Slashdot Mirror
Linux Desktop Myths Examined
Call Me Black Cloud writes "NewsFactor Network has an overview of the $95.00 Gartner report titled, "Myths of Linux on the Desktop". It's a good look at several points from the perspective of a corporate user, not a home user."
Linux is ready for the desktop
We all know that's not true!
One of the biggest wails heard by the most vocal and fanatical zealots in the Linux community is that Windows and most of the programs that run on it are bloated and slow, while screaming about how fast and "un-bloated" Linux is. Where this myth started I do not know, but it is obvious that it is a deliberate effort by Linux fanatics to tarnish the good name of Microsoft and Windows and to lure Linux newbies and those curious about the OS into making the fatal mistake of installing it on their computer. The fact that this alleged truth seems to go unquestioned shows how reluctant most Linux advocates are to admit that their once lightweight OS has degenerated into nothing more than piles and piles of spaghetti code and a huge mess of cheesy, mostly unused apps that is characteristic of most Linux distributions these days.
Now to dispel the myths:
Myth 1.) Linux is good for old computers.
This Linux Lie is often perpetrated when a newbie wants to try out Linux, but is reluctant to install it on his or her main computer (with good reason) Others replying to his question will say that it is fine to erase the hard drive of his old Pentium 166 with Windows 98 SE to prepare it for the Linux revolution, but the fact is that Linux performs horribly on slow computers in comparison to Windows. Sure, Linux may turn an older computer into a feeble server or a router, but try running things that you could run fairly quickly under Windows such as anything GUI, particularly an office app or a web browser, and Linux crawls, stutters, grinds the hard drive for 10 minutes, and generally eats up all the RAM in your poor machine's system like an obese glutton.
Myth 2.) Linux is lightweight
Once, yes, but now it couldn't be further from the truth. Linux has quickly snowballed into a gargantuan assortment of apps and bloated libraries that have been stitched together by the slaves of Tux. No amount of RAM will satisfy Linux, it will eat it all until there is nothing left to do but start swapping. Many Linux purists will say that is not true, but since they choose to only use the command line or maybe blackbox or windowmaker they have no say. The very fact that they would be torturing themselves with such rubbish just goes to show that they find straining their eyes and wrists on the geeky command prompt or configuring their blackbox using text files less torturous than suffering through the unbelievably slow load times and bloated programs found in KDE and GNOME.
Myth 3.) Windows is bloated
This absurd statement is the most fictitious, and is spouted over and over again by the Linux faithful in the hopes that they will brainwash themselves into believing this most grievous of the Linux Lies. My computer, an Athlon 1600+ w/ 256 mb RAM running Windows XP, takes merely seconds to start, the whole system taking about as much time to load as KDE by itself takes to start up in Linux. Even on my old 166 Mhz IBM Aptiva Windows 98 SE runs very well, is quite snappy, and is just as featureful as KDE, even considering that Windows 98 is a four-year-old OS. None of this speed or functionality was even remotely matched by any Linux GUI I ran on it. The lie spouted by many Linux users that Windows 9x is an unusable crap OS is something that perplexes me, as I had far more stability/mysterious problems on RedHat 7.2 and KDE than I've ever had in Windows 9x (for instance, one time konqueror started freezing for 5 seconds every time I started it or clicked on a directory, and this went on for a week until the problem mysteriously disappeared) Linux users often compare uptimes like penis size, but unless you are running a server or like wasting energy to keep your box on 24/7 this is irrelevant. I should note, however, that on my computer Linux locked up every 5 minutes after starting GNOME, which I found out the problem was due to a four-year-old bug in the Linux kernel (so much for open source fixing bugs quickly) that caused it to corrupt memory and lock up X windows on my nvidia card. I managed to ge
This almost seems like it may have been co-sponsered by Gates and friends.
The Gartner link is registration required, but not the overview. There are TWO links ....
Infuriate left and right
The title should have been "The Myth of Linux on the Desktop".
I also don't believe Linux saves money on hardware compared to Windows - it seems many offices are holding back with Windows upgrades, and IT expenditures on all desktop hardware and software seems to be slowing. For most people, Win2K is fine.
What the study fails to mention is security. Linux and open source in general appear to be far ahead of Windows in this regard.
In any case, most IT people have become innured to these studies - they are often pointless mental exercises without much factual backing.
I don't see why "paid vendor support" is such a big deal with corporations, when it typically amounts to either A: Someone telling you what should have been documented on their web site or B: someone telling you to hire a guy to come in at $200 an hour to tell you you have a bad ram module, and replace it.
Something I have definitely noticed with initiatives like OSS which are still currently largely under the radar of the public is that those who are promoting them are screaming as loud as they can to get heard and will say whatever will get them a little attention. Things like "Linux won't cost you anything." "You never have to upgrade." "You get support forever."
All of these things have a kernel of truth to them, but when someone looks a little more deeply at the issue and sees that it's more complicated than that it makes the original statement seem deceptive. It should be noted that even after the author goes through all the myths put forward by OSS proponents he still in the end says that he believes Linux on the desktop offers a real cost savings over Windows.
lysergically yours
This guy is half right. Every one of his myths is indeed a myth. But there is truth in every myth that he fails to note. For example:
Linux is Free:
He says it isn't free because support costs money. Well, if you don't get support it is free. There are lots of CS and IT guys looking for jobs. If you hire them to support you rather than pay RedHat it may turn out to be cheaper.
So "Linux is Free" is a myth. But "Linux can be free" is not. If you're going to talk about what is true and what is not you better be absolute. He also mentions the TCO myth. I have yet to see real numbers showing it go either way, and there aren't any here either. So don't bother looking for them.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
... is the flexibility that *nix offers. I would like to see some Win MCSE write a .bat script that could perform half the tasks my bash/perl script foo could handle.
There is still the basic undeniable fact that becuase Windows hides the operating system internals away from the end user, it is far less configurable and less flexible.
This guy totally misses the point on TCO. The thing is if you go with a thin client model -- i.e., have a nice fat server with lots of processing power that can serve up the major appplications to Linux thin client PCs that are, in some part, acting basically as X terminals (although some applications can be seamlessly loaded and executed locally as well depending on demand and needs)
You don't need to spend $BIGNUM on client PCs. Only maybe about $200-$500 a seat in terms of the hardware. And large enterprises don't typically buy their support from Microsoft, they typically buy it from companies like IBM or EDS who then contact Microsoft only when there is a problem they themselves can't figure out. They buy this support whether they have a UNIX client, a Windows client, or a Linux client.... it doesn't matter, the cost of support is basically the same.
This guy really misses the boat, IMHO.
My journal has hot
Let's examine one of the "myth" bullets:
Myth: Linux Means Longer Hardware Life
"It is true that a three- or four-year-old PC that is not powerful enough to run Windows XP Latest News about Windows XP and Office XP may be able to run Linux and StarOffice," Silver says. "However, enterprises need to budget for some additional costs to maintain older PCs."
Notice how the inflamatory, attention-grabbing headline does not actually describe the analysis below it. Rather than suggesting that the average useful lifetime of a PC running Linux is longer than that of a PC running Windows, they point out instead that older PCs might break down.
They're charging $95 for this brilliant type of insight? The ridiculous idea that PC hardware's average working lifespan is three years aside, they're not making any point about Linux at all.
*sigh* I got to keep my resident pointy hair away from this one, lest he see the P300 workstation on my desk (still completely usable, BTW) and assume I'm damaging company revenues...
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Way to stick to the spirit of open source that you're reporting on!
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
NewsFactor Network is ready for a slashdotting.
Price: US $ 95.00
:
/. crowd
Pages: 6
95 : 6 = 15.83$ per page !
wow! their business plan might be
1) find something interesting
2) write a 6 pages report (not necessarily interesting)
3) ???
4) PROFIT!!
This rocks.
/. but im not realy wanting my server /.'d
I am doing a report for my Buisness Communications class on how switching from Windows to a Linux based system would be beneficial to a small company. Well a company of around 100 or less employees.
I might even post it to the
RTFM!
Glad to see the MODS ARE STILL ON CRACK. This is FLAMEBAIT, MORONS. GET A FSCKING CLUE.
Hype about Linux on the desktop is increasing, according to Gartner's recent study, "Myths of Linux on the Desktop." The goal of the research was to enable enterprises to be objective in understanding the benefits of the Linux OS on the desktop, separating open-source fact from fiction.
... and most current vendors do not charge less for a Linux user than a Windows user."
... we believe Linux users will feel forced to move to newer releases of Linux just as Windows users feel forced to upgrade to new versions of Windows."
"I want to stress that I didn't mean to be negative about Linux," Gartner analyst Michael Silver, the report's author, told NewsFactor. Linux's appropriateness for any given population has a lot to do with the specifics of each business' environment and its architectures of applications in use, he said.
To understand the real benefits, enterprises need to realize that some common assertions will prove to be myths, Silver says.
ADVERTISEMENT
Myth: Linux Will Be Less Expensive
Many Linux proponents argue that using Linux instead of Windows saves a substantial chunk of change because StarOffice/OpenOffice.org then can be used instead of Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) Office.
"This is a bad argument," says Silver, because "StarOffice and OpenOffice.org can run fine on Windows." He noted that if users believe they will save money running StarOffice instead of Microsoft Office, they can run it on their current version of Windows without spending a fortune to migrate all of their applications to a new platform.
Myth: Linux Is Free
"Supported versions of Linux are not free," Silver notes. Consumer versions of Linux are basically free, but "enterprises that require vendor support for their client OS will need to pay for it." While these costs may work out to be less than the cost of a Windows license and support, they need to be understood.
Many free, open-source applications ship with Linux distributions, but Silver raises this question: Are they the applications the enterprise needs? "Thus far, we have not heard of open-source movements to replace large enterprise resource planning systems
Myth: Linux Means No Forced Upgrades
"Many users complain that Microsoft forces them to upgrade to newer releases of Windows," Silver wrote. "However, we believe that things will not be that much different in a Linux environment."
