Posted by
Cliff
on from the for-the-more-stationary-among-us dept.
ylsul asks: "Like many of you, I find myself working from home a lot, and I usually end up slouched on my couch with my laptop. Have any of you out there found the 'perfect' way to hack and slack at the same time? (maybe something like this?)"
When "Free" isn't
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Jacques Loubser, programme director for enterprise consulting services at Business Connexion, says companies seduced by "free" operating systems will ultimately find their choice constrains them.
While many users try to measure the operating system in medium to large organisations purely on the cost per desktop by product, owning a desktop environment has costs that far outweigh that of the associated licensing.
Installation is one of the first issues businesses stumble across. After organisations find their free-to-buy software they need somebody to install it. While it's not at all difficult to find someone who can put Microsoft's Windows 2000 on a server for the organisation, it can be a little more difficult to have someone to put Red Hat version 7.2 on the same device.
And that's where the true cost of an operating system begins to creep in. While Microsoft skills certainly do not come for free, they are widely available and Linux skills are difficult to come by, and users are at the mercy of the few vendors in this country that support the operating system. Also, customers might not be first in the queue when it comes to finding a solution to a nasty problem or having a solution customised or developed from scratch.
There is an additional facet to the skills cost issue too: staff need to be trained, not just administrators and support staff, but end-user staff like those in accounting and human resources who are faced with a completely new interface, one that might closely mimic, but ultimately is not the Windows they know.
During installation users will encounter their next biggest headache. Linux, as the leading so-called free-to-buy operating system, would be the obvious alternative to Microsoft's platforms. But it is sticky about the device drivers required to operate various hardware components. Without the proper drivers, devices will simply not work. The big difference between the Linux operating system variants and those from Microsoft is device driver support. Microsoft natively supports many devices, with users in many cases able to select the device from a list included with the operating system, while Linux tends to be selective in what it will and will not accept.
The next thing business users will notice is that there is a distinct lack of applications when compared to Microsoft-supporting alternatives. This is simply due to history: developers, who must make money from the products they create, need to have a critical mass market to sustain them. Because Microsoft is so widely employed, it makes sense for developers to support the platform. Years of this ongoing support have resulted in many mature applications for the Microsoft platform. The same cannot be said for Linux and other free platforms, although many applications might currently be under development. And few of those already available are mature.
Businesses also have little control over the speed and course of development of these applications, as the freeware pundits lay claim to. And, in the open source world, when business does have a say in applications, it usually leads to multiple variants that appear similar, which introduces a software management problem for businesses and ultimately little support for the application in question.
Business needs are one issue and what the propeller heads in the basement want to do is another. While they may find it cool to mess with the operating system's source code and kernel, so upping their credibility in geeky chat rooms, business needs may dictate the need to standardise on a reliable kernel version that does not allow simply anyone to change it. The ability to change the operating system's source code might seem like a major coup to developers but to the business the potential nightmare of spaghetti code causes sleepless nights.
In the end, the choice is simple. While technically one platform may be more proficient at certain tasks than another, as evidenced by the plethora of benchmark studies available for download from supporters in both camps, ultimately businesses cannot afford to leave themselves vulnerable to the multitude of uncertainties that continue to exist in the freeware world.
You say potato...
by
WIAKywbfatw
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Come on guys, it's "potatoes", P-O-T-A-T-O-E-S. Even Dan Quayle got that much right.
Are correctly spelt story titles too much to ask for? If even those are screwed, how are people meant to search through archived stories?
(Yeah, yeah, off-topic. Waste your mod points. See if I care.)
--
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Slashdot Mirror
Jacques Loubser, programme director for enterprise consulting services at Business Connexion, says companies seduced by "free" operating systems will ultimately find their choice constrains them.
While many users try to measure the operating system in medium to large organisations purely on the cost per desktop by product, owning a desktop environment has costs that far outweigh that of the associated licensing.
Installation is one of the first issues businesses stumble across. After organisations find their free-to-buy software they need somebody to install it. While it's not at all difficult to find someone who can put Microsoft's Windows 2000 on a server for the organisation, it can be a little more difficult to have someone to put Red Hat version 7.2 on the same device.
And that's where the true cost of an operating system begins to creep in. While Microsoft skills certainly do not come for free, they are widely available and Linux skills are difficult to come by, and users are at the mercy of the few vendors in this country that support the operating system. Also, customers might not be first in the queue when it comes to finding a solution to a nasty problem or having a solution customised or developed from scratch.
There is an additional facet to the skills cost issue too: staff need to be trained, not just administrators and support staff, but end-user staff like those in accounting and human resources who are faced with a completely new interface, one that might closely mimic, but ultimately is not the Windows they know.
During installation users will encounter their next biggest headache. Linux, as the leading so-called free-to-buy operating system, would be the obvious alternative to Microsoft's platforms. But it is sticky about the device drivers required to operate various hardware components. Without the proper drivers, devices will simply not work. The big difference between the Linux operating system variants and those from Microsoft is device driver support. Microsoft natively supports many devices, with users in many cases able to select the device from a list included with the operating system, while Linux tends to be selective in what it will and will not accept.
The next thing business users will notice is that there is a distinct lack of applications when compared to Microsoft-supporting alternatives. This is simply due to history: developers, who must make money from the products they create, need to have a critical mass market to sustain them. Because Microsoft is so widely employed, it makes sense for developers to support the platform. Years of this ongoing support have resulted in many mature applications for the Microsoft platform. The same cannot be said for Linux and other free platforms, although many applications might currently be under development. And few of those already available are mature.
Businesses also have little control over the speed and course of development of these applications, as the freeware pundits lay claim to. And, in the open source world, when business does have a say in applications, it usually leads to multiple variants that appear similar, which introduces a software management problem for businesses and ultimately little support for the application in question.
Business needs are one issue and what the propeller heads in the basement want to do is another. While they may find it cool to mess with the operating system's source code and kernel, so upping their credibility in geeky chat rooms, business needs may dictate the need to standardise on a reliable kernel version that does not allow simply anyone to change it. The ability to change the operating system's source code might seem like a major coup to developers but to the business the potential nightmare of spaghetti code causes sleepless nights.
In the end, the choice is simple. While technically one platform may be more proficient at certain tasks than another, as evidenced by the plethora of benchmark studies available for download from supporters in both camps, ultimately businesses cannot afford to leave themselves vulnerable to the multitude of uncertainties that continue to exist in the freeware world.
Come on guys, it's "potatoes", P-O-T-A-T-O-E-S. Even Dan Quayle got that much right.
Are correctly spelt story titles too much to ask for? If even those are screwed, how are people meant to search through archived stories?
(Yeah, yeah, off-topic. Waste your mod points. See if I care.)
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg