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."

Comments

Registration NOT required

[A nonymous Coward]

The Gartner link is registration required, but not the overview. There are TWO links ....

This seems like FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

full text of article (not overview)

[Anonymous Coward]

The original article is on zdnet here

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[stratjakt]

.bat isn't a script, it's a batch file.

And an MCSD wouldn't write one to do anything in windows - it's a DOS construct, he'd write a VBScript, JavaScript, or - if he wanted to be just like you - write it in perl or bash or tcl.

Every userland language/app that exists for linux exists for NT.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[jtdiii]

If you going to consider OpenOffice and other OSS then why not consider one of the Linux distros....If your going to use OpenOffice then you are half way there .... Take some time learn one of the Distros (RedHat, SuSe, Mandrake) or customize one yourself. It is truly your option.

I have come from many Microsoft Shops .... Hell, I was/am a Microsoft Sys Admin for 8years. My point is that busnesses do not fork out thousands upon thousands of dollars to Microsoft and turn around and use Open Office. They follow the "support/ compatibility" trail and buy Office, SQL, Exchange, and the development tools recommened by those same vendors.

An OS is used to deliver applications that is what Linux does. It is not a vehicle for big companies to try to sell me something everytime if I open a browser. yeah yeah I know I can get pop-up blockers and such ....But there again I have to rely on third party vendors to solve this problem.... Not a simple little button click like mozilla.

Is Linux ready for the Desktop?
It Is if you want it to be.... I am completly MS free on my desktop .... was it easy the first time ? No ....Is it easy now? Yes. All it took was time and effort (and no money).

My tools are free..... My Skills are not. If my customer has to by my tools before I can go to work (XP, Office, Ghost, WIN2K server, etc) that means less money for me and makes me noting more than service tech. (Like the copier guy)

If I bring my tools with me ie..Linux, Apache, MySQL, etc, etc. Then that money comes to me in the form of my skills. Why should the client care what it runs as long as it runs.

THAT IS WHERE TRUE TCO STARTS.... It takes the same skills to manage MS and Linux..... But the middle man (Microsoft) gets a third of you potential income/revenue....

There once was a cluster of 450 Win2k servers on Dell Servers running a coputational application.

They could run a 100 nodes with a 75% reliability and anything more it crashed and required a FULL DAY to reboot the servers.

I was tasked to convert those server to RH7.3.

Once I had Kickstart figured out I redeployed those same servers with Linux, ready to run production jobs in A DAY.... And I did at no cost to the company.... It was so successful the company is now trying to get there money back on the MS licenses. (FAT CHANCE) but they felt so betryed by MS that they felt it was at least worth the effort.

Choose your tools well my fellow craftsman... Choose the ones that will benefit you not relagate you just a handyman for Microsoft.

You can argue perfomance and ease of use all you want but at the end of the day it comes down to money and how much you get. And if the company you work for uses a Microsoft for thier tools, that makes you Microsoft's bitch. Microsoft gets paid first.

Re:Anti-windows FUD

[Keebler71]

Nope... you are wrong (or lying but I will give you benefit of the doubt). I just fired up outlook, word and explorer and checked their ownership. All were listed as user level. (WinXP unmodified w/SP1).