Linux vendors only support their consumer releases (and free distributions) for a maximum of two years, Silver noted.
"Linux independent software vendors realize that they cannot support their products on every version of Linux that has or will ever ship," the report says. "So while there will always be the option of support from the open source community
Myth: Linux Management Is Easier
Significant reductions in staffing are not likely to be achieved "simply by switching OSes without changing policies, lockdown or the degree of management tool implementation," according to Silver.
He notes that from a software break/fix perspective, many support calls are due to users doing something that misconfigures their system.
He expects Linux to have a slight edge over Windows for three reasons: 1) the existence of fewer viruses targeting Linux desktops; 2) fewer problems caused by conflicting applications; and 3) difficulty of understanding and repairing the Window registry. Since Linux is purely file-based, administrators may be able to troubleshoot application problems more easily.
Myth: Linux Has a Lower TCO
Management tools have been available for Windows for years, Silver observed, but many enterprises still have not been able to manage their Windows environment. This has often been due to too much complexity, lack of sufficient policies or standards, or cultural and political issues, according to Silver.
If this is true with Windows, "we see little reason to believe that the cultural or political issues will ch
"Linux vendors only support their consumer releases (and free distributions) for a maximum of two years, Silver noted."
Sounds like the only research the Gartner Group did for this report was to call Microsoft, call RedHat, and find out what they do.
They don't even bother to say what the TCO issues are between Linux and Windows, they just say "If [enterprise complications result in high TCO] is true with Windows, "we see little reason to believe that the cultural or political issues will change just because the enterprise is now using Linux," he observes. They didn't even check. They didn't do a study of their own, they didn't talk to people who have done TCO studies of this, or talk to Businesses who have already made the jump. They looked at Windows, and they guessed.
And they charge $95 per copy for their uneducated guess.
At least they can do some work before charging people for it.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
...when NOT reading the article will be considered excusable ;-)
MOD PARENT UP
Yes, Linux has lots of bloat. More than Windows when you get down to it. The most important thing you overlooked, most of that bloat is optional in Linux unlike Windows. I've installed SuSE from a DVD, bloat is pleantiful, and removing it isn't always trivial, but it is doable, and you can opitonally start with a bare install. Try removing IE from XP. Optional bloat isn't so bad, and distro makers are moving in the right direction, as time progresses distros get better. Except more maybe RedHat which seems to be getting worse.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
This seems like a pretty fair and unbiased report... the only bullet point I have any issue with is the 'forced upgrade' one.
While it's true that commercial Linux vendors do not support older versions of their distributions indefinitely, the nature of the upgrade cycle is different with free software than it is with a closed-source product.
There are some costs that Linux and Windows upgrades have in common:
ongoing support
training
productivity decreases as computers have to be taken out of service temporarily to apply the upgrades
However with Linux, each upgrade to the OS is available free of charge. Microsoft requires you to give them money each time you upgrade. As such, forced upgrades are not as onerous on a company using Linux.
With the Total Cost of Ownership up for debate I think a main point is being missed.
If I own a foriegn car, I expect the mechanic I use to charge a bit more (or a lot more). Plain and simple supply and demand. And I can't hire my friendly neighbourhood backyard mechanic neither because most backyard mechanics don't touch my brand.
Linux, as the purveyor of a much smaller portion of the computing environment suffers the same fate these days. 8 out 10 users use something else. If and when that reaches a more equal ratio there should be more people available to maintain these systems. And less time spent helping out with small issues.
Imagine an office full of staff who have been weaned on Windows. Toss them linux and half the maintainance costs wouldn't be on maintainance, but on solving issues the users create. Familiarity is a big part of the big picture.
As Michael Robertson noted yesterday - Lindows users insist on Anti-Virus protection. Yet when a virus comes out in linux there is usually a fix as fast as there is detection for the virus. As linux becomes more mainstream small issues such as this will go away.
Isnt this the same Gartner that has issued other pro-MS "reports"? Certainly not worth $95.00...
Hello,
Recently I've been introduced to an operating system known as Linux.
Lured by its low cost, I replaced Windows 98 on my computer with Linux. Unfortunately the more I use it the more I fear that this "Linux" may be an insidious way for the Dark One to gain a stronger foothold here on Earth. I know this may be a shocking claim, but I have evidence to back it up!
To begin with, Linux is based off of an older, obsolete OS called "BSD Unix". The child-indoctrinatingly-cute cartoon mascot of this OS is a devil holding a pitchfork. This OS -- and its Linux offspring -- extensively use what are unsettingly called "daemons" (which is how Pagans write "demon" -- they are notoriously poor spellers: magick, vampyre, etc.) which is a program that hides in the background, doing things without the user's notice. If you are using a computer running Linux then you probably have these "demons" on your computer, hardly something a good Christian would want! Furthermore in order to start or stop these "demons" a user must execute a command called "finger". By "fingering" a "demon" one excercises an unholy power, much the same way that the Lord of Flies controls his black minions.
Linux contains another Satanic holdover from the "BSD Unix" OS mentioned above; to open up certain locked files one has to run a program much like the DOS prompt in Microsoft Windows and type in a secret code: "chmod 666". What other horrors lurk in this thing?
Consider some of these other Linux commands: "sleep", "mount", "unzip", "strip" and "touch". All highly suggestive in a sexual nature. I know that our Lord cannot approve of these, and I urge them to be renamed to something appropriate to the Christian community. Interestingly "CONTROL-G" (the sixth key from the left of the keyboard) does an abort. To write files a "VI" editor is included. All these are to ensnare the unsuspecting christian who could get tempted by typing "VIVIVI" all day long.
Fourth, Linux uses a flavor of DOS known as Bash. Bash is an acronym for "Bourne Again Shell". On the surface this would appear to be supportive of the Lord. However, remember that even Satan can quote the bible for his own purposes! While I believe Linux may be born-again, its obvious by the misspelling of "born" that its not born-again in an Christian church. Will the lies ever cease?
Additionally, one of the main long-haired hippies involved with the GNU Free Software Foundation supports communism, contraception and abortion. He has consistently supported 60's counter-cultural "values", and his web site even advocates government support of contraception. He also wears fake halos, and has quips about his made-up church that relates to his free software. I find such blasphemy to be extremely unsettling.
One must also remember that the creator of Linux, a college student named Linux Torvaldis, comes from Finland. I'm sure all the followers of Christ are aware of the heritical nature of the Finnish: from necrophilia to human sacrifice, Finnish culture is awash in sin. I find little reason to believe anything good and holy could arise from this evil land.
Finally, let us remember that there is an alternative to using the Satan-powered Linux. I think history has shown us that Microsoft is quite holy. I'm told that its founder, William Gates is a strong supporter of our Lord and I encourage my fellow Christians to buy only his products to help keep the Devil at bay.
I wish I had more time to expound upon my findings. Unfortunately a family of Jews has moved in across the street and I must go speak to them of Jesus Christ before they are condemned to eternal hellfire.
Please investigate this as you see fit and I'm sure you'll reach the same conclusions that I have.
Read the comments posted at the end of the article :-)
Well I have a 'server' tucked away in the house, it has big fat noisy HDD's that I don't want in the living room, it runs my Email, ADSL,dns/dhcp and stores everything that I wouldn't want a thief to make off with (because it's hidden away).
So,
I run linux 24/7, it gives me:
A reasonably secure filing system (thieft proofish)
Email (at the cost of exchange server)
DNS/DHCP
A quiet living room (no noisy HDD's)
and the ability to let anyone plug a pc in and join my home network, friends, house mates and people who bring round some music on there laptop for parties.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
This is not about who likes what operating system; it's about which is more 'ready' for the desktop environment. There is no secret in the *NIX community that there is no desktop environment to compete with Windows. It would be GREAT if this werent true.. I prefer *NIX, allways have, flavor doesn't really matter, but NOT for a desktop. It runs like a champ for a server, it's great to tinker with and get under the hood, but it's not at all intuitive to a new or less experienced user. There have been great strides in the development of a sustainable *NIX desktop environment (props to KDE and Gnome), and they all have something unique to offer the user, but there is no solidarity between them. Being an admin in both worlds I feel the pains and pleasure of both on a daily basis; and I'm not a hardcore zealot for either. Why? Because there is a proper tool for every job, and who manufactures or creates the tool doesn't matter at all to me. What matters is, can I use the tool, and use it effectively for what I need to do. *NIX has not met this need in the desktop arena. I keep my fingers crossed, and I try the new revs as they are released, but it's not quite there yet. I have no doubts it will be in the near future though! BTW, I have both *NIX desktops and Windows desktops at work and home, and they are each of equal value to me. Unfortunetly, at this point, the *NIX desktops are for tinkering and learning.
"Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs" - George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)
Yeezz. Maybe in 2038 when they finally agree on a common copy-paste standard.
I think that any enterprise rolling out linux on a large scale would be smart enough to go to a thin client, heavy server model. That's where the TCO argument starts to really support linux on the desktop. LTSP and such. As for your myths:
Linux will be less expensive:
Office is the lockin tool, much more than Windows itself. Running OpenOffice on Windows sounds like a great way to wade into a transition, taking the most bitter part of the medicine up front. If that's over with, the OS switch doesn't look nearly so daunting. Licence per license, linux is cheaper up front. Feel free to disprove that.
Linux is free:
Paying for an ERP package isn't much of a show-stopper. You're talking about buying expensive OS licenses + expensive ERP licenses versus buying inexpensive OS licenses + expensive ERP licenses. A shortage of available ERP programs for linux is a better argument, although there are several ways to access ERP systems running on windows or commercial Unix server from linux clients - thin or otherwise (so you're buying licenses for one server, and its client access rights to access that program). And with popularity in the enterprise will come native ERP programs.
Linux means no forced upgrades:
Of course linux shops will upgrade their systems to get newer, nicer software. An enterprise won't be running Redhat 9.0 in 2045 any more than they'll be running Windows XP or Mac OSX. The difference is whether you're paying out windows prices or linux distro prices every 3 years, and whether your company upgrades for business reasons or contractual Licensing 6.0 obligations. And whether you have a choice of vendors.
Linux Management is Easier:
This is where the thin client setup really pays off. Dumb graphics terminals with 5-years-ago pc hardware minus a hard drive (to fail) connected to top-notch, dependable server hardware, centrally managed. An extra 5,000 spent on a server for 300 less spent per client (x40). And good performance for the majority of 'enterprise' tasks.
Linux Has a Lower TCO:
Again LTSP. Simple, very-few-moving-parts, interchangeable-in-5-minutes clients and real server hardware with trinity dies RAID and multi-processors, and hot-swap power supplies.
Linux Means Longer Hardware Life:
Again, of course enterprises will do OS upgrades during a 6 to 8 year lifespan. They would with Windows too. Anyone know how many scheduled upgrades you'd have to go through with MS Licensing in that period of time? Again the licensing price difference. And variance in hardware makes life harder (and more expensive) for IT. For Windows, Linux, or any other OS. How is this a linux-myth-debunker?
Skills are transferrable:
This is a real hurdle for linux. But for how long? It seems like a matter of momentum. The more enterprises switch (in whole or in part) to linux, the more IT people will build their careers around it. The bigger hurdle is nick is back end-user skills and perceptions. Linux desktop environments have come a long way in the last few years, though.
Bottom Line:
Linux isn't going to dominate the desktop anytime soon, enterprise, personal, or other. And it won't be the end-all be-all bliss of computing nirvana where enterprises never upgrade software, and linux solves "cultural and political issues" (ha! that was my favorite part of your article) for companies. But I think it looks like a feasible way to reduce headaches and lower costs, and your article did nothing to change my mind.
Management tools have been available for Windows for years, Silver observed, but many enterprises still have not been able to manage their Windows environment. This has often been due to too much complexity, lack of sufficient policies or standards, or cultural and political issues, according to Silver.
If this is true with Windows, "we see little reason to believe that the cultural or political issues will change just because the enterprise is now using Linux," he observes.
Umm, I do. With *nix, you can get away with using almost nothing in the way of "management tools." What most would consider essential utilities are included. Just add effort.
The situation is improving with newer Windows versions, but my impression is that they are still behind the game; I admit that maybe my ignorance of XP and longhorn might leave me biased, but for e.g.: try finding a list of open file handles in Windows, or a table of bound ports, or a robust scripting language. These types of tools typically need to be added. With *nix I usually can use an existing tool or combination of tools to easily and quickly find what I want, plus it is easily automated from then on. My impression is that things are not always that easy in Windows without (occasionally costly) add-ons.
Another point regarding desktop TCO - a lot of Windows-based office productivity type networks opt for Terminal Server/Citrix to lower cost and simplify administration. For use on a LAN (i.e. not considering low b/w access, where RDP and ICA really shine), *nix has a network transparent windowing system (X, in case that isn't completely obvious) that doesn't require connection licenses or $15,000 per server licenses plus maintenance. All things being equal (i.e., assuming all of the linux apps are adequate functional replacements for Windows apps, and hardware + software maintenance is about the same price), this is an area where linux is clearly cheaper because you don't have to pay for the network protocol.
Make yourself a linux box for 95 bucks and see for yourself.
The original article is on zdnet here
a) How do you manage user desktops?
b) How are applications used on such desktop?
In which case it leads me to think they've ignored the thin model client entirely. In addition, there is also a degree of control of configuration and management of such applications as well. fat-client models have rampant version control issues, vast number of problems with handling licenses, as well as a much larger software package to push out.
Is that everyone today is talking about whether or not Linux will really give you cost savings over Windows on the desktop.
A year ago they weren't even ready to admit it was ready for the desktop at all.
Two years ago people would've laughed at you if you even suggested Linux on the desktop for corporate users.
I wonder if next year's report won't be whether or not you should use Linux on the desktop, but rather which distribution you should be using.
My company wants 500 desktop pc's.
They should:
Allow the operators some liberties, but be prevented from running all those crappy downloads and virus ridden emails.
Support Printers, file shares, be Microsoft Office compatable, have an email client and www client.
The low licensing costs should be fairly low and predictable, Ideally we'd like to swap in and out a couple of desktops.
What should I use, for my workplace?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
lies and deceptions, computers will ruin us all... run for the hills and become hermits.
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
I ask because I think there is no way to end this religious-like argument until a true full fledged case study is done on a company of at least 200 or more employees running linux on ALL of the company's desktops.
-redptam-
... the Linux Desktop owns you - probably because you can't afford Windows...
People talk about how secure Linux is, but how do you prevent some executable piece of email from reading the user's *own* address book and deleting the user's *own* documents (or worse -- corrupting them so the backups get hosed, too)?
The problem isn't security, it's executable content. As long as executable content is never offered in any popular email program (or search-for-ET screensaver) in Linux, we're safe. How long will that last before some vendor brings out the spiffy new macro-language-in-email feature and users snap it up (once we get past the hurdle of even getting linux on the desktop)?
John.
There is stable desktop on Linux? Shit, I must have been using a different kind of Linux, because everything that I had (KDE, GNOME, WM, Enlightenment, etc.) mananged to lock and core dump at least once in a while. Most programs that came with KDE or GNOME desktop were buggy and lacked support. Were they fee? Yes, if you do not consider the amount of time that I spent on fixing, upgrading and configuring them. I am a *NIX fan, but unfortunately, I can't use Linux or my favorite FreeBSD for what I need: a stable desktop that allows me to develop and have a set of functional applications. While linuxoids are trying to shove Linux hype down our throats, I am going to use Mac OS X. Sure, I paid for the Mac and the OS, suprisingly it works and there is stable software for it. If Open Source advocates want to see *NIX systems that can provide stable desktops, they have to put more usable applications and proper code behind the well known "Linux rocks and its free!" statement.
This report appears to be making comparisons for the enterprise in using Windows and Linux in exactly the same way. What I mean is that the Windows topology is the most expensive part of the equation; to which you add license fees and hardware upgrades. The Windows topology is many servers each doing a few things, and a high power PC on every desk connected by high bandwidth networks. If, as the study assumes, want to maintain the topology and simply migrate users, with their learned traits, from a Windows OS to a Linux kernel OS, you DO NOT ADDRESS the most expensive portion of your enterprise information system.
Much of the TCO savings that are found in Linux-centric systems come from dispensing with the Microsoft topology and taking the bset lessons from the PC era AND from the mainframe era to deliver serrvices to the desktop.
Truely interesting would be the comparison between a very large enterprise solution from Mircosoft using x86 server farms and desktop PCs and one from IBM using thin clients and virtual servers on microcomputers. Only then would you begin to get a fair comparison between the two methodologies of providing access to information processing resources.
Am I to believe that James Maguire(the overview author) paid 95 dollars to read that? STEP 1: 'PURCHASE DOCUMENT' STEP 2: 'WRITE OVERVIEW' STEP 3: 'PAY BANDWIDTH BILL AFTER SLASHDOTTERS INVADE THE SERVER. STEP 4: ??? STEP 5: PROFIT!!!
Remember this Gartner recommendation?
.:diatonic:.
Gartner cannot view Linux rollouts with an open mind because Gartner insists on looking at Linux as a drop-in replacement for proprietary operating systems. Gartner refuses to alter its frame of reference.
Deployment of Linux isn't just about Linux itself. It's about changing the rules, shifting the paradigms, that sort of thing. That's the piece that Gartner misses, every single time. To deploy Linux effectively you have to treat it as Linux, leveraging its advantages and steering clear of its (rapidly diminishing) disadvantages. Gartner wants to force-fit Linux into a Windows paradigm, so it's no surprise that they keep finding that it does so very poorly. Linux is not a drop-in replacement for Windows! It is an alternative, just like the Macintosh is an alternative.
Only when you design for Linux and plan for Linux do you get to take advantage of its strengths.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Wait just a minute...
Drop back a moment and really, "Linux is free!" It really is.
Linux SUPPORT is not free.
The distinction needs to be made, especially in these License V6 days. But from a slightly different perspective, even in support, Linux gives you more choices. Certainly you can go to someone like RedHat and get Linux+support, and there are others who offer Linux support. By the same token, you can choose to build your support in-house. Having access to the source makes that truly possible. If you are big into home-grown and custom applications this can be a big win.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Gartner and some MS supporters on a local Holy Wars newsgroup always get caught in the "Linux isn't actually free" part and say that TCO is lower.
...which is why everyone who has ever been to that group now use "TCO" as an expression meaning "if we had been using something other than Windows, this would have been really cheap." For example, "Exchange blew up again and we lost hours and hours fixing it. TCO! TCO!" Or "So the next version of Windows will be even more expensive and requires subscription? TCO!" ...
Nobody seemed to really put that much faith in Gartner analyses. Except the people who make decisions. Infortunately.
This story isn't true. I am a consultant for
serveral state agencies. I use AIX, Linux, and HPUX.
and guess what.. Linux is getting more and more popular. I've been turning fellow programmer on to
perl and Open Source Database alternatives.
File and Print services are possibly going to migrate over to a Linux platform as well.
For now I've got SMB services running on AIX
(big black raven box... it's twice as large as a
full size refrigerator.
The garter group obviusly does not have any Unix talent. Since a Unix Admin will not have any problem desiging / configuring and servicing a
Linux solution. And.. yes.. there are no high cost licensing fees! And the uptimes are much higher than any wintel solution.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, because you have to pay someone to chew it for you too.
I can't believe the stupidity of the Heavens (Bill) Gates cult. They are now argueing that a $200 dollar operating system DOESN'T cost more than a free one (as in beer, incidently).
Unless you have to take gasps of breath in between key strokes, 'cause your too dumb to do both at the same time, you can install and use Linux. Sure, you can pay RedHat, or Mandrake to hold your hand, but you can also learn how to type "www.google.com" and get your questions answered. If you have ever had to rely on Heavens Gates for support, you know what a farce your faith in their support is: once they get through the standard checklist of "Is your computer plugged in? Is your mouse plugged in?" It comes down to "I dunno. Don't try that anymore."
In the enterprise, desktop management is a very big issue that still hasn't been solved completely. In the Windows world there is SMS, ZenWorks and a slew of vendors offering application deployment, application management, asset control, metering and patch management. Does anything like this exist for Linux at all?
The report starts off a section by saying, "Myth: Linux Will Be Less Expensive." The author then shows one situation in which Linux is the same price. "Therefore," implies the article, "it is a myth that Linux will be less expensive." It's an obvious non-sequitur. I wonder if Gartner's clients are paying for that sort of thing, or if it just got added in the summary.
More importantly, the article misses the big difference with Linux, that it puts the customer in the driving seat. If you want to run NT 4 after it is out of support, you won't get security fixes and the like. With Linux, the source code is all out there, so you can keep patching yourself if you want to. Assuming that you aren't running loads of services, that would be a reasonably straightforward thing to do.
This is the reason why Linux is a "paradigm shift" and not just another product which happens to be 10% cheaper.
Nothing like paying $95 for the obvious summarized as the misconstrued.
If this is true with Windows, "we see little reason to believe that the cultural or political issues will change just because the enterprise is now using Linux," he observes.
Hmmmm, IF this is true with Windows it will PROBABLY be true with Linux. Wow! I'm convinced! And without having to pay $95.
GIGOwiz
Bartender, a round of sarcasm for all!
That's been tried already. Its called mainframe computing. Client/Server computing, even with it's warts, is still cheaper and more prodcutive in userland. If the bighorkinmachine ever went down, you're SOL, EVERYONE is down. While in client/server while I may loose access to a program or two, I still can work on other things. Or I am smart enough to have redundancy (Citrix) to serve my applications and I don't have any downtime with a puking server. All still cheaper than the mainframe route.
This report seems like MS sponsored FUD to me. Apart from that, I just want to bitch and moan about those people who say "Linux isn't ready for the Desktop." I've run a fully functional Linux desktop for the past 5 years and I know plenty others who have done the same. Linux has been ready for the desktop for quite some time, whether YOU are ready for the Linux desktop is another matter.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
When the report states that Linux isn't free because support isn't free, it forgets that it's the licensing that's free.
How much is the elimination of the threat of a license audit worth to your company?
Read article before you moderate that as flame.
Myth: Linux Will Be Less Expensive
And who cares about StarOffice? I don't use Star or OpenOffice. For documents I use LaTeX, gnumeric and Dia. OpenOffice is not Linux, just like Debian is not.
Myth: Linux Is Free
Supported? You mean Linux on desktop means I need support? So when I used DOS without support I used non-desktop system? Server one maybe?
Myth: Linux Means No Forced Upgrades
Software like TeX is not changing at all for years (or is TeX server software?). You need only to upgrade stuff like kernel and servers (remember? we are talking about desktop!) - to avoid crashes and crackers.
Myth: Linux Management Is Easier
Fever viruses? What viruses?! Anyone this point is not so stupid like others.
Myth: Skills Are Transferable
They are not in Windows. Microsoft changes things too fast.
Anyway - it was very lame criticizm of Linux on desktop. You need to get better arguments next time.
On a number of points the author dismisses points a "myths" in the header only to allow that they are at least partly true in the body of the text. What he should be saying is that these things are "exaggerations", which isn't the same thing. Calling them "myths" sounds cooler, like he found some big coverup, but it doesn't serve the readers to put up a sensationalist header when all he's really calling for is for the person considering switching to Linux to do their homework.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Linux? Free as in beer? Maybe.
Free as in freedom? ALWAYS YES.
I was all about Linux desktop 'til I apt-get upgraded my debian testing. Now abiwords horrendous fonts are everywhere unless I turn off type 1 fonts altogether, and thereby killing my word proggy. This during the final week of classes, I don't have time to drop to stable or fix the whole system, I've got papers to finish. Seems like with oss the theory of being able to build on everyone's experience amounts to the ability to perpetuate their mistakes.
Archie - CIO-for-hire
You just copied the comments some other person made in the reviewer site's forum.
I can only speak from my own experience, but I've been around this business some 15+ years, worked as a programmer, ISP sysadmin and consultant for both really large and really small companies (and a couple of in between ones).
I can't actually recall even one transition from MS/whatever to Linux/*BSD where the people involved wasn't really happy with the move afterwards. They simply never look back.
That's my experience, others may vary, but to me the choice of platform in the overseeable future is very easy. And it's dirt cheap compared to the alternatives too.
The best way to find out is to try it yourself. Don't believe everything you read.
Every day, I read thousands of news articles from around the globe for free. Information wants to be free. How does this so-called "Gartner group," of whom I've never heard, expect to make money off by selling reports for $95?
Let me summarize:
Cost of bandwidth and hosting: $0.10 per article
Cost of researcher: $5
PROFIT: $89.90
With such ridiculous profit margins, I would predict that this "Gartner Group" won't last until next Tuesday.
I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
Gartner is a market research company that tracks information as a means of existence. Many of their small timely research articles are $95; they even offer a lot of free information. Gartner has earned a strong reputation in their field. If they report a predicted 20% reduction if IT staffing, you had better start kissing up to your boss.
/.'ers. This overview sheds some light on a outside perspective of our community by a source that has done its homework. It may do us some good to consider how myths like these are affecting those who are making decisions at our places of work.
I agree with the points that the overview is making, but he is contending myths that I have not seen. Many Gartner subscriber do not share the same competencies as
Now imagine an entire Beowulf cluster of.....
The open source nature of linux means it's impossible for one vender to dominate the market (after all, anyone can jump into the fray). Right now Microsoft still has compitition in the form of Linux and even apple. Plus they can't be too obvious with their monopoly pricing untill the whole "being convicted of maintaining a criminal monopoly" thing finishes blowing over (then again, charging 10 times market value for office software is pushing it).
This is where companies will see their real savings. Trouble is to realize this you have to take a long view (25-50 years I'd guess). Companies just don't do that. Probably because the management realizes they'll be rich and retired by then. Hell, I'm still stunned Corel threw away a chance to go head to head with Microsoft for the mind-numbingly profitable desktop OS market, just for a few hundred mil from MS. Maybe some CEO at Corel got a big fat bonus?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
um... unless you manually run some random executable yourself, how the hell would it affect you?
Congrats for making it all the way down here in the posts... you must be really bored. For those comments above that "don't really see anything wrong with... [MS improving the OS by prescribing hardware]". I will assume you didnt follow the anti-trust case very closely. I would strongly urge you to CAREFULLY read the Findings of Fact. Surprisingly, the Judge in this phase of the trial nailed the issue... its only too bad the meat of this document was overlooked by virtually everyone else. In short, MS was proven to have manipulated and maintained an "Applications Barrier To Entry". Which means if you don't have the developers writing for your OS, then you ain't gonna compete with MS. Well, now that MS has been [*cough!*] disciplined, and is a good citizen, there surely is no real harm in them having direct control of hardware that will support all the third party software that will run on it. For those who think this might not be a bad thing, I hear the Jeff Dahmer is reformed and available to babysit your kids... when can he come over?
Just as irrigation is the lifeblood of the Southwest, lifeblood is the soup of cannibals. -- Jack Handy
----------------
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
at least all I've read so far. I manage the computers at my company (about 10 workstations and a server). We typically will stretch a computer as long as possible.
Why? The replacement costs are staggering! and they have nothing to do with the cost of the machine itself! It is the endless time it takes to replace a Windows machine. M$ has made it as difficult as possible (bordering on impossible) to backup and restore a Windows machine completely. Even if you can image a Windows hard disk completely, it will never run on anything except that exact hardware. The way hardware vendors change machine configurations, you can't get the same hardware mockup if you order two machines on the same day! All applications are hopelessly entwined with the copy of the OS running on THAT machine.
The only reliable way I have found to do this is to force users to keep the data files they work on on the server, do a routine weekly backup on e-mail files and bookmarks for each machine. When a machine must be replaced, I spend a minimum of two days reloading all of the software we need on each workstation from the install disks, loading patches for each of those programs and then restoring e-mail and bookmarks. This doesn't include the 1-2 hour wait on M$'s line to get another authorization number so I can reuse the Office Pro license on the new machine; I went thru that twice then found a pirated copy of the corporate version so I wouldn't have to waste that time anymore.
Linux, on the other hand is simplicity itself. I simply back up several subdirectories. If the machine fails or I want to clone the machine to another, different set of hardware, I reinstall Linux on the new machine and restore the backed up subdirectories on the new machine. Voila! complete new machine with every application, all data files and all settings intact.
M$ is sooooo concerned with piracy that they make preserving my company's data and work environment hell. Frankly, ANY amount of trouble with a different OS pales in comparison to the hassles outlined above.
How often are there really lawsuits over poor computer/software support?
From everything I've heard, Microsoft is seldom sued except by competitors or defunct business partners. As for support from others, I have no idea.
But it seems to me that this is more about deflection of blame than actually suing anyone. In this light, contracting out your support "so there's someone to blame or sue," should be grounds for firing, because it's a refusal to accept responsibility.
Open Source allows you to accept reponsibility for your IT infrastructure. You're on your own to develop resources and competence. I'll be a good support department with skills, pride, and morale can out-support just about any contract shop, just about any day. But that would require accepting responsibility and delivering, the subject of my occasional tirades about American business.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Like macros in Word documents and VBScript in email messages that scan your address book, not actual executable, binary, compiled C code. Geez, you guys, so literal-minded.
John.
I wonder why it is that people claim that Windows is so cheap to support when you can get any one to do it for free. I work as a Linux administartor (Mail, Fileserver, stuff like that), we're two unpaid Linux guys and we could easily get more people to help us out... for free. We have one person to handle Windows workstation, he gets paid because there is no way in hell you'll get anyone to handle that crap for free. The workload on the seven workstations is amazing. Sure it's NT 4.0, but we can't afford the upgrade, neither the licenses nor the hardware we'll be needing.
If you eliminate the cost of staff, Windows lose.
Myth: Linux Has a Lower TCO
Management tools have been available for Windows for years, Silver observed, but many enterprises still have not been able to manage their Windows environment. This has often been due to too much complexity, lack of sufficient policies or standards, or cultural and political issues, according to Silver.
If this is true with Windows, "we see little reason to believe that the cultural or political issues will change just because the enterprise is now using Linux," he observes.
so, because he can't imagine it, it can not be.
Linux just planly works! And not just Linux: *bsd, nixes in general. You can rely on them. Is this is not something to count on a business, I don't know what it is.
Faith can move mountains. I prefer dynamite.
This mirrors politics.
The left would want us all to use Linux, forgetting that in individualist systems there's no bottom line.
The right would want us all to use Microsoft, forgetting their are other options besides the bottom line.
Neither package is ready for the desktop. Face it humanity, you're a failure.
"but enterprises that require vendor support for their client OS will need to pay for it."
All I can say to this article is duh!
Like the anti-open source people say, "you get what you pay for".
So if you want more support, then pay for it! Why should Linux and it's associated companies give away everything for free? You're supposed to pay for quality products!
First people complain that it's free ("free = amateur/bad/whatever"), and now people complain that it's NOT free. *sigh*...
Seems to the conspiricy buff in me that it's an all out M$ FUD plan. The "Athens" computer, why Linux sucks, etc. Maybe the start of a M$ fullcourt press .
> > >We don't need no steeekin'.....oh wait, my wife says we do.
Your favorite software monopoly. Seriously though, they sure seem like thier trying hard to stem the adoption of linux, but resistance is futile. The open source collective is unstoppable.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
After reading the article, I have to wonder if this guy is on MicroSoft's payroll. Many of the claims he makes can be easily disproved. Why didn't he spend more time talking about the licensing costs? When you compare the cost per year to cover all of the PC's in your company for a WIN license versus the cost of a *NIX license for the same number, Linux will win out.
I'm sorry, but Michael Silver is a total idiot and IMHO on the take from MicroSoft.
-Goran
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
I sumbitted this story and it was rejected. That's no shock. But why wasn't this:
m ai n/0,14179,2913456,00.html
/was/ posted? (Or am I wrong, and this isn't the actual Gartner report?)
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/
Added to the story that
Either way, an appropriate read.
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
The logic behind that report is flawed in more ways then none.
We all know that a Linux only company is saving a lot of money. TCO is not lower with Windows. The stuff we should take out of it is the true arguments they have.
We should continue our efforts towards making the Linux desktop a reality. It should be as easy to use as Mac and have quality Office applications like on Windows.
By making it as pleasing to the eye as a Mac we could get more people on linux. Isn't that what we want? We need usability and better/more GUIs for day to day stuff.
sendmail, was written by a gay man.
KDE has a round map of the world.
Windows defragmentation toll was written by a good christian company and banned by Nazi germany.
That's only true of the Win95/98/ME series. WinNT/2K/XP has the capability to set permissions so that not every program has access to every piece of the system. In fact, Windows ACLs are much finer grained than traditional Unix rwx type permissions; it's easy for any user to set access to his files on a person-by-person basis. I don't think that they're usually used very well, but it's certainly possible for a competent admin to lock down a Windows system pretty tightly against abuse by ordinary users.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
I can get the same stuff directly from www.microsoft.com.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
Myth: The goal of the research was to enable enterprises to be objective in understanding the benefits of the Linux OS on the desktop, separating open-source fact from fiction.
char *mySig;
RedHat just smears it wrong. Yes, you can fix a RedHat install, it just takes a lot more work. You pretty much have to uninstall everything, download new copies and install it again, but right this time.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Are you actually suggesting that in-house support is free? If so, you sound like management material to me
Maybe he means that it is cheaper than out-house support.
Pun intended.
While this was an interesting article, it was incomplete. It never touches on the user experience, which is what will make or break a desktop OS. If users don't like or can't use what they get, then an OS will be a desktop failure.
Also, this article seems to focus only on corporate use. In order for any system to be successful on the desktop, it must take into account home users.
Until it becomes easier for the average user to add hardware, and upgrade software on the GNU/Linux platform, Linux is not ready for the desktop.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
2003: Linux Desktop Myths (wonder when LWN will post something?)
So while we wait for LWN, here's my best shot:
Myth: Linux Will Be Less Expensive
Real Myth: Using free cross platform apps lowers the cost of Windows, therefore Linux offers no additional savings.
Myth: Linux Is Free
Real Myth: Microsoft includes support for licensed desktop windows. So to compare costs, you simply compare the license fees paid to Microsoft to the "enterprise support" fees paid to a company like Redhat. You can't compare "free" linux to license windows because of the support bundled with very licensed desktop windows.
Myth: Linux Means No Forced Upgrades
Real Myth: You will not be able to pay anyone else for provide support once it is no longer available from the original linux distributor, and you will not be able to support it in-house. The discontinuance of support is a "forced upgrade" as compelling (and legally binding) as a contract which requires upgrades to maintain discounted pricing.
Myth: Linux Management Is Easier
Real Myth: Users will still screw up their systems as they do with windows ('cause they'll all be running as root?)
Myth: Linux Has a Lower TCO
Real Myth: System admins can't manage linux well, because they also manage windows poorly (presumably because the two system are so similar and both similarly lacking built-in remote management)
Myth: Linux Means Longer Hardware Life
Real Myth: Older PCs require "expenditure" for [free] software upgrades at least one. Thus it would be less expensive to simply discard the hardware! (yet still "spend" for the software update). Likewise, keeping PCs longer means more different (all PC compatible) models will be present, which costs more to "support" than simply discaring those older PCs and buying new ones.
Myth: Skills Are Transferable
Real Myth: Your existing desktop support staff are old dogs who can't learn new tricks.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Myth: Linux Will Be Less Expensive
They then go on to explain that the argument is that OpenOffice and Linux will be less expensive than MS Office and Windows. Their attempt to debunk this is to say that OpenOffice is available on Windows.
Somehow this means that the "myth" is false? Their arguments don't stand to reason.
First off, the argument of Linux being less expensive is much, much larger than just the cost of an office productivity suite. It has to do with licensing, user support, applications, TCO, uptime, and all sorts of other things. Saying "OO is available on Windows. Q.E.D." is almost a non sequitur.
And how does saving money on an office suite, even if you don't migrate to Linux, mean that Linux costs more? It doesn't follow! If they argued other costs of migration (apps, user training, etc.), maybe they'd start down a logical line of argument. But the office suite argument is a dead end that doesn't lead to the conclusion that their headline would suggest.
This article is mostly FUD.
That is the problem. If there are people posting to /. who can't run a Linux desktop then it sure a hell isn't ready for prime time with the masses. I agree that the root of the problem might be with the users, but if Linux wants to rule it must solve those problems first.
The other thing Linux must change is its image. If Linux is seen as an OS for programmers/hackers who won't pay a dime for anything, commercial development will continue to struggle and there will be a big gap between windows and linux. When more SW companies can start making money on Linux it will take off.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Perhaps the slyest bit of slight-of-hand was the claim that the cost of supporting Linux users would not be significantly less than for Windows users. As support, the author quotes somebody saying that Linux required about as much support staff as Unix -- then just guesses (ignoring contrary reports) that the same would obtain vs. supporting Windows desktops.
Another is the suggestion that working well on older hardware actually counts against Free software. The author says, for instance, "After warranty support is over, many enterprises choose not to repair broken PCs, but to replace them with new ones." This is in large part because the repaired PC would not be able to run current MS software versions anyhow.
Similarly, the author suggests that keeping older hardware means managing many more varieties of hardware. Yet, it is not old, well-understood hardware that is hard to manage, but the forced influx of new hardware needed to run new versions of software. Absent that forced turnover, an enterprise may reasonably stick with substantially the same hardware configuration (with optional upgrades in clock speed and storage capacity) until there are compelling, objective reasons to switch.
Equally damning are the omissions. The author carefully avoids mentioning lock-in, and never mentions the possibility of obtaining support from independent (and possibly local, and competing) third parties, or from the in-house expertise that can only develop with Free software. For a good comparison, consider the SUNY Faculty Senate resolution published at http://orange.math.buffalo.edu/csc/resolution2_apr il2003_approved.html.
I could go on and on, but the point is that the opposition has become more sophisticated. This is more clever than "Free software is a cancer that threatens the American Way", but the intent and the conclusion are the same. Now the strategy is "make minor concessions, but sow seeds of fear, doubt, and confusion." The falsehoods reveal the true intent.
Try to guess which Gartner customer wrote this report.
...is true Windows Domain support. And don't give me this bullshit about how users can map drives to the domain every time. I mean, this:
:P
1) User logs into a Windows-based domain.
2) User receives mapped drives at logon. These may include network home directories and other specialized directories.
3) User is accorded rights from the domain.
4) Local machine rights are granted from the domain.
Until this is fixed, it will continue to be an issue for Linux in corporate. Some corporations may choose to replace the Windows Domain at a future date, but for now, with many specialized software bits needing Windows security, this isn't likely.
The only distro that attempts to get this right is Xandros. They have true Windows Domain integration. The other distros could really learn from these guys - unfortunately, their Samba implementation is proprietary.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
As I have been posting for over 2 years. Linux is a toy. It will never catch on. Security is awful.
How long is that document? Certinley not as long as a hard covered novel.
The summary does not understand the free software model at all. Free software works because people are willing to share their work to get a problem solved. This applies to "Enterprise" software too. The complexities of business planning will be tackled by those doing the planning the same way IT people tackled the problems of networking in the free software world. If sendmail, mozilla, network card drivers, compilers and all the other goodies available under free software don't convince you that accounting problems can be solved in the same way, nothing will. The author is without clue or dishonest.
Because the author did not understand free software, it's not surprising that he did not mention Debian. Though I give my $10/month to the FSF, I've yet to pay more than a few bucks for Debian CDs and apt-get upgrade is indeed a no cost service.
TCO must be lower. I read that 60% of US corporate capital expendatures has been on IT in the last few years. This is unsustainable. The next version of Windoze, which does essentially what the last version did but requires all new PCs is an not an acceptable answer to the failure of the current windoze machines to meet business needs. As Microsoft is unlikely to change, the software companies use will.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It does not prevent shell scripts from running, just type "interpreter script" and it will run even if the bit is off.
Actually the executable bit is a pain, as you often need to turn it on manually after retrieving a file from some other location that has no capability of storing the executable bit. It really is an "attribute" and because of the difficulty it causes it makes me think that any idea of using "attributes" on files is wrong. Attributes should be designed to always be determined from the contents of files, though the file system could store them after they are determined.
Perhaps they should now go back and write "Myths of Windows on the Desktop", like:
- Myth: Windows is easy to use
- Myth: Everybody runs windows
- Myth:
.DOC is a good document interchange format
- Myth: Windows development tools are high quality and productive
- Myth: Windows is professionally supported
- Myth: Windows admin tools are easier to use than UNIX's text-based configuration
- Myth: Windows NTFS provides reliability and performance
I could go on...Why don't we ask Google about Linux TCO ... ;)
(Score:-1, Wrong)
actually the as/400 uses 5250, though applications such as x3270 can have a keymap for this
"Myth: Linux Will Be Less Expensive"
Dude, its about recurring liscenses, forced upgrades, and maintianemce, not office. If anybody is using the logic that that openoffice will save money on an OS, please stop.
"Myth: Linux Is Free"
It is free. SUpport is not. guess what? support for my car, not free. support for my vcr, not free. SUpport for my jock, not free. The only time support is free is when it is an value add that can be costed into the purchase price.
And thats just the beer side. the speech side lets me do what want with the code. This means my business is in control of its own destiny.
"Myth: Linux Means No Forced Upgrades"
True. Linux support maybe, but since you can download it, there is no cost. this is the problem with MS. they will shut out an program for the purpose of making you buy another Version.
"Myth: Linux Management Is Easier"
IN my real world experience, I've seen the same work take fewer Linux boxes then windows. That alone makes it easier to manage. Cheaper to.
I will also note that a user is less likely to do irrepairable damage to the system.you also have the ability to to change managment policy to take advantage of needed changes, instead of being at the mercy of a propritary OS.
"Myth: Linux Has a Lower TCO"
If you need less machines, and the machine you do have do not need to be upgraded, and you don
t need to pay a liscense fee, that alone will reduce TCO
"Myth: Linux Means Longer Hardware Life"
why would you need to upgrade OS's 4 times in six years? The point is, once configures, there is no reason for the user to need a new PC. the reason people need new Windows PCs is because windows product need more power as the phase out the old ones. Also, MS has a history of not making new feature backwards compatibility.
"Myth: Skills Are Transferable"
I have never heard that one. SKills are ranferable between Unicies, I gues. But even then each one has its own quirks when you need to get real work done. this goes for different Wondows servers as well.
"Bottom Line"
This guy limited hi research to 2 phone calls and a google search. Probably with the key words "Linux Microsoft compare"
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The only reason people bitch about forced upgrades is because the licenses cost money. And, in his scenario, your paid support costs don't change just because you're upgrading - support is independent of OS version.
Large businesses who use windows don't have this problem. All data is stored on the network. A ghost install is created and a machine can be re-ghosted in a matter of minutes. Problems are rarley fixed. The machine is just re-ghosted. If I spend more than 15 minutes trying to fix a problem it's time for a re-ghost. I know that sounds like I just can't fix anything but it really turns out to be ths most cost-effective way to do things for us. We have 1100 machines in my building and we support them with 4 techs who are really not very busy.
The real benefits are that money can be saved using Linux if you use Linux within your enterprise for what it is: a network-centric operating system. If you try to simply make Linux work like Windows, you have just forced Linux to ignore its strengths.
The REAL impediments to moving to enterprise-wide Linux implementations are not listed as myths here, because no one ever pretends that these are easy. The big ones:
I don't doubt that these things will eventually happen: Microsoft's continuing increase in obnoxiousness is helping companies along nicely in this regard.
I really believe that one big company, with plenty of internal IT resource, and reason to want Microsoft knocked down a few pegs, could eliminate Windows systems on their own systems (hurdling the obstacles I listed above). This could serve as the benchmark that other companies can point to and see that it is possible. Are you listening, IBM? I'm talking to you!
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
We hear this again and again: "Proprietary software is supported, free software isn't".
It's bullshit. If you have problems installing a driver for Windows, do you think Microsoft will give you any support? Have you tried calling Microsoft tech support?
"Be sure to install the latest service pack". That's your tech support from the vendor. You get effective support for M$ products exactly the same way you get effective support for free software - by posting a question on a newsgroup or forum.
I think no one said it better then Microsoft's own /. article.
Hotmail team in this
Holy COW What a concept.
Forget about making money from IT, forget about buisiness and networking. Just make money from cheesy journalism. It's like not having to actually do anything. Just write a book and sell it.
If I were to write a book about software admin, I would Include lots of pics of secretaries doing nasty things to hardware, while the server admin is writing a book about how many nodes can sit on the head of a pin per dollar.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Sun - or 'the illumination'
Apple - forbidden fruit with a bite out of it and originally sold for 666 dollars.
Debian - which I believe is another name for satan and it uses the swirl or six shape - many companies use this symbolism too - Transmeta for one
Intel Pentium - pentagram - a powerful pagan symbol
The Intel inside logo has a 6 in it.
I believe the hebrew letters for www actually translate to 666.
The exact same story has been posted at least 10 times, each time it was modded up like I don't know what.
Johan Veenstra
It's worse than you think. Gartner does not sell "books" for $95; they sell reports, quiet often around 5 pages for $95. Nice work if you can get it.
"If you're dumb, and it's losing you money on windows, then even if you switch to linux you'll still be dumb, and it will still lose you money."
The execute permission doesnt affect your ability to run scripts.
A buffer overflow in a stack smash attack can still fork a shell, the no-execute mount of the filesystem is just a PITA for the users, not the attackers.
Very few local->root exploits rely upon the ability to create exec'able files.
> Myth: Windows is easy to use
.DOC is a good document interchange format
Windows is just about as easy to use as any other operating system.
Some operating systems may be easier to use in certain areas, but they lack in other areas. There is no silver bullet here, not Windows, not System X, not Linux (KDE,Gnome)
> Myth: Everybody runs windows
Well, not everybody, but most people do. Most == Everybody in the real world.
> Myth:
See above, if most people can read it and write it, it's good for document interchange.
> Myth: Windows development tools are high quality and productive
I wouldn't know, I use Linux almost exclusively, but what I've seen for MS development tools, they seem to be easy to use and of pretty high quality.
> Myth: Windows is professionally supported
Dunno, never had to call them, don't use windows.
> Myth: Windows admin tools are easier to use than UNIX's text-based configuration
They are easier to use for most of the people I work with. And I guess that's what count.
> Myth: Windows NTFS provides reliability and performance
Indeed a silly claim, reliability and performance have never been important concerning file systems. Sure some are a bit better than others, but not vitally important to the average user.
regards,
Johan Veenstra
that after paying $95.00 for the six page FUD document, management is going to believe that it must be true.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Is Gartner a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsoft or what?!
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I must remove Linux from my PC. I understand that to do so I must fsck it...
Hmmm... Sounds dirty.... I'll have to wait until the kids are in bed...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Let's take two typical software bugs -- one with Windows, one with Mozilla.
Mozilla bug: Submitted bug report, got a preliminary reply via email in under two hours. Bug was solved in two days and pushed back into CVS, ready for compiling. Took under one hour to reproduce the bug, write down all steps in bugzilla, read all the email traffic, and recompile.
Microsoft bug: (registry key not closed on logoff) After waiting 5 hours on hold, I got in touch with somebody asking all the dumbest questions ("Tried rebooting?" etc). The person wasn't even going to give me a phone number if I hadn't asked. I had to be sure to be available at hours when this person would call; I was transferred to three phone support people, and three technicians. I was asked to build two debugging computers and waste a hundred megs of download bandwidth to get certain "debug" patches, only to find that just when I got the computers built and set up, they had managed to solve the problem. Total time spent I working on the problem: at least 40 hours, spread over 6 months. About 10 of these hours were spent answering the same question to new support staff (or sometimes the same staff). Oh, and I was told that I'd have to pay additional support costs if this wasn't a bug in Windows (which it was).
The lesson: "support" is a broad term, and just sticking it on a list of features doesn't mean anything. I'll take the free support from volunteers over Microsoft's any day of the week. Though I have no direct experience with paid support from Linux vendors, I'm confident its quality is higher.
Yeah, we've set up about a dozen Linux servers -- Red Hat and Debian. And there are simply no problems. So the second edge of the "support" buzzword: for the same amount of money, would you rather have support you don't need, or need support you don't have?
These arguments are based on personal experience and not ideals, though I've got plenty based on ideals, too!
Installed Linux on my PC. Previously used Windows 2000.
It's a joke. The Gnome UI is very inconsistent. Areas that were glamorous to work on are well fleshed out. Other areas are lousy.
Apps? Well, if I want to spend a lot of time fooling around trying to interoperate with people, then it's great. But I don't.
Look, I need to be able to do even the unglamorous stuff without having to pop a shell and type 'man'.
I personally don't know a single person who switched entirely to Linux for anything other than the purpose of Unix development.
I have friends who work in Linux all day. They come home to Windows.
What about things that aren't myths? Like the Blue Screen... I think many enterprise-system customers would love to rid themselves of the blue screen altogether.
Defenestration: ... 2. The act of exiting a window system in order to get better response time from a full-screen program. This comes from the dictionary meaning of `defenestrate', which is to throw something out a window. ... 5. The act of completely removing Micro$oft Windows from a PC in favor of a better OS (typically Linux).
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Drop a rescue CD into the machine.
