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."
... 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
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)
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.
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.
Nevermind the troll factor... you're just not well informed. You've managed to focus on the worse possible conditions for any one of these points you make. I could easily do that same with Windows with a lot less effort.
But, since I haven't run Windows on anything in years (except for work) I don't really care to try
But to answer your points specifically:
Linux is good for old computers
It is true that you pretty much need at least 32MB or RAM to use Linux as a GUI workstation these days. Event Windows 95 needed this and more. Now you can get buy nicely with 32MB of RAM if you do not use Gnome or KDE. These are turning into fat pigs and will make Linux work like a piece of shit most of the time on little machines. However, I have a lot of computers which are all around 400-700MHz clock speeds that do very well
Linux is lightweight
Here you are a fucking idiot. Linux will never free RAM once it's been used. It's called caching. It's extremely efficient. Because of this, you may see that all of the RAM appears to be used, but it isn't really. So get a clue
Windows is Bloated
What's the myth about this? Windows is huge. It's also feature rich. But you are comparing Windows XP on a 1600MHz machine to ... what? a 166MHz KDE installation? Sorry, Windows is bloated. It's been optimized to start up quickly on purpose. You should look into the Linux BIOS if you want boot speeds
Windows Applications are bloated and slow
Again, you are a fucking idiot. If Linux were to use the architectural design of putting everything into the kernel, then everything would start up nice and fast, like you describe. However, you would have a few limitations. Bugs would be much nastier to track down. And to use anything that isn't a part of the Divine Microsoft core is going to take frickin hours to load up as well. Try something that is almost fair. How long does it take you to load a JVM application one XP versus Linux? How long to do it a second time (remember LInux caches all that RAM)?
Honestly, before you attempt to post as some Anon.Cow. you should at least consider getting your facts straight. My 10 year old daughter has more brains than you on this stuff.
My kids were recently playing with a XP on some 2.1GHz machine. I asked them how well Mozilla worked on their machine versus my 400MHz Linux install. To them, it's the same speed. Considering that there is no perceived difference between these two machines, other than the price, is there really any truth to what you say?
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.
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."
Myth 1.) Linux is good for old computers.
You're right to say that an old P-166 will do poorly as a Linux desktop and it's true that KDE3/Gnome2 and other recent software takes quite a bit of hardware to run well. However, that P-166 you mention wouldn't even be able to run WinXP. So what we're comparing here is Win98 vs. Linux as a lightweight OS for an old computer. Well, guess what? You don't have to use KDE3/Gnome2! If you want the equivalent lightweight interface of Win95/98, try FVWM instead.
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.
Now that is nothing more than a troll. Anyone who has used Linux on any reasonably modern hardware knows that that is patently untrue. Or maybe YOU are one of the clueless newbies who thought Linux would magically turn your crappy old hardware into a dream machine.
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.
Win98 is nowhere near as 'featureful' as KDE. And yes, KDE does take longer to load than XP. You know why? Because it's far more feature-rich than XP as well!
I had far more stability/mysterious problems on RedHat 7.2 and KDE than I've ever had in Windows 9x
That part does not surprise me. RedHat sucks.. at least older versions like 6 and 7 did. I've heard good things about 9.0, but being a Debian fan, I don't bother.
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)
You really enjoy espousing BS don't you? Or maybe perhaps you refer to a bug in NVidia's crappy proprietary video drivers? Don't confuse the two.
All of the core windows apps such as the file manager, web browser, and office applications start up nearly instantly on even a marginally fast computer. After waiting and waiting for konqueror to load (even when I just loaded it) or going to the bathroom while staroffice does its thing, I was amazed at how blazingly fast comparible programs like outlook, word, internet explorer, etc were by comparison.
You know why they load "instantly"? Because they get half-loaded into memory when your system boots. There are hacks for OpenOffice and KDE that do the same thing for people who want to feel like they're getting more speed for free. But it's always a tradeoff. Additionally some windows apps don't load completely when they start. They graft on additional functionality as needed--which is generally speaking a smart thing to do. But it doesn't mean that KDE is bloated.
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.
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. =====
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.
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.....
You SO don't get it. Firstly, SMS doesn't work. Everyone knows it. It has failed in every org I've belonged to, and I wasn't the guy running it. People used to laugh about unplugging their PCs so that the IT baboons COULDN'T do an SMS push. ZenWorks might work, only because it's not Microsoft. On Linux, it's all different. Firstly, your "profile" is all in one place. Really. It's called "/home". Secondly, since you can SSH into any box, as an administrative user, you can upgrade whatever you need to. Hell, with a few Perl scripts, you could have the systems autoupgrade - put some .debs or .rpms in a magic directory, and "if -x files, do upgrade process" in a shell script via cron.
The thing about a Unix shop is that you can depend on the fact that all systems have cron, an MTA, Perl, and sshd. In a Unix shop, remote administration is the norm, not the exception.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
scp and maybe rcp defies that for sure. it keeps the unix permissions. You maybe be thinking of the UMASK thing,but that can be ignored too.
