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

Who sponsered this study?

[T_moz]

This almost seems like it may have been co-sponsered by Gates and friends.

Re:Who sponsered this study?

[Renli]

I don't know what you read. But the article I read wasn't hyping MS. He said in some ways Linux was better (say the registry of Win vs the file system of Linux for trouble shooting). And in some ways Windows is better. I thought it was pretty decent.

Re:Who sponsered this study?

[Afrosheen]

Great, so he pointed out the obvious, i.e. linux is good for some things while windows is good for others.

Such insight is worth $95...just for redundancy alone.

Registration NOT required

[A nonymous Coward]

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

Re:Registration NOT required

[Karamchand]

That might be true but still the first link is useless as well - since it is slashdotted already. Bad luck, eh?

There's a typo

[Anonymous Coward]

The title should have been "The Myth of Linux on the Desktop".

Some FUD, not all

[Ars-Fartsica]

Its true that the initial TCO for linux will rise - whenever you are switching from one platform to another, there will be costs.

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.

Re:Some FUD, not all

[sheriff_p]

Please, please, could you offer something to back that up?

An unpatched Linux machine is as vulnerable as an unpatched Windows machine. Security is to do with administration, not the operating system.

The sooner Linux zealots realise this, and start saying things like "Linux provides an easier patch path", the sooner people will start taking them seriously.

Re:Some FUD, not all

[digidave]

That's only partially true. OS design has a lot to do with how much damage a virus or hacker can do. On Windows, once some executable content runs, it has free reign over the system. On *nix, this is not usually the case.

Truth be told, security has more to do with users than with the OS.

Re:Some FUD, not all

[Bingo Foo]

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.

Actually Linux does save money on hardware, because by the time decent drivers for a piece of hardware have been written for Linux, you can pick up that hardware at the swap meet in the bargain bin.

</snub>

Re:Some FUD, not all

[rushiferu]

"they are often pointless mental exercises without much factual backing."

Sorta like Slashdot post, right?

Re:Some FUD, not all

[mdielmann]

Its true that the initial TCO for linux will rise

You are aware that TCO means "Total Cost of Ownership", right? That includes the initial cost you seem to be referring to, as well as all those other costs afterward...

Re:Some FUD, not all

[jc42]

Some of the comments that look like FUD may just be lack of understanding. Consider the author's comments:

Myth: Linux Is Free

"Supported versions of Linux are not free," Silver notes. ...

It's clear from his remarks that he doesn't understand the difference between "Free as in speech" and "Free as in beer". He obviously thinks the word "free" in linux comments always refers to price. Reading further makes it clear that he has little if any appreciation of the uses of "free as in speech" software, and why this might be of value to a paying customer.

Now if we could just debug the English language ...

Re:Some FUD, not all

[johnnyb]

"An unpatched Linux machine is as vulnerable as an unpatched Windows machine. Security is to do with administration, not the operating system."

Partially, but not fully true.

You forgot about two things: ease of lockdown and isolation.

Let's say two vulnerabilities come out on the same day - one for Apache and one for IIS. Both allow you to completely blow through the application. Well, with Apache they get -- access to user nobody. Big deal. To do _any_ damage, they would have to find _another_ exploit to take advantage of. In the IIS case, the attacker has complete access immediately.

Now, Microsoft _could_ build their services to run under unprivileged users, but they don't. Therefore, if you use Microsoft's services, you're at greater risk.

Linux also has the ability to chroot(), which allows further isolation. Most Linux services are set up both chrooted and under unprivileged users.

In addition, ACLs make locking down the system VERY difficult. Trying to find out any broken directory security is easy using find, ls, and the proper switches. With ACLs finding bad permissions is extremely difficult. I am saddened that people are trying so hard to add these to Linux (in all honesty, they aren't bad for user data, but they _are_ bad for system files).

Also, Linux is easier to lockdown, because it's easier to identify and turn off the unneeded services.