Format all drives.
Mount drives in the corrent places, but under /mnt.
"cp -a" the files back from the backup.
Run lilo.
Reboot.
It's more complicated, but not a lot more complicated.
Where I work we have one Ghost image that we use for all the new computers we are rolling out(4 different configurations at the moment.) They all run Windows 2000.
We have installed all the basic applications to them in advance. Then, we run Sysprep, a Microsoft utility that allows you to go through all the computer specfic setup sections on each computer. We have an automatic answer section that answers all the ones that are standard so we can enter a computer name after rebooting and it will boot up perfectly with all the settings intact and no collisions on the network.
Its really nice, and with sysprep, you can even set it to completely redetect all hardware. True, it won't work if you are going from IDE to SCSI or something of that sort, but we don't. The images work across many different computers and work beautifully. Microsoft allows you to have specific directories where you place the driver install files so that when you boot up the new PC, it automatically installs any drivers that it doesn't have. All we do is Ghost the machine, and we're down to personalization. Not installing patches and generic software apps. If you're using Windows 2k, I reccomend you try it.
OK, since you sing the praises for the GIMP so much, I feel compelled to offer a balancing view.
Last week, I wanted to produce a small logo to go on a web site. I had no graphics software installed on my WinXP box, so I decided to go find and install this "GIMP" thing I'd heard so much about.
After nearly an hour of searching (some of us are still stuck with 56k modems...) I finally found a site that offered something close to a proper installer for the GIMP, as opposed to a huge list of random-sounding packages, which I'm somehow supposed to understand well enough to choose which to install.
Unfortunately, the installer only installed a prerelease version. That's OK, I thought, prereleases of open source things happen all the time, it's their version of a "beta test". Might be a few little bugs, but it'll be pretty stable and mostly work. Wrong!
So, having run two installers (apparently just one isn't good enough for the GIMP) I fired up the app.
Yuck. It may be great on Linux, I don't know, but on Windows, its interface is hideous. Nothing follows any of the usual standards. I found it awkward and inefficient, and it took me several minutes just to work out how to put a letter "a" in a font I wanted onto my image.
Then I tried to save that, but unfortunately, the export filter for one of the most common filetypes around crashed the whole app on me, losing everything.
I won't bore you with the next three times it crashed doing the most basic of things; most open source advocates would just say "Oh, it's a prerelease, it's your own fault" anyway.
So, here we have an application that is impossible for a non-expert to install, which breaks just about every UI convention in the book, and which is waaaaaay behind typical Windoze utilities like Paint Shop Pro on all counts. Sure, it's free, but so is Windows Paint, and at least I managed to get an "a" into a file on disk with that. Me, I'll go out and spend my pennies to buy the current version of Paint Shop Pro if I need to do non-trivial graphics work, thanks.
I've now tried OpenOffice, Mozilla and the GIMP, three bastions of the OS world, and found all of them still to be some way behind their commercial rivals. Is it any wonder, then, that the advocates of tools like Linux are starting to find themselves up against a more sceptical market just as things seemed to be taking off?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The other real question should be cost of admining, I have a friend that is the support Admin for several thousand windows machines in a couple of dozen states at around 300 individual sites, his company has spent hundreds of of thousands of dollars on remote admin software to allow their support personel to remotely upgrade computer applications, software that would be nearly pointless under linux thanks to tools as simple as xhost.
Ike
There is, in my opinion, exacly _one_ reason Linux (or any UNIX) is better for a company than Windows - Ssh. The ability to do most maintence and administration from one central, ergonomic work-place, intaed of from within the server-room (which may even be several hundred kilometers away).
This works because all configuration can be done from the command-line. This alsao, has the nice side-effect of making things eaily scriptable (but that functionality exists on other plattforms aswell).
In my current job, I've been in the town where the servers I work with every day are, twice, one week each time... I even installed them from remote, using a network-booted ramdisk-based mini-distro that I could ssh to to configure the filesystems and download a tgz and untar it.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Excluding W4r3z, pr0n and MP3, most users create very little data. Lots of documents and emails, but not many Mb.
Every time my GF connects her laptop to the home LAN, her home is rsync'ed to the fileserver, which is (sometimes!) backed up. This way she can recover documents herself from a read only network directory if she makes a mistake.
You can make this even more bullet proof by keeping a week's worth of homes on the server (so there's a week's grace) and by mirroring the data off-site to a properly backed up system (very do-able with DSL). Or set up a p2p system where crypt'ed copies are kept on your friend's system.
Actually, it would be nice to see such tools packaged up so that anyone can set up this sort of environment.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
Even if I was a large business with many millions of dollars, I still wouldn't buy this report. How do I know that this report, for which I would pay $95.00, even contains what I need? And, no, I don't care if this is published by Gartner or anyone else for that matter. There simply CANNOT be so much work or valuable information in a six page report that it calls for such an outrageous price. If it was $95.00 for a subscription to 6 months of valuable business information, that would be reasonable. But a six page report? That I can't even examine before buying? I don't know about you, but this sounds like a pretty stupid business decision to make. There are longer reviews of Linux on the cheapest websites that probably contain information of similar quality, even without the research that Gartner put into it. But then, if you're an exec who is so STUPID that you don't know that there will STILL be costs incurred in the maintainance of any computer system, plus a cost to modify your system and procedures, then you're stupid enough to pay $95.00 for a six page report that tells you that.
Anybody that would pay $95 for a 6 page document actually cares what Linux costs...
-- If it ain't broke - overclock it more.
I said No Text!
This report seems to mainly constitute statements of the bleeding obvious, but one thing caught my eye:
.EXE file attachment from an email (while cheerfully allowing it to occupy space in your inbox) because it might be a virus, but will cheerfully execute VBA scripts in messages without asking you.
He expects Linux to have a slight edge over Windows for three reasons: 1) the existence of fewer viruses targeting Linux desktops; 2) fewer problems caused by conflicting applications; and 3) difficulty of understanding and repairing the Window registry. Since Linux is purely file-based, administrators may be able to troubleshoot application problems more easily.
Interesting that these are mainly issues Microsoft has brought on itself, 1) through putting VBA in everything and making it a default option (even in their email clients), 2) through its DLL architecture, 3) by their insane "configuration as software protection by stealth" implementation of the registry.
I am totally amazed that Outlook will simply not allow you to extract a
Hire a linux guru.
Fire the rest of IT except for a few grunts to replace bad hardware.
Go for a dotorg distro. I'm a gentoo fan, but debian, a BSD, or even free versions of commercial distros all fit.
Switch to OSS tools.
Cost: 1 guru + grunts. that's it. Gurus schale a hella lot better than support packages too.
And here's why:
but but but THIN CLIENTS
Yet you scoff at Sun and Oracle when they had the idea. Hypocrites.
but but but WE DON'T NEED PAID SUPPORT
You may not, but businesses (ie: the people in charge of $$ in the company) will. If you don't understand this you haven't been in the real world.
but but but LINUX IS MORE FLEXIBLE!
Is flexibility something that's required in a desktop OS or do you want to configure it so users can get their work done and that's all? Think before you answer.
but but but THERE IS NO DETAILS ABOUT TCO!
That's because what he's pointing out is it has NOTHING, FUCKING NOTHING to do with the OS. It's about policies and procedures of the company.
but but but IT'S CHEAPER BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO LICENSE THE OS AND APPS!
You idiots didn't read the article, did you? Yes, you save money there but the cost to transition to Linux may outweigh it. Oh, that and you've already purchased the licenses so you're throwing away money on software you haven't fully utilized.
I could go on and on and respond to all of you individually, but I won't. You all have some good points but most of you haven't been in the real world.
A large fortune 100 company I worked for in 98 ordered an expensive gartner report about the future of Linux in the enterprise. Needless to say it did NOT paint a pretty picture and even implied that disputes between KDE and Gnome could be it's undoing. They were full of it then, and they are full of it now. The only difference being, now several years after the fact I know just how full of it they were, but since then they have covered it up with a bunch of newer reports that suggest that they knew Linux would storm the enterprise all along. WHAT A CROCK!!
If you want to know what has already happened, you get a Gartner report, but if you want to know what's going to happen, toss em in the trash and go talk to some of the people on the front line who use the technology to get results. 5 years ago I suggested tossing SCO because Linux was going to take over the enterprise - to this day I still can't believe how people so stubbornly refused to consider the facts not to mention their best interests.
Assuming that this is an accurate synopsis, I have some things to say about the report.
Let's move away from the "Staroffice" thing and look at the fact that you don't have to pay for the OS, and that linux server support costs less than windows desktop support.
"Supported versions" of linux aren't free? Uh, you can't make a version of linux that ain't free, because it depends on GPL'd code. You do have to pay for autoupdate services... But at the worst, you might have to pay for the "supported" version once. Paying for service contracts is a separate issue, touched upon above. It's not part of the free/not free issue since you have to pay for it above and beyond purchasing the software in the cases of both windows and linux.
That really is a myth. If nothing else you will have to upgrade glibc and the toolchain; upgrade glibc enough and you have problems.
Depends. If you're the kind of person who is at the level of scripting but not programming then this is probably not a myth. Linux is easier to script together because it's Unix. On the other hand, Windows has pretty good automation ability, you just have to use COM (or .NET now, I guess, in 2k3?) to use some of it. Then again, most of it can be vbscripted (shudder) so this is probably somewhere in the middle. Certainly it is easier to write tools to automate Unix than Windows NT.
I just wanted to display the whole thing to try to point out how this is a meaningless argument. TCO doesn't just cover permissions and procurement issues, it also involves initial cost and support cost which are demonstrably lower with Linux in simple dollar amounts based on support costs.
On the other hand, Windows' permissions system would seem to be better suited to management of organizations than Linux's, since Windows uses ACLs, and while Linux is capable of it, no one does it and the user space tools just aren't there.
Okay, this is so ignorant I don't even know where to start, so I guess I'll begin at the top. The very first paragraph starts out confirming the "Myth". It says right at the beginning that it's true that you can use older PCs with a current version of Linux to run software which windows won't run on the same hardware. Thanks, Silver! Then it is ruined by saying
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
FUD FUD FUD!
