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."
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!
"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.
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.
Why would anyone write a .bat script on Windows to emulate a Bash or Perl script on Unix, when both Bash and Perl are available on Windows?
I would be interested in any example of a Perl script you've written on Unix that will demonstrate the "basic undeniable fact" that Windows is far less flexible than Unix.
Otherwise, STFU.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
Do you know that Microsoft's virtual monopoly mens that hardware makers do not have the incentive to write drivers for alternative opeating systems. They could at least release full interface specs so that the work would be done by someone else. No they haven't done either. And I suspect Microsoft could be bullying (indirectly pressuring) hardware makers not to write drivers for GNU/Linux et. al. or release specs. Now, don't say that they have to make money from the dirvers. They don't sell their drivers, they have to provide it with the hardware they sell.
'free' in the GNU/Linux terms means freedom, not moolah. I know this is a (Score, -2000, Overrated and Redundant), but I have no choice but to say it again. It means 'freedom'. Lower cost of acquiring the software is just a perk. Again consider installing Windows on 30 machines. With GNU/Linux one licence is good for all, while on Windows you pay for each workstation for software alone.
These arguments are exactly what everyone I have spoken to seem to make. It is partly true but it is like listening to a part of a show that is supposed to be funny, but can only be funny if you had background information of the show. So, where is the background info. of this show? Microsof's dominance, coercion in many forms on hardware makers.
Thank you for understanding.
GrimReality
2003-05-06 17:09:14 UTC (2003-05-06 13:09:14 EDT)
Web server management, user account managment service startup, firewall managment, hardware configuration all can be configured using BASH and PERL on *Nix.
You can do basic stuff like "net start w3svc", most any part of iis can be controlled through vbscript (adding users, virtual domains, etc), I don't know if a PERL lib is available, but it certainly could be. What hardware configuration do you refer to?
Even though those utilities have been ported to Win2K, they cannot perform the same functionality on an operating system that hides 75% of it's operation from all users.
First, this is completely false. You can access a HUGE amount of the OS via any scriptable language that can do COM calls. If Win2K was so closed, it wouldn't be so damned easy to write virus's for it. Plus, the things you mentioned above (web server/firewall mgmt) have nothing to do with the OS.
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.
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?
The unix tradition is that when a user creates a file, whether it be directly or though downoading an email, its execute permission is off. This means that either the email client, or the user have to go out of their way to change the permissions, then execute the binary. Yes, it is still possible to shoot yourself in the foot. The ability to only screw with your own files is a benefit though. You personal documents are a lot more likely to be backed up, hope, than the full set of applications and system files. A virus which messes with installed programs or system files often means a complete rebuild of the system. Corruption of personal files can usually be fixed by a quick restore from backup.
Spencer Ogden
Actually your position puts it _more_ in favor of Linux on the desktop. Why? Because Linux _isn't_ just an operating system, at least how most people come by it.
Let's say you install Windows and Red Hat Linux on a PC. Windows comes with:
* Wordpad
* IE
And that's pretty much it. Red Hat, on the other hand, comes with:
* Mozilla
* OpenOffice
* The GIMP
* Dia for diagramming
* FTP programs
* SFTP programs
* CD-Burning software
* Evolution
* 3720 terminal emulator (for AS/400 app connectivity)
* PDF viewing software
* Development software
That doesn't even count the server software it comes with. Other distributions pack even more in. Now, it usually takes ~ 30 minutes to an hour to install Linux. Probably about the same for Windows. However, after you are done installing Windows, you have to spend 10 minutes to several hours (like for Visual Studio) to install each application individually. You can save some money by using Linux applications on Windows, but you still have to download them each individually. How much time have we wasted? And that's assuming that all of your applications play nicely together.
In addition, with the "workspaces" concept on the desktop, it creates better productivity for workers. The entire experience can be customized by the IT department if they wish. This _can_ be done to a lesser extent with Windows, if you have the right licensing agreements, however, getting all of the licensing together to do a full install of all the software you would need would be a ton of work, assuming all of your vendors wanted to play nicely together.
Then you have upgrades. With Linux, as long as you have someone in-house who can code, you can keep your setup as long as you desire - no need to follow your vendor. If you don't like that road, you can play follow-your-vendor on Linux, too. In addition, with Linux, you get to pick your vendor, so you can choose one which works like your company works (fast-paced, traditional, etc).
I would say there are two things that may cause you to have problems with Linux. Those are:
* specialized software packages
* technically-savvy users
Yes, that's right, your technically-savvy users are going to be the ones who notice the change, not your "where's my desktop" type users. The ones who don't know technology at all will simply click on whatever you put in front of them in whatever sequence you tell them. Trust me, they are lost on whatever technology you put in front of them, you just have to give them a sequence of clicks and they will obey and do just fine. It's the medium-technically-savvy users that are difficult, because they've taken the time to learn Windows inside-out, and know how to get around all of it's quirks. They may not want to learn a new system with new quirks.
Also, Linux systems are easier to manage. It's more obvious what causes processes to start up, which ones are messing with what resources. In reality, NT has a bunch of tools available for this kind of thing, but, as usual, you have to install them separately - ON EVERY WORKSTATION. Linux comes ready-to-manage locally or remotely.
Add LDAP and Directory Administrator and you are set to go for large installations.
Engineering and the Ultimate
How is that different from the model most companies currently use where all files are stored on a central server?
If a departmental file server goes down, or if the email server goes down then I have a pile of folks that can't use their computers for anything but solitaire. Sun was 100% right when they said, "the network is the computer." One of the major benefits of Linux is that it saves you money in licensing costs that can be directly applied to purchasing better (or redundant) hardware.
The real advantage of thin clients, however, is that instead of hundreds of machines that need to be administered I now only have to adminster *one* machine (or two actually, because I am going to want redundant servers). Instead of babysitting rooms full of commodity x86 hardware (complete with all of the drive failures, software glitches, etc. that this implies) I now admin only a pair of identical server class machines. If a thin client breaks, I throw the thing in the trash and get a monkey to install another one. If I want to upgrade the software everyone uses I simply upgrade the server and I am done. Hardware upgrades are also ridiculously easy. Instead of filling up the landfill with used PCs, and spending time configuring new machines, I simply replace the servers and everyone gets a faster machine.
The pendulum is going to swing back in the direction of thin clients, and Linux is going to be a huge part of that shift.
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.
Corruption of personal files is *catastrophic*. Imagine your house burns down, what do you want to save most? Do you say "Oh, we saved the house, but all your personal stuff is gone". That's just completely backwards. If the OS can't save me from a virus mucking with the personal files, then I don't give a damn about the system files, they can be fixed.
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
Wrong.
Internet Explorer runs with Adminstrator privileges. So does Windows Media Player. And Microsoft Office. Including Outlook. The "finer-grained ACLs" on Windows NT-based OSes don't mean shit when the programs all get to run setuid root.
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.