Re:Some FUD, not all

[SubtleNuance]

"Supported versions of Linux are not free," Silver notes. ...Paying $150 for Windows doesnt buy you support either... the same "no support" on GNU/Linux costs $0.

Re:Some FUD, not all

[afidel]

Actually as of Windows Server 2003 and IIS5 IIS can (and does as default on 2003) run as an unprivilidged account. Also no executable addons are enabled by default (in fact IIS isn't even installed by default, what a nice change!). It may take time but MS is moving towards more sane defaults. In fact the other great evil in the MS world, Outlook has sane defaults with Outlook XP. It will take time before the installed base moves to these newer offerings but that can hardly be blamed on MS. Redhat for years took deserved flak for shipping with tons of services enabled that very few users needed, they finally wised up but it took a long time and a lot of customer concern to reach that goal. And finally ACL's are FAR superior to tradition style Unix permissions for locking down the box, if you want to go command line in windows use the resource kit, they have security auditing tools and command line ACL viewers.

Re:Some FUD, not all

[johnnyb]

Agreed, Microsoft is definitely moving in the right direction. Why? Linux is there and sucking away customers.

Capitalism is great!

Of course, eventually, Linux and Windows will probably be indistinguishable from each other. At that point, the choice will be easy!

Re:Some FUD, not all

[_Sprocket_]

An unpatched Linux machine is as vulnerable as an unpatched Windows machine. Security is to do with administration, not the operating system.

The sooner Linux zealots realise this, and start saying things like "Linux provides an easier patch path", the sooner people will start taking them seriously.

This hits on a very important point.

Usually this kind of conversation ends up as a flamewar debating over the vulnerability counts found on SecurityFocus, etc. Ignoring exactly what these numbers mean, how they are tabulated, and whether they compare apples to apples or not... they only tell a part of the whole story. The trouble is, when people think "security", they've become conditioned to think exploit numbers. And patches.

Ideas like "Linux provides an easier patch path" is a good start. So would something along the lines of "Linux provides a more modular environment and control over installed components." But then, that's considerably longer than "Linux provides better security." Even if it leads to miscommunication.

But it may be worth the extra effort. After all, at the risk of generating another slew of flames, infosec is one of the subjects that seem to draw a lot of comments from those who really don't understand the subject. Pointing out the strengths of one's favorite environment might hold more weight if it also included some education in the subject matter at hand.

Re:Some FUD, not all

[dvdeug]

Security is to do with administration, not the operating system.

Install a default OpenBSD and a default Windows'98, connect them to a network and see who gets hacked first.

Re:Some FUD, not all

[revery]

Sorta like Slashdot post, right?

I think that was his point...

--

Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.

Re:Some FUD, not all

[jedidiah]

Do tell?

Do tell us what "Linux exploits" this year have caused companies damage and embarassment. Please quantify the damage done by these exploits so that we can all compare the damage done by Linux versus the damage done by Win32 in REAL dollars and cents terms.

Re:Some FUD, not all

[notasheep]

"Do tell us what "Linux exploits" this year have caused companies damage and embarassment. Please quantify the damage done by these exploits so that we can all compare the damage done by Linux versus the damage done by Win32 in REAL dollars and cents terms."

The five companies using Linux declined to report their damages due to security breaches. Seriously, looking at dollars lost as the point of comparison is idiotic. Of course more $ were lost in damages for the Windows side - their software is actually deployed widely.

Do people on Slashdot ever think?

Re:Some FUD, not all

[usotsuki]

We ought to borrow the Japanese word "jiyuu". (The full phrase is "jiyuu na sofuto")

Personally, the problem is the word choice. Free to most people means "o-kane" ($$$) free, not "jiyuu" free. But "open source" isn't that good either as people pun on it. (Sometimes open source software does look/feel like it's full of open sores.)

I call it free/open software.

-uso.

Re:Some FUD, not all

[jedidiah]

The only problem with your mental masturbation there is that Linux has a server marketshare comparable to WinDOS. In some segments of the market, WinDOS is infact a small minority player.