I can't believe people pay for stuff like this. I'm going to go write a report on the use of rubber sheets and studded underwear on the desktop and see if I can sell that for $95 a copy.
You are completely and utterly...dead wrong.
IE, Media Player, Office, Outlook all run "in the user's process space". Just like Linux, Win2k Administrator is root, and everyone else has some other privilege level. Ordinary users are...well ordinary users. You can't muck with files marked "Users:Read " or "Everyone:Read". There's no such thing as "setuid" under NT architecture.
In fact NT/Win2k/XP file system security are so secure, you can't chown. You can only "take-ownership". That is there for audit purposes. I must "give you rights" to take ownership of files. That method allows an audit trail to be implemented where we know who the creator of the original files were. In practice however there is a "way" for an administrator to set a file ownership, I'm just not going to tell you how!
+55 cents.
who's there? A Win2k/XP administrator who's entire network infrastructure (500+ machines and 10,000+ users) runs efficiently and effectively from Win2k command shell scripts (.cmd's).
For those who lack the skills to find these things out on their own...
Windows NT, and especially Win2k/XP command shell scripting is very powerful. It is not DOS batch files.
You must remember one thing here, programming, scripting, and batching are all three different things. Each has it's own positive benefit. The smart administrator knows when to switch between the three methods to solve a problem. You wouldn't for example write a database in batch, or perl would you? And for that matter, to copy a file from one directory to another you wouldn't crack open your C++ compiler. I probably wouldn't use Lisp for heavy text groveling, would you? My point is intelligent administrators know what problems require what tools. Only application developers stay stuck to one method of problem solving for long periods of time. Administrators and system programmers don't have that luxury.
Back to Win2k/XP command shell scripting... You'd really be surpised at what you can do with simple batching. I think the KISS rule of problem solving epitomizes command shell pretty good. The other thing is that the interpreter is so small compared to perl, or VB, or Java. When you execute a CMD file the interpreter loads up instantly like notepad. The memory used is typically 1 Meg. Perl uses ~4 meg or more, VB uses about the same. Java uses ~9 meg. And, oh god "hello world" in C# uses about 11 Meg! No way am I going to use that for network administration scripting!
There's also all kinds of "tricks" you can pull in command shell, just like any language. Finding those gems is what separates the men from the boys. The command shell allows arithmetic operations, subroutines, pipes and redirection based on standard unix syntax. It also has some coolness features that make it really nice for working under Windows. For example, check out the FOR command, it is pretty powerful in it's own right. I use it for just about everything.
I can go on and on, but never ever put down command shell, it's just another tool like anything else. If you cut on command shell, you might as well rule out the "ls", "cp", or "rm" commands under unix.
+99 cents.
I see that you studied under the famous theobiologist Dr. Richard Paley of Fellowship University.
Company is not running ms products and ms asks for proof?
Simple. Company flips them the bird, and continues with its business.
I'll spell it out for you. ms (or bsa) has no right to audit anyone...or enter anyone's business for an audit...UNLESS...they are using a ms product that has in its licensing terms, rights to an audit.
So what about the audit busts we here about? Either a former or current employee with a grudge rats them out, AND the bsa or ms checks for a select/enterprise/other license agreement in their database, and forces the audit by getting an enforcement warrant based on the rat information AND the license if the company refuses access, or the company foolishly allows access for the audit. Or even more foolishly, admits they are short licenses and will come into compliance by buying more licenses.
Enterprise, select, and whatever the other licenses are, have built in, rights to audit. THAT is the basis for forced audits.
If a company is NOT using ms products, such as a few companies that I know who are using solely free/open source software products now, and have been for more than a year, then there is no license agreement, no select or enterprise license in ms's database, or in the bsa's database, and therefore ms has no rights, none, to enter the business. And if a rat employee says otherwise, and the forced audit goes through anyway, the employee will be in deep shit (jail & $) if not anonymous, and ms/bsa will be in deep shit ($$$) for providing faulty evidence to base the forced audit on. If the employee is anonymous, and ms/bsa have no license in their hands allowing the audit, then ms/bsa will be facing astronomical monetary penalties and possibly even criminal prosecutions because they provided evidence that they knew, or should have known, was not sufficient or reliable enough to base what basically comes down to a raid on a company. Think loss of business when thinking about monetary damages.
They won't be pulling this type of audit on a 5 person business. They'd be trying this on a company that can pay hundreds of thousands in penalties if an out of license condition exists. In a company that can pay this type of penalty, it would be trivial to show five and even six figure loss of business income. And the company, and possibly even the local prosecutor would be pushing for punitive damages.
One company that switched everything to free/open source software got one of those infamous bsa audit warning letters last year. My advice was to take a picture of a big pile of shit, and mail the letter and the picture back to them. I even offered to take the shit (and picture) for them. Don't know if they did it or not, but the owner liked the idea so much we had to pick him up off the floor he was laughing so hard.
ms can ask for all the proof they want. I, my company, and any other company strictly using free/open source software can and will flip them the bird. Period.
Good luck getting that to stand up in court. Especially since with Windows 2000 Microsoft released their own "Ghost" software that makes images of a system drive and allows you to distribute that "image" to clients over a network.
The only difference I can discern between Ghost and MS' implementation is that the MS way results in you buying more licenses (for an extra, dedicated server machine) and an extra CAL. Plus, the MS way "recommends" that you have a couple of these distribution servers sitting around--one main and one "backup." Of course that means another license and another CAL...
And thus, further locking you in in to their kabaal of evil/crapware.
I'll run it by our lawyer today, because obviously I'm concerned that we're violating a license that could leave us open to large fines. Of course, without Ghost, I instantly need an extra three to five employees, so I don't see it going away any time soon, even if he says we're in breach of contract.
Who did what now?
This guy thinks 6 pages of his opinion is worth $95.00 a read!
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Hear hear! I can't moderate this discusison because I've posted to it, but I wish I could.
It is this negligence that forces me to keep my resume ready at all times. You never know when a surprise software audit will come along and earn your company a budget busting fine that results in me "no longer fitting in the budget."
Who did what now?
I wasn't giving a review of the GIMP, I was providing a deliberately biased point of view to counteract your heavy advocacy. I pretty much said that in my first sentence.
Had I been giving a proper, objective review, I might have contrasted it with something like Paint Shop Pro, the closest equivalent tool in common use on Windows (and something that, while not free, costs almost nothing in business terms). I would have noted that the GIMP is missing several useful filters, seems to have quite limited text handling, has a liability in that it can't export GIFs without hackery, etc. I would also have commented on its strengths to balance the view.
That isn't really the point, though. I wouldn't think it was fair for you to judge Office XP based on its performance on Linux, but then I don't see a whole bunch of slashbots advocating such a use every day on this site. I do get told of the virtues of moving to open source software, specifically on a Windows platform, quite frequently here, and Moz, OpenOffice and the GIMP are the three most often-cited examples.
This is a thread all about debunking the myths, allegedly about Linux but in practice about the whole open source world, since to many businesses they are (rightly or wrongly) treated as synonymous. There's even a claimed myth in the original article on this point.
Now, look at your posts in this thread. One minute you complain that the lack of FPS games isn't relevant to a business user but the next you're criticising Windows because it doesn't have a built-in ability burning VideoCDs. The latter isn't relevant to typical businesses either, and you'd get software that could do it with just about any CD-R drive you bought today anyway. (We can get into the whole supporting hardware within a useful timeframe argument if you really want.) Hell, you even wrote:
That was about terminal emulation. The thing is, you put the emphasis in the wrong place. It should have said "For businesses running Linux, it is a big deal." That would have demonstrated how one-sided the argument was, and how irrelevant to a typical Windows-based outfit.
Your original post some way up did grossly misrepresent the capabilities of Windows compared to Linux, whether you're talking generally or business-specifics, as was pointed out to you by another poster. Your follow-up did then fail to give a convincing response to several of the objections raised. Yes, my post was biased, as it admitted and was intended to be, but the point was a fair one.
I've generally been much happier with Moz and OpenOffice, and I continue to use them rather than the MS equivalents because (a) I don't believe in ripping software, even MS', and (b) I want to support the alternatives, because I think they have a lot of potential. That doesn't mean they are as good or better yet, though.
However, as I've explained in posts here before, Moz does have some serious stability issues on Windows, and the idealistic rather than realistic attitude of the developers towards standards hurts rather than helping at times. The big killer, though, is that if things go wrong, you can wind up with your whole profile screwed, resulting in much lost time recovering (if you can) your mailbox, address book, etc. The fact that it doesn't seem to work as intended when moving the folder where your files are stored is also a big downer; I'd like to have Moz installed on both Windows and Linux and then switch seamlessly between the two so they
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
A standard AS/400 terminal is using the 5250 protocol. It CAN do 3270 but best used with AS/400 is 5250.
Seriously, though, it makes no sense to continue using POP, and this is one reason why. Go to IMAP, and all the email gets kept on the server. You'll also get fewer complaints from users who need to access their email over slow dialup lines.
You can also configure Windows to put the user home directory, the desktop directory, and the bookmarks directory on a server. Saving files to a server might seem inefficient, but modern networks are fast enough for this. But I don't recommend it unless your server runs NTFS.
I agree entirely. When I worked at microsoft, even resizing a partition caused endless problems. However, when I got a new, larger hard drive for my linux-based personal laptop, I had everything copied over and the OS running on the new drive and bootable with no errors in under half an hour. Naturally on my home network I back up stuff to my network, but even so, the time it takes me to get my box replaced on my home network is negligible. In fact, someone needed my duron 900 and without any problems whatsoever I am swapping that drive into a compaq workstation 5100 dual processor pentium 2 as we speak and as soon as it is done installing linux, it will use my foresight-drivern partitions such as /home being a seperate partition to immediately restore my account to exactly how it was. Gotta love an operating system that cares more about function than finance.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!