linux system. Your answer will likely involve some command line work to load and unload modules, then an explanation of the 'mount' command. You'll also need to do some digging to find out where the USB device 'lives'. (dev/sda1 or whatever). Under Windows, you would simply say "plug it in and watch for a drive letter". Those kinds of problems are much more serious than an ugly gui.

  130. What about vendor support by bob_hir · · Score: 1

    Meaning support from the PC manufacturer for the in 99% of cases alternate OS installed on the machine. In some cases, simply upgrading the OS on a PC negates support until you downgrade to the OD supplied with the PC. Maybe some vendors offer some support, but tech support for windows is hard enough to get. Does your Hp's and Dell's really approve of an OS switch....?

  131. same for me. by Dave_bsr · · Score: 1

    Athlon 500, 160 MB of RAM, runs nice and fast. I'm running KDE, mandrake* 8.0, with the Gimp, xmms, and some other fun stuff all goin. It's not notacably slowing down at all. I think it's all in the RAM, personally, but that system runs nice and fast, with no lags (like win98, also on that box, seems to develop over time...*shrug*)

    And speed is fun, but what about maintenance? good grief...It's nice to just let my brothers play on linux and enjoy themselves with games instead of constantly keeping win98 happy. I don't have to worry about one of them forcing me to reboot when they do something stupid, I just take care with their file access and relax.

    *I know, I know, don't admit to it on Slashdot, but Mandrake suits my needs.

    --


    Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
  132. Re:School by c13v3rm0nk3y · · Score: 1

    I can agree with you in principle, only.

    Saying something is good if it is "setup properly" is disingenuous, at best. Of course, when something is maintained properly, it will be better!

    The point I was making is that NetWare (even NW 3.x) is, and was, a complete network operating system from the ground up, which supports a very complete ACL model. It can be configured to host a a huge variety of clients, while appearing transparent to most of those clients.

    NetWare is a good choice for a mixed use network with deep security needs who are on a budget (like a school or university). You let the Windows boxes be workstations, and leave the back-end and user authentication/authorization to NetWare.

    I certainly won't deny that NetWare has it's warts. Version 4.0 is a big improvement over previous releases, and they've finally given into TCP/IP. I'd still trust my class marks more if they were kept on a NetWare volume than a homogeneous Windows NT or Active Directory network.

    --
    -- clvrmnky
  133. Re:School by adamjaskie · · Score: 1

    Ok, here goes:
    The computers at my school are used for only a few things:
    -Internet Browsing
    -Word Processing
    -Various misc stuff that your not supposed to do anyway (AIM, games, etc)

    Because of this, we use mostly iMacs, but in a few classrooms, there are PC labs. One example is my Web Design class, and another is the CAD class. All the PCs are connected to a Novell network, and the iMacs are on an Appletalk network. The really funny thing is that in my APCS class, we write console based C++ programs on iMacs!

    Anyway, wouldent it be much better for the public systems (used only for internet access and word processing) to be centrally administered thin clients running like FVWM2 with Netscape and Staroffice?

    Im sure it would be much more stable and simple to use than iMacs running Claris Works and Netscape. Also, there do exist web design and CAD programs for linux.

    --
    /usr/games/fortune
  134. Re:Pointless by c13v3rm0nk3y · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't advocate anything, at least not without knowing more details. Each company has different needs which would need to be taken into consideration.

    Sometimes a typewriter would be the most productive tool some people will use at the office.

    The fact is, if you know how to make Linux run for you, you could take it to the office, given a little work.

    Everyone else just ends up using the box the IT guys give to them. Most use it badly.

    If it was my company, however, you'd be free to use whatever box you wanted. I'd mandate no dependecies on proprietory application file formats, however, and you can guess what the backend would be.

    --
    -- clvrmnky
  135. A better analogy for you: by Erris · · Score: 1
    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.

    It all boils down to this: My mother is a sucker. She bought one of Bill Gates air cooled VWs (Windows ME) and it pains her to use it everyday. He charged her about 100 times what my Porche costs (Debian), but she would be better off with a Ford (Red Hat), Lincoln (Mandrake), or even a Honda (Turbo Linux), with a few German performance parts (KDE). I wish that I had the time to help her out, but she is fiercly loyal to a few model T parts (AOL) that are hard to come by in the modern world. Bill Gate's junk has been the ruin of two perfectly usable computers she has owned and it makes me sad to think of all the others out there who have suffered like she has.