You're the one acting as if his brain has been misappropriated and turned into a process controller.

Re:Some FUD, not all

[Excarnate]

Having tried to install OpenBSD on a Quadra 800 using an external hard drive for swap and wasting hours and hours of time in the attempt, and having successfully installed Windows 98 in a couple hours, I won't take this challenge.

In my experience OpenBSD, at least on the Mac68k platform, is impossible to hack as it doesn't work. Of course, it isn't very useful, but their mail list does come with as much free abuse as you want!

As far as the summary of points in the summary of the Gartner article, I found the points to be ill-thought-out and deceptive. Read them yourself, it is pretty clear it is FUD as much as it is FUD to compare the security in Windows 98 to anything up-to-date (such as the Windows 2000 Professional I am forced to use at work).

Re:Some FUD, not all

[notasheep]

Linux has an overall server marketshare comparable to Windows? What are you smoking? Linux is doing very well in terms of YOY growth, but they are no where near MS in terms of market penetration.

Why don't you pick those KY-stained hands of yours out of your lap and put them on the keyboard for a change and do some research?

Re:Some FUD, not all

[unoengborg]

Yes, it is true that switching systems usually costs money. But should all of that costs fall on the new system? I think not. If you have chosen a system that stores information in undocumented hard to access file formats, some of the costs could have bin expected and should have bin calculated for when your old system was chosen.

Re:Some FUD, not all

[HuguesT]

Oh yesss, like this new shiny GeForce FX or that great Radeon 9700 (both supported in Linux BTW). Where is your bargain bin?

FYI Linux on Opteron already works 64-bit. Where is your Windows version that does that?

Re:Some FUD, not all

[jabellas]

The only real reason Linux is more secure than Windows is that script kiddies and other scum could not give a rat's ass about inconveniencing a bunch of computer enthusiasts. Getting on CNN is the target and I guarantee you that nobody outside of /. would notice if every Linux box were to spontaneously combust, much less get a virus.

Any system can be brought to it's knees...

paid support

[jameson71]

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.

Re:paid support

[HP-UX'er]

the issue is liabilty ...

if *you* make a bad decision, its your manager's fault.

but, if the vendor makes a bad decision, blame falls there, or even a lawsuit.

a manager will likely opt for "someone else's fault" almost everytime.

Re:paid support

[banzai51]

Because that corporation you mentioned is NOT in the business of being software experts. And in case you haven't noticed, Linux documentation sucks for non-programmers. Paying someone, like Red Hat, who has the ability to modify the code and/or come up with intergration soluntions will be a must. Maintaining a corporate network is far more than knowing the workstation OS setup. There are plenty of desktop jockies that know Win9x/Win2k/WinXP that think they can run a Windows network. They can't. Same applies to the desktop jockies in Linux.

Re:paid support

[Maliuta]

I think the larger issue when it comes to vendor support has to do with the sheer number of businesses that use Windows and do not use the support that is there. Most organisation get their IT support not from the software vendor (often the only role they play is selling their product) but from a contractor or staff member.

I would like to point out that I am talking about the operating system here, idividual pieces of software that run under that OS may need varying levels of support, however the writer talk about the operating system (what he includes in that is unclea). It is possible to get support for some open source software from the company or group that writes and maintains it (eg. MySQL), at a cost.

Re:paid support

[xdroop]

Consider this: I might have more than one machine down, with more than one type of problem on the go, which means multiple users out of action.

Suppose I can fix all these problems, reading websites or changing memory modules -- but it will take me several hours per problem and/or machine.

Instead, with vendor support, I can call vendor A and say make it go, call vendor B and say make it go, have both sets of users up faster, all the while I am working on my own project work which doesn't fall behind schedule.

Yes, there's more in a cost of support contracts, but the savings is the reducing of our user's downtime -- it is cheaper to spend $5K on a support contract than it is to have a half-dozen ASIC engineers twiddling their thumbs for two days while I read websites.

Re:paid support

[Glorat]

Where I work, they made a point of