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
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.
actually, the latest version of SuSE ships with executable permission _off_ on any user writable partition. this means that unless the system administrator installed the application system-wide, it can't be run. this almost completely nullifies the virus issue. hopefully other distros will follow SuSE's lead on this point and make this a standard setting on desktop distributions.
Now, it usually takes ~ 30 minutes to an hour to install Linux. Probably about the same for Windows.
Actually, Win XP took at least two hours when I last installed it. I went out and mowed the lawn in the intervening time. Solaris 9 installs faster...and that's with pkgadd! Of course, YMMV.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Mass deployment script:1
#!/usr/bin/perl
$ipbase=192.168.1
$ip=
while ($ip 254) {
system(ssh $ipbase.$ip 'rpm -Uvh your_application');
$ip++
}
Ok Ok... it's just for Red Hat right now...look for Deibian soon.
"The Gimp ? Yes, and there's Paint with Windows. Not an awesome program but for MOST people it's fine for what they need to do."
Obviously you've never used the GIMP. Does paint have support for:
* Multiple layers
* Layer masks
* Full alpha channel
* RGB and HSV modes
* Advanced Filters
* Numerous, numerous plugins
* The ability to write your own plugins with ~ 15 lines of code
* Numerous brushes, textures, and gradients
* Ability to work with animated images
* Ability to import/export almost every graphic type
I didn't think so.
"Diagramming ? Gee whiz - we all do that all the time !"
Many people do. ORG charts, customer presentations, processes, all require diagramming. At my company, I've had to install Dia on a number of people's Win boxes.
"FTP programs - out of the Windows box too, not that many people need to FTP when they can drag and drop."
IE is not a true FTP program. Real FTP has lots more options. I'm also not talking command-line, I'm talking GUI drag-and-drop.
"CD burning software - XP can write to discs ok thanks."
Can it write VideoCDs? Can it do Disk-At-Once?
"Terminal emulation ? Yet again, how many regular users need it ? But there's Hyperterminal for some emulations if you need them."
Hyperterminal doesn't do 3270. 3270 is a HIGHLY-used terminal emulation. It's used by just about anyone whose got an AS/400 - including churches, banks, department stores, governmental offices, and tons of other places.
"PDF ? Like the Acrobat reader for Windows costs ??" I didn't say it costs. I said it costs time for installation.
"Development software - yet again, who needs that ? We're talking about the desktop here !"
There are many classes of users that use development software. In most companies, the ones who have the know-how can't because licensing is so expensive. On Linux, the tools come with it to do simple GUIs w/ Python to automate tasks. You only have to have one person with a little experience to get leaps and bounds of productivity.
"MS could add loads of extra software in the price but then certain camps would be bleating just like they did with the bundled IE."
See my other post on this topic. Also note that if they could do this within the given price, why don't they lower the price they have now?
"As another poster reports, major corps don't build every machine on it's own ! Wake up - they use Ghost or similar ? At our site it takes TWO minutes to download the build and the scripts add another five minutes to configure the names and IPs, mostly unattended."
Again, read my other posts. Most corporations may use GHOST, but are usually violating a large number of license agreements in the process. That can mean big problems later. Also, to use GHOST, you have to have a _very_ uniform hardware platform.
"And people in-house who can code ? Who's REALLY going to modify their OS ? Version control, in depth knowledge of the source code, testing, documentation, etc. It's just not worth it for most people."
There are many parts that _are_ worth it to people. Depending on what you're modifying, it really doesn't take that much effort. I'd say any company with > 300 people has the tools to do this if they wanted to without much hassle. It's really not any more intrusive than customizing registry entries.
"Linux systems are NOT easier to manage. Read up about Windows GPOs and see how easy it is to apply settings, install software, configure security, etc, to a few or many machines at once."
When I say "manage", I mean update and fix. The need to manage people's desktops in the Windows sense comes from how easy it is to screw up your PC in Windows. With Linux, it's much harder for an end-user to screw up their computer, so you don't need to do as much high-handed "managing". With Linux, you get the ability to do full termina
Engineering and the Ultimate
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...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!
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!
Windows 3.1 had code embedded in it that detected if it was running on DR-DOS, and if so, caused Windows to crash and otherwise behave unreliably. (The evidence was presented in court and Microsoft had to pay fines many years later. These amounted to a slap on the wrist for them.) Is there a point to what I'm saying? Yes! A company that puts deliberate bugs into their software in order to crush a competitor might also put special code to detect that an application is Outlook, or Internet Explorer, or Word, or whatever, and show your username next to it as opposed to Admin, just to make people like you feel good. I have no evidence to prove or disprove anything said in my post or in the parent posts. But I'm trying to make a point... Remember the old adage about not believing everything you read? That applies to computer software, too, and probably more so than anywhere else, as people have this way of believing what computers tell them.
Hey, there might be 100 million lines of code in Windows... It might only take 20 or so to put your username next to something that has admin privs.