    The point? Win32 is easier than *nix. And Win32 is STILL TOO HARD for the masses.

    What's easy about a box that does not work? Most people end up throwing away their M$ computers because the software fails. Trying to make M$ stuff stable and usable is an imposible task.

    Offices are the ideal place for linux desktops. They offer low price, security, stablility, and more. The few things that are difficult or "missing" are not really needed in an office environment where 90% of the work are routine reports. It's good to remember that all these "complex business documents" used to be prepared on typewriters and kept in file drawers with little better organization than alphabatized indexes. All the Linux distros are up to this by now, and all long surpassed M$ junk in all other catagories.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    1. Re:A better analogy for you: by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but everyone I know is able to at least muddle through windows. I've never known anyone to throw away a $1000 machine simply because they think windows sucks.

      If you're really that dierce an anti-MS bigot, then tell your mother to try the wonderful world of Apple. Get her an iMac. AOL can be had there too. But that only strengthens my argument a bit. This isn't a Microsoft is good argument. This is a Linux is bad (in this particular roll) argument. Through no technical fault of Linux. It's simply a matter of the fact that this software has to function in *gasp* the real world!

      As for a box that does not work, I garuntee you that that box worked when it came from Compaq or HP or Dell or Gateway or Bob's Discount Computerama. When it stops working, 99% of the time it's the fault of the end l-user. Now are you telling me that Linux is *more* safe to clueless l-users? Now I'm not talking office environment here wher an admin sets her permissions to nil, I'm talking about the "your mother's home PC" scenerio. Where whoever owns the box has root. Don't make me laugh. As I said, Linix isn't easier to use, it's HARDER. Just like a Dodge (or Chrystler if you're in Europe) Viper isn't easier to drive than a Dodge Neon, it's harder. Great analogy there, as most drivers have a hard time getting a Viper out of the driveway on the first try (I know, a neighbor has one and he likes to let people try while he laughs). By the same token, a Dodge Viper is inapropriate for corperate fleet use. I don't care if you're bitter that Microsoft has the audacity to *gasp* charge money for it's product. They *have* *won* on the desktop. You can call it the MS tax and you can whine and bitch and you can refuse to buy a MS PC and you can buy Apple, etc. But that doesn't change the fact that Win32 is just more usable for my mom. A friend of mine is just like you. He's a die hard Linux guru. Works as a sysadmin for some company in Manhatan. All the PCs in his house are Linux. Except one. As die hard as he is, he can't convince his own wife to use it. Oh he's tried, he's taught her, but she grasps windows. She doens't get Linux. She'll sit there, patiently listening to what he tells her, *enduring* his lesson for his sake. And inevdiably, he'll stop talking and ask her to do whatever it was he told her to do. She'll do it wrong and he'll say "no, no, not like that" and you can just see the frustration building. Eventually, yeah, she does get what ever obscure fool thing he was trying to teach her that she doesn't care about anyway. She's a bright girl. But it doesn't happen without pulling some teeth. And guess what? She still prefers Windows. She's more productive there because of it. She can use AOL and Office and whatever other user friendly familiar apps she has there. While he sits quietly in his den compiling the kernel of the month.

      Now if Linux guys can't convince their own families to drop Windows in favor of Linux, then where do they get off saying it's better for the Average Joe? Canse let's face it, that's the determining factor of weather it's ready for the corperate desktop. Is it usable by the average Joe? If not, stick to something easier.

      As for cost savings, someone's got to administer all those *nix boxes. And last I checked, *nix admins commanded fairly hefty saleries. I'm fairly sure the friend I mentioned is making ~$100K I know the last job he quit he was making $70K. Let's say you have 200 boxes in an office. At $200 per MS license, (assuming no bulk discount, which they DO offer) that's just $40,000. Leaving you at least $50,000+ to bring in a windows guy if you still think you need it (yes, windows guys are considerably cheaper than their *nix counterparts last I checked). Plus you have the added bonus that windows is 1) so simple and 2) so wide spread that someone who already works for you can probably more than handle it. Now, granted if you're enterprise level and are going to be using a *nix back end, or using *nix for something else it's legitimatly good for anyway, this may be something you can pass on to someone already on your payroll anyway.

      Another consideration that you may not have thought of is familiarity with apps. Many companies, large and small require that job applicants be familiar with certain apps. MS Word, Excel, and a couple other office family products are common.

      When is the last time you saw this:
      Wanted:
      Small accounting firm seeks administrative assistant. Salery $16/ Hr to start Must have working knowlege of Red Hat Linux Star Office and KDE.

      IT wouldn't likley draw much of a responce.

      Face it, you may not like MS, but your fight in and of it self is counterproductive. Concentrate on building Linux where it has a fighting chance for now. Servers.

  136. So the computers run ok... by Raistlin99 · · Score: 1

    as long as the kiddies do what they are supposed to do. Sounds like your school suffers from user stupidity instead of a bad network setup.

    --
    I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
  137. What is wrong with the setup? by Raistlin99 · · Score: 1

    What does it not do properly? Does it give access to restricted files to everyone? Does it allow students to save to protected drives? What does it do wrong? You say it doesn't work but you don't say whats wrong.

    --
    I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
  138. Re:Really?!?!?! Really. by Erris · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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?

    OK, Linux is more secure. Linux is more stable. Linux is easier to use. Linux is easier to maintain. Linux is easier to modify. Linux avoids the data loss propriatory applications cause by changing their formats and interfaces. Linux programs can easily share data. Linux has much better and more flexible foundations.

    The article did well to consider a single aspect. Don't we all know that each of the above statements is blantantly obvious? The points must be made one at a time to overcome the billions of dollars M$ has put into adverts and FUD. PHBs will nod in agreement as they consider the world around them, but they lack a basis for compairison. Articles like this build up that basis, while mentioning the other points. Throw them in your PHB's face at once is not polite. No one likes feeling like a sucker.

    Reference Neiven's Protector: At some point you wake up and think, "I've been stupid".

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  139. Java a hope for linux on the desktop...? Ba ha ha! by Laplace · · Score: 2

    I graduated from college in 1997; I learned Java in 1996. Back then I heard all sorts of fun things about Java being the multiplatform language of the future. "Write once, run anywhere!" That was five years ago. People still hold onto to the Java Fantasy? The Java Lie?

    I get more stable, portable code in C++ than in Java any day.

    --
    The middle mind speaks!
  140. Re:Cheaper? - Learning curves by indigo78 · · Score: 1

    I think Linux and Windows just have different learning curves, and this can create some confusion about their costs.
    On Windows: you learn quickly the first steps, you can manage lots of basic things and you're happy. Your system administrator is happy, too. Once you become a smarter user, you find many lack of features you'd like to see, or you can realize that some things you'd like to do are just very difficult to carry out (think about the Registry, about restoring a complete configuration for your workstation, or simply about file permissions on Win2k). Your system administrator isn't happy anymore: he must care about security, his users aren't easy to manage anymore, he must check file sharings, resource access and so on.
    On Linux: you start it. You can't understand what it's doing. You just see tons of senseless writings. You start X. You can't understand why you can't put your favorite app's icon in Enlightenment menus. If you stay on it, you can understand its power. You learn that with some text files (sometimes easy and well commented) you can handle everything (no complicated Registry) and that you can do big things in few minutes (e.g. upgrading Squid and ProFTPd in less than 20 minutes, or reinstalling a full-featured workstation in 2 hours, just importing a configuration you've already made). And, most of all, you don't need a well trained MCSE to do these things.
    So, Linux can be time expensive, but only in the first time. This is why most of Linux users and system administration have started using it in their spare time. Once you've learnt the basics, you can save a lot of time. Once you've learnt shell scripting and a bit of programming, you can save weeks of work.

    --
    I'm fat, you're ugly. I can get slimmer, and you?
  141. What the $^&*!!? by wfrp01 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    A Troll?!

    Excuse me, but does anyone on slashdot /not/ work in a romper room?

