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

Totally misses it on TCO

[Surak]

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.

These aren't "myths".

[Jaywalk]

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.

Reality says "Hi"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Desktop management

[Gothmolly]

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.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[derF024]

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.

These myths aren't flouted anyways...

[debest]

... by anyone that actually knows what is necessary to do a Linux-on-desktop rollout anyways. Sure, they are part of the overall message, but no one who is serious actually says that using Linux is free (as in beer).

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:

• Resistance to change by users - Users will always raise a stink when forced to learn something new. In general, this reaction is softened somewhat for Windows upgrades, because most people realize that they'll probably soon be (or already are) using the same new version of Windows at home as well, so it won't be seen to be "forced" by nearly as many people.
  
• Access to existing Microsoft documents - Most businesses have all of their data locked away in MS documents, and only MS apps can be guaranteed to open them properly. We really need a slick tool that batches these .doc, .xls, .ppt, etc. documents and mass converts them open XML documents, once the filters are (we hope) figured out to the Nth degree of accuracy.
  
• Home-grown applications - Most businesses have a bunch of tools that range from fully developed applications, right down to customized macros on spreadsheets, that were created on MS products. They may be company supported or just a pet project of an employee who needs it to get his/her work done. Regardless, moving to Linux will probably break them, and cause much grief to those maintaining them.
  
• Enterprise-class apps on Windows only - The *really* big one. Big companies have already invested huge dollars in purchasing proprietary applications for accounting, project/time management, human resources, etc. The companies that produce these tools aren't going to make Linux versions until they see a few big customers committing to go with their product AND switching to Linux. Pretty hard for a company to commit to the switch if the product doesn't yet exist. The proverbial Catch-22.

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!

MS "support"

[noda132]

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!