Linux To Run Sherwin-Williams Cash Registers

oilfieldtrash writes "According to this news article on Yahoo!, Sherwin-Williams will upgrade their point-of-sales systems to Linux ... 'Sherwin-Williams Co., the No. 1 U.S. paint maker, plans to convert its computers and cash registers in more than 2,500 stores to the upstart operating system in the next year and has hired International Business Machines Corp.'s services division to do the job.'"

Comments

Not Exactly A Win For Linux

[sputnik73]

This is part of a continuing pattern that I've noticed. The major corporate entites which are embracing Linux aren't normally leaving some variant of Windows behind but instead are dropping Unix. The stranglehold Microsoft has on Office and the problems introduced by switching from Windows to Linux (in terms of a possible inability to access old files) is really hurting Linux in the War against Windows. But what these companies need to realize is that they can convert their old files into plain text files, using the very version of Office which is trying to tie them into an ugprade cycle of doom, using some simple batch scripts. This would be quite a chore, obviously - but in the long run companies would save. I don't know why this solution isn't being offered to companies. From what I understand, many companies are hesitant to drop Windows for this very reason: loss of access to old files. But again, Bill Gates doesn't really lose on this one. Linux gains some but not in the area where I'd like to see it.

Re:Not Exactly A Win For Linux

[Methuseus]

you *don't* need to use POT on Linux. Get an old (free) version of Staroffice and use it to convert the files. Granted you may need to make small adjustments, but in the end, the parent poster is right, in the end it will save time and money. If you don't want to ever move from your 98 machine with Word 98, so be it, but you have to at least notice that your argument is stupid and irrational.

Re:Not Exactly A Win For Linux

[autechre]

You've been using Word98, a MacOS product, on your Windows 98 machine? That's pretty cool.

(Microsoft released office 95, 97, and 2000 for Windows. I assume you're using 97.)

The interesting bit is that if you go back far enough, Open/Star Office starts to get better at old Microsoft formats that MS themselves. Word 95 did a _terrible_ job of importing MS Works files...hey! There's that whole argument about "losing old documents." Sing it with me now: "Throw it out the window!"

Also, keep in mind that Office 2000 was the first one to even attempt a backwards-compatible file format. Try to open a Word 97 document in Word 95 and see what you get. So people were forced to upgrade. Maybe 97 added some nice features for some people, but if I'm only writing plain text with some italics, why can't 95 read it anymore?

Personally, I write stuff in Abiword and OpenOffice, and people have no trouble reading it in Word (and vice-versa). So yes, while I prefer to do things in vi, I'm by no means restricted to it.

Re:Not Exactly A Win For Linux

[tomstdenis]

Your entire post is so full of shit I can't believe it myself.

I have personally worked for a few jo-jobs and I can tell you straight-up that nobody include the mgmt care what OS they use as long as it works. For instance, I worked for PharmaPlus [in Canada] and their servers run Unix [or linux, it was some *nix to be sure], the front cashes were Compaq's running win98 and the postal cashes were some other brand running NT4.

And I never had any customers come to me and say "I see you are running 98, well thats completely unreliable".

Believe it or not but 99% of the customers don't have a first clue about computers or the diff between say Win98 and Win2k other than the name.

The fact that they use Linux is neat but as another poster pointed out not entirely a big win since the goal is to crush MSFT isn't it?

Tom

Re:Not Exactly A Win For Linux

[iabervon]

I think it's great that companies are switching from proprietary UNIX to Linux, because it's an application where they have genreal familiarity with the interface and so forth. Once Linux is a proven technology in their company, they can consider Linux as a replacement for Windows. The places where they are using Windows are places it is not feasible to switch to commercial UNIX. This will give people the opportunity to run the same OS everywhere, since it is not too expensive for the desktop and stable and secure enough for the servers. Once IT is using Linux for the critical systems, they won't want to support Windows as well. Microsoft doesn't lose anything on this deal, but their competition is being replaced with a much tougher competitor.

Furthermore, POS terminals are a market that MS would like to own: the user interface matters and commercial UNIX is impractical (unless the terminals are just thin clients of a single server, which limits the UI possibilities). The fact that companies are chosing Linux as the OS with an interface that's fast, easy to use, and powerful, on cheap hardware, has got to hurt.

Re:Not Exactly A Win For Linux

[MrCreosote]

"But again, Bill Gates doesn't really lose on this one."

Oh, yes he does. First, there is the revenue lost because the potential new customer did not buy the Windows solution (which they would have otherwise if it were not for Linux). More importantly, there is one less slave to the treadmill that is the upgrade cycle of Microsoft products, and the revenue stream attached to that.

Re:Not Exactly A Win For Linux

[cybermage]

But what these companies need to realize is that they can convert their old files into plain text files, using the very version of Office which is trying to tie them into an ugprade cycle of doom, using some simple batch scripts. ... I don't know why this solution isn't being offered to companies.

I've got karma to burn, so here goes...

Converting old files to plain text is an incredibly bad idea. Even if your only talking about .doc files, you need to understand that there is meaning in format. If you cannot take the formatting with you, you're not preserving the meaning. Simple example:

Life of Brian is excellent.
Life of Brian is excellent.

Now, beyond the issue of the simplest kind of old files, consider things like spreadsheets, PowerPoint presentations, Accounting data, etc. Converting these files to plain text will render them useless.

If you want businesses to move to Linux, look back at how we got here. There was a time when nothing was done on computers. Why start? Everyone could use a pencil. All typewriters worked more-or-less the same way. Businesses didn't start using computers because they were cool. They didn't start using them because they were cheaper. They started because computers could do things faster. Computers represented solutions to problems. What your proposing is to make a problem out of a solution. You won't get businesses to agree to problems in order to save money.

If you want to see a mass migration to Linux, here's what you need:

• standard file formats - Linux tools need to open/edit/save Microsoft formats. It is still my hope that Microsoft is forced to cough up their document formats to a standards body as a result of the anti-trust suits.
  
• cloned interfaces - Linux tools need to perform tasks in an identical fashion to their Microsoft counterparts. Corporations will be very reluctant to retrain their entire workforce in exchange for a free OS. The applications need to work the same.
  
• inter-operable OS - provide emulators to run legacy applications. There's a reason why knowledge of Cobol was needed before Y2K: Some old, proprietary applications cost way more to replace than 1000 years of OS upgrades. For many companies, their data is trapped inside computers they don't even understand. Once common applications have turned into black boxes. Make it so they can copy the application and it's inseperable data.
  
• education - Linux needs to be accessible to educators to share with students. Schools, libraries, and colleges all receive generous donations of Wintel computers. Children are taught from an early age that Windows == Computer. They learn their tools under Microsoft's guidance. There is, however, a back door. Community Colleges are chartered to teach what the community asks for. Businesses who've embraced Linux and OSS need to ask their local community college to get their future employees ready. Invite educators to tour your business and sit with your people.
  

Where Linux can really shine...

[fmaxwell]

Embedded GUI systems is an area where Linux can shine. The lack of a consistent UI between general-purpose Linux software packages and the sometimes-problematic configuration and administration is simply not an issue in a dedicated machine like a point-of-sale terminal. I expect Microsoft to lose a lot of sales in that arena.

Exactly A Win For Linux

[mikosullivan]

Yes, this is exactly a win for Linux, and for Open Source in general. At this point Open Source is still winning the easy converts. As it gets more popular, it will get the more difficult converts. The more big-business, mission-critical apps there are out there that run on open source the better for the movement as a whole. It's getting harder and harder for MS to insist that open source is a fringe movement and that it can't be trusted. That's a Good Thing for Open Source.

Invisible Linux.

[vkg]

Really, at the end of the day, nobody gives a shit what OS the POS is running: as long as it's doing it's job, who cares?

Very much like the server market - as long as it works, nobody gives a damn what OS is running.

I'd say this is an ideal niche, and there's no reason to use anything *else* on a POS, is there?

Re:I love linux as much as next guy, but...

[sharkey]

Just off the top of my head...

multi-user
Cashier login, "su" to manager for overrides?

preemptive multitasking
Sorry sir, you'll have to wait 5-10 minutes for your change. The activity logging routine is running, and we can't interrupt it.

protected memory

Whoops, make that 20-30 minutes. My register just crashed.

Just my, admittedly not expert, two cents.

Re:Back-Handed Compliment

[Bostik]

I noticed the same quote, but consider the wording used...

[...] nice, low-cost platform for doing kind of everyday computing. So in effect they are saying that they consider Linux ready to be used where-ever you need a good, stable and reliable platform to run their applications. Now, isn't this kind of everyday computing just the thing that most users do at home?

I think that quote is indeed very nicely put. It may even prove valuable.

This is how it starts

[ctid]

I've often felt that Linux is ideal for jobs where only one application is run. Then you don't need to worry about training people to use Linux, because all they see is the application. If it's simple enough (eg barcode scanning prices), the user doesn't know what OS is running anyway. I know it's stating the obvious, but this is true of servers of all kinds too; they do one thing (OK each service running on the server does one thing) and the user has no idea how that is happening.

What will be interesting is how the support structure pans out. Everyone knows that you need staff to support your servers. So if they're running Linux, you need someone who is competent in that. But since you've got to have this person anyway, surely they could do some support of the desktop machines. For example, those which are only used for word processing. So long as the user isn't going to be installing new software, or switching between multiple applications, who cares what OS your WP program runs on?

The odd thing about this is that people say that Linux is OK for sophisticated users and not for the newbies. I'm inclined to think that it's the other way around. So long as your user has to use the same application every day, and doesn't get the opportunity to change things, Linux has to be better (file formats permitting of course), because it's cheaper. So it's the unsophisticated users who can be switched to Linux first (as proved by the POS successes; you don't get any more unsophisticated than swiping past a barcode reader), because they see less of the OS than the sophisticated users.