    It doesn't do much for linux advocacy to ignore valid problems and hope they'll just go away. You're not going to find your brain by sticking your head up your ass. On the other hand, maybe you will.

    When you're finally old enough to think about a job interview, try telling your prospective employers that you don't think secure user-level security for shared file space on their corporate network matters. Explain your linux-only implementation, please. I'd really like to hear about it. Really.

    Sometimes I really am a troll. But in this case, the only thing I'm trolling for is someone to disabuse me. Not abuse, disabuse. It's in the dictionary.

    --

    --Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
  142. Re:Pointless by jchristopher · · Score: 2
    Devfs supports automatic device registration

    Let me ask you a serious question. As a new user, how does knowing that "Devfs supports automatic device registration" help me at all?

    Maybe you just don't know what's out there, because you're so convinced that it doesn't exist, you don't bother to look.

    That's exactly my point! The user will NEVER look. For a new user, it either works out of the box or it doesn't. It's not reasonable to expect them to download, compile, and install components just to give the computer basic functionality.

  143. how about this... by Mikesch · · Score: 1

    right click start button, properties, classic start menu. your desktop goes back to the way it was in previous versions of windows. sick of msn messenger getting in the way asking you to sign up for passport? uninstall it.

    edit c:\windows\inf\sysoc.inf

    remove the word "hide" from the line containing msmsgs. you can now uninstall it from the add/remove programs, windows components.

    yeah, microsoft gets pretty evil about burying stuff where it doesnt want you to find it, but you can usually customize it fairly easily. once you poke around a bit.

  144. I don't run f***ing desktops; I run applications by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    > 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.

    Windows desktop has a touchy-feely-draggy-droppy-pointy-clicky GUI, and it's a fat bloated pig.
    Gnome/KDE desktops have touchy-feely-draggy-droppy-pointy-clicky GUI's, and they're fat bloated pigs. Well, like, duhhh.

    Here's the story. You don't need a "desktop", you only need a window-manager. I don't run desktops, I run applications. I install Gnome and KDE for the apps, then immediately switch to FVWM2. I can still run AbiWord/Gnumeric/OpenOffice/Netscape etc, etc. And they fly on both my linux machines (433 mhz and 450 mhz, both with 128 megs of RAM).

    Before Windows, there was DOS. It was the object of much derision, because it was "merely an application launcher" rather than a "real OS". But a $5,000 Intel box running the "application lancher" smoked $50,000 "workstations" running "a real OS" when running spreadsheets or word processors (Trivia; Wordperfect started life as an app on DataGeneral computers).

    OK, so FVWM2 is "merely a window manager", but my 450 mhz machine will beat your 900 mhz machine running "a real desktop" with the same amount of RAM when it comes to doing the things that we expect computers to do; i.e. running applications.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  145. Sigh. Here's the point you seemed to have missed. by Erris · · Score: 2
    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.

    You have got it all backwards. It's never been selfish.

    What can be less selfish than sharing your source code, without cost, so that anyone can can use, modify and redistribute it as they please?

    What can be more cooperative than making everything work together?

    Why do you assume that people's egos are so big that they will be hurt if no one else uses their work? Sorry bud, I'm going to continue to advocate free software for what's there and for how awful the alternatives are. If people want to be abused by the likes of M$, that's their problem. I'll advise them not to just like I'll advise you not to go riding while drunk. Don't get confused about the motives, some people simply have everyone's best interest at heart. I've got what I want, I'd like you to get what you want too.

    Then, the linux community can say "We support Linux better than any MS Support service! And our support is $0.00 per hour."

    What support is lacking? It's not nice to call people "clueless newbies". With man pages, and online info even the most bone-headed engineer like me can become profficient. Sure, it was all free but a few reference books. M$ has never been as easy, and most of the real info is hidden.

    Having given all that, why should people give their time up as well? Lawers, doctors, engineers and others charge for their insight on publically available information. Would you deny computer consultants a living? I suppose you would have them all work to help M$ maintain it's vanishing monopoly. Blah, I'm never going to write another line of Win32 code again and I'll never recomend M$ to anyone. The whole mindset is screwed up, and the products are all worst in their class. I'm not getting paid and I'll write what ever I feel like. I'll give it away when I feel like it. I offer advice when I feel like it, and I give away hardware to my frinds. If you want me to do what you want, you can do something I want, like pay me.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  146. A tale of two women, jane users. by Erris · · Score: 2
    My wife uses Red Hat and likes it. It was cheaper, easier to install, works better, is easier to maintain, and is more difficult for her to screw up. She knows the root pasword but does not need to use it. That Linux is ready for the desktop is more than obvious at my house it's an accomplished fact. M$ junk is NOT easy to learn, despite the "familiarity" of it's ever changing and never truly unified face. Hell, it's not even easy to keep up with. We quit and followed the path of least resistance.

    $200 per seat for an M$ desktop? You are dreaming, or you think that their crummy OS alone is a useful tool. Those things cost as much as mainframes did, and the prices get jacked every year. Unix admins make more because they are currently deployed on higher dollar work. They are deployed on higher dollar work because people spending money want results and *nix delivers where M$ fails. The work is not that much harder, in fact it's easier. Digging ditches is harder than drafting and pays worse too. Go figure, some people dig ditches. Study after study continue to prove Linux is cheaper and better. The only people still recomending M$ are salesmen, PHBs and marketdroids.

    My mom chucked out two $1000 machines because the software quit working. Yep, M$ was the only thing wrong with them. Parts of them form my gateway and a mail server "Lusers" is what M$ considers their customers. Her loss bothered me a little. Fraud bothers me. Bitter? Nah, I'm going to bundle them up and sell them to physics students cheap, then take her to dinner with the money. Blame the luser just won't cut it anymore. People expect things to work and keep working. The M$ upgrade train is derailed.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    1. Re:A tale of two women, jane users. by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      Buddy, I find it hard to believe you're even old enough to be married with the immature way you're aproaching this (you wouldn't take me very seriously if I kept calling it "suckux" and I find no humor in "M$". In fact, it makes you look like a script kiddie). As for me being dreaming for the $200 price of Windows, nope. That's what you can get XP for *retail* at your locak Wal-Mart. OEM and bulk are of course even cheaper. Or perhaps you'll need a link to persuade you.

      As for your wife liking red hat, good for her. I'm sure she's an anomoly though. The very concept of "root" is not intuative. "What, you mean I have to log in as someone else to change things?" It's a good idea on a multiuser system, but it doesn't fly as well for mom and dad.
      On the desktop, I'll take Windows over Linux any day. I can install a copy of XP in just a few minutes (literally with just two or three clicks of a mouse, as the default settings are usualy exactly what I need.) The interface is simple enough that anyone that is so inclined will figure enough to be productive quite quickly.
      Linux? Forget it. The first time I tried to install slackware, I gave up in frustration. Then someoen told me slackware is known for being difficult to install. So I figured, okay, bad distro. Bought myself a shrinkwraped copy of Red Hat. I still needed a Linux guru to help me geting it running the first time. That's not what I call easy. At the time, I had been programing for 10 years. Since I got my first PC. I was hardly a novice. Perhaps that was the problem. Perhaps windows has broken my mind so badly that I'm not capable of grasping anything else. Well if that's the case, Windows still wins. Since it enjoys something like 80% - 90% market domination now.

      And don't start on *nix vs Windows in the server world. Read my posts, I never supported Windows in that roll. Just the desktop. *nix has it's roll and so does Windows.

      What is so hard to accept about that? Everyone I know uses windows on their desktop machines except for one individual. The geltalman who's wife I mentioned. A few do work or play with *nix, but Windows is the primary desktop. Now I probably know hundreds of people. This isn't just close personal friends of course. This is everyone I can think of. Guess what? They all get by fine. None of them were foolish/spiteful enough to throw away their machines. Windows serves them all well. From the 50 year old grocer with Win 95 that just uses it to check his email write letters and browse opera (music, not browser) sites. To developers that code a certain Miva merchant killer on Win2K. As I speak, this is being typed on Windows. I have an AIM window open, 7 people I know are online. All of them on windows boxes (with one possible exception who's in an internet cafe in Korea but he uses windows at home)

      User1 Works for an ISP runs Windows 2000
      User2 Works for a small office as a net admin. Runs Windows XP / Red Hat on dual boot.
      User3 Unemployed. She runs 98. Uses AOL if that's an indication of her computer literacy.
      User4 Works for an ISP, runs Windows XP.
      User5 Army Inteligence stationed in Korea. Runs windows 95 or 98 (I forget which) on his old pentium at home.
      User6 College student. She too runs windows. 98 or Me, I can't recall which now.
      User7 College student. Runs 98se.

      As for things working, the world hasn't come to an end for myself or any of these people. What is it that you think windows does to computers? Do you think it physicaly damages them? Applications can crash. Especially on the patchwork kernel of Win 9x. But I run 9x and NT based machines. And I have never had a crash under 2000 that I couldn't reproduce and trace back to a specific application. And even then I've never had a crash hang the machine. Yes, I do run my machines 24/7. And i run seti@home, so the processors are always crunching away. No memory leaks except with some beta software, like bearshare. It all runs beutifuly.

      Can Linux do that too? Apparently. But why would I want to use Linux? Just to be diffrent? There every compelling reason to use Windows on the desktop. So far as I can tell, the only reason not to is because people that spell Microsoft with a "$" say it's bad. I'm the first to admit MS's software isn't always the best in the world. I *hate* ie as a web browser. I used Netscape 4 until Mozilla .95 came out (the first one truly usable IMO). Mainly because IE was just frustrating for me to use. Even on a fast system, it seemed slugish to me. But for an OS, windows is my choice. And guess what, buddy, I'm not alone. For an office app, Office is my pick. Sure it has it's issues. But it has the fewest issues of any apps I've found. Not to mention the whole Office documents being a standard now thing...

      I realize all these posts have been quite long winded. Really it's because I can't believe how remarkably stubborn some people can be. You don't like MS, okay I get that. Nobody's asking you to. But it's foolish to just dismiss them.

      In a way it's ironic. MS isn't so foolish. They use BSD for servers at hotmail, use it for some limited dev work in Redmond and they even borrow hevily from much of BSD's protocalls and concepts. MS may be competing with BSD, but they're not stupid. They recognize the right tool for the job. When possible, they use their own product. In fact, I'm sure they probably use it more than they should, since it is *theirs*. Hell, they even develop software for the Mac. I suppose that's because the Mac actually *has* a market percentage of end users.

      I've been reading your previous posts going back a couple of weeks. It's clear that you are just a closed minded bigot. I wouldn't be supprised if the last time you used Windows was at v3.1. Your loss. I kind of see it on the same level as those people that boycot DVDs because of the MPAA. You're missing out.

      Good for you for standing up for what you believe in. And I really do mean that, that's not intended sarcasticly. But I just can't agree with you on this one. From where I stand, you're either simply misinformed, or you're a troll. I suspect it's the former. But I also suspect there is nothing that could sway your opinion.

      What a shame.

  147. Cheaper? NOT! by mcrbids · · Score: 2

    It all depends on how you define your "time". I've been using the same /home filesystem on my Linux box for about 3 years. Across two motherboard updates, and 3 hard drives.

    I still have files that were there 3 years ago - so data loss is (kinda) a joke.

    I've never had to spend 2 days copying and re-installing applications after my system crashed - it's never crashed, and even if it did, my /home partition (with all my data) remains after installation.

    THAT's time saving.

    Time saving is when you set up a mission-critical server in a remote location, and never step foot in the place for over a year (while under support contract) and every month or two spend an hour and apply security updates. Perfect uptime the whole time.

    THAT'S time saving.

    Time saving is when I have a desktop loaded with windows and applications, and a customer calls about something out of left field, and I can simply choose another desktop, take care of the customer's needs, and then resume on the first desktop with nothing disturbed.

    THAT's time saving.

    Compare that to my buddy Windows user - every so often, his DSL modem software crashes his computer, corrupting the registry. He's gone to great lengths to make his system easily reloaded, since he has to do it so very often - particularly after loading any new software.

    The time, nightmares and hassles he goes through for data recovery, crash prevention and moderation simply astound me.

    But, you say that's easier?!?!

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  148. Powerpoint for Linux? by dytin · · Score: 1

    Being a student that needs to occasionally create a powerpoint presentation for school, one of the primary things that is keeping windows software on my computer (other than games) is powerpoint. It seems that almost every other office-type program has at least one equal for Linux. So, are there any programs out there for Linux that can create powerpoint compatible files (ie a .ppt file that will be able to be displayed on a windows machine)?

  149. Reality Check by Mr.+Foogle · · Score: 1

    I LIKE Unix. I like Linux. Some of my stuff is Linux, some NT, some Solaris.

    1. We must use three CAD tools - we're a service bureau, and our customers drive the software we use. None of the vendors are contemplating porting to Linux.

    2. I get paid to maintain a stable network, not to add new stuff. I don't have a financial incentive to push a drive for Linux if my company wants to PAY me break the network and add new stuff, that would be cool . . .

    --
    Display some adaptability.
  150. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  151. Re:Pointless by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 2
    [Linux] 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?
    You haven't had the pleasure of Windows XP, have you? So far I have not been able to get my scanner or my CD-RW drive to work with it. Like it or not, Windows needs an administrator, too. The difference between Linux and Windows is that everyone knows Linux needs an admin, while Micro$oft is bending over backward to make you think you don't need one for Windows. But anyone who works in an office knows better.

    My wife works at Micro$oft and is expected to load her own software and do other tasks that in my office are done by the admin, yet even they still have admins. If Micro$oft needs admins for their Windoze boxes, what makes you think tato22's mom and little sister don't?

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  152. X-windows as a workaround . by fymidos · · Score: 1

    Using X-windows, you will only need one for all employees .

    --
    Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
  153. Re:Windows to Mac by colatek · · Score: 1

    I hardly doubt Mac is going to disappear anytime soon. I myself am a recent convert. I love it. I was toying with Linux trying to make a break from Windows but the learning curve was too high for me and I needed something more "friendly". OS X was just what I was looking for. I too have a lot of Windows apps, but I have found Mac alternatives for all of them. And one of the ironic things about that is Office X for Mac. I believe that by Microsoft releasing a version of Office for X solidifies it's future even more. And by the way. The iPod rocks.

  154. Re:Pointless by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 2

    Would someone mod the parent up? christopher is making sense.

  155. Re:The community isn't huge but it's definitely th by Monkeyman334 · · Score: 2

    Bottom line, Windows has an ungodly more amount of software out there. That fact was used against them in their lawsuit. Take a look at download.com's Windows > Audio > Music Creation category, 182 downloads. Then check out the Linux > Multimedia & Design, note the 2 broad categories mixed, 94 downloads. Download.com isn't very open source orientated, but check out freshmeat's Multimedia
    > Sound/Audio > Sound Synthesis category, 37 projects. More than half of those 37 are below version 1.

  156. Re:School by ret · · Score: 1

    yes, but how were they to know? and anyway, a lot DID use macs, at least in iowa, almost every school district had a contract with apple and so used apples and macs and only had 1 or 2 winodws computers in each school.
    --

  157. Windowsless CAN work... by Abattoir · · Score: 1

    But it takes an IT staff with a great deal of knowledge about Linux and an extremely great deal of patience.

    I was a system administrator for a software development company that ran the entire office on Linux. The only windows based machines were one NT development box and the CEOs laptop, for his palm software since he didn't know about anything under Linux for it.

    All desktops were installed with Redhat, running KDE. StarOffice was used for desktop application suite to provide compatibility with industry "standard" file formats. An NFS server provided file sharing and printing was done through LPD. Accounting applications were versions written for SCO Unix and ran on an old SCO box. Many support applications such as the customer support database, distribution creation software and such were custom written in house by one of the developers.

    We had an administrative assistant with very little PC experience handling her day to day tasks easily. The marketing manager had some experience running Windows at home, but none with Linux. He was able to get by and even solve some of his day to day problems.

    The Windowsless office *can* work, but it takes a certain kind of company. The company I worked for was a Unix / Linux software development company, and already had a lot of the infrastructure to support going to pure Linux desktops (SCO file/app server, etc). If your company isn't using speciality applications that are only available on Windows, it's possible to do the Windowsless office. If your company does use such applications then it really isn't feasible. Use Linux for the server side of the company - file, web, mail, DNS and use Windows for the desktops. Sure Windowsless office is hip and cool and all the geeks in the IT department will think its great, but your end users who don't have much experience working with computers may get frustrated.

  158. OT: Complicated to Operate ? Sure ! :) by tmontes · · Score: 1

    A real hacker:

    Uses linux - complicated to operate

    Uses his photo camera in manual mode - complicated to operate

    Shifts gears manually when driving - complicated to operate

    ...add other complicated-to-operate hacker-oriented let-me-really-understand how-this-works stuff

    ...now, where are those thirty seven patch cables so that I can make that magic phone call and order dinner ?!

  159. Re:Pointless by raindog2 · · Score: 1

    OK, I've said this before and I'll say it again: I haven't compiled a Linux kernel on a workstation since about 1996. I use a distro with decent hardware support, and the only devices in my possession that I've found not to work with it simply don't have Linux drivers (or Mac drivers, or Win2K/XP drivers for that matter.) Sure, there's plenty of hardware with Windows drivers but not Linux drivers; six years ago there was plenty of hardware that worked great under DOS but Windows wouldn't recognize it. Things change.

    Now, I've never tried a USB hard disk under Linux so I wouldn't know about that aspect. I would know, however, that the actual Windows install procedure goes more like this:

    "Plug it in, and Windows will search for a driver. Then Windows will gravely warn you that it is unsupported hardware and that a third party driver may fuck your system forever. At this point you pop a Paxil and call your husband/nephew/daughter/friend/employee. If they are unavailable, you click on Browse and search through directories until you realize you have no idea what file you'd be looking for. Cancel out of the Windows driver routine and try putting the hardware manufacturer's driver disk in. Run through the setup program. Reboot. Reboot again unless you know enough to unplug the hard disk because it didn't get detected since the driver wasn't finished installing yet, then plug it in again. Finally, a drive letter may appear."

    I agree that totally command-line-free use is necessary for Linux to ever be a viable non-corporate desktop. If a novice user has to use a command line even once, it's too often. Thankfully, we are pretty close to that if not already there. Most software can be installed by double clicking on an RPM file, and the stuff that can't be probably shouldn't be installed by a novice user anyway. The default workstation install in Mandrake didn't even install a compiler when last I checked.

    However, even after running only Linux on every workstation I use regularly for the last 2 years, I still spend a great deal of time supporting friends' and relatives' Windows boxes. Either their 98 machine with 512MB keeps running out of RAM, or their Win2K registry got corrupted, or they've got the last surviving Word macro virus, or the game demo they downloaded from "somewhere" has hosed their machine, or simply "I closed my welcome to windows screen and now I can't get it back." Then there's "I have this error message saying there was a problem with my clock" which turned out to be the daylight savings time thing in Win95.

    ANY novice computer user requires handholding. I suspect the amount of handholding is pretty much equivalent no matter what OS they're running. It doesn't matter whether the online help is manpages or Clippy(tm); to the novice user all help functions are invisible, not relevant, just another reason to call you and me. The best we can do is throw icons on their desktop or in a folder so they'll know how to start the three programs they want to run. As soon as they get their first unexpected dialog box we get a phone call. The only users I've known who required no support at all are my stepdad and a CEO I used to work for, both of whom use their machines exclusively for sol.exe.

    This is not meant to belittle novice computer users; it's a reality check. The competition between Windows and Linux for "the other 95%" isn't a matter of who's got the more user friendly environment; it's all about whose shit stinks less. And that's the best we can hope for: to stink less.

  160. Re:totally doable by westneat · · Score: 1
    The point I was trying to make is that 'ease of use' should not be the all-defining criteria for doing everything in life.

    It's not, but it is an impotant factor for the workplace. Most people would rather get work done than learn how to use their computer. To use your car metaphor, their is a big difference between working on your car, and using you car to go get groceries or something.
  161. Re:Windows to Mac by jvj24601 · · Score: 1

    Even my two-button serial mouse (plugged into my G3 via KVM and serial-to-ADB adapter) works just fine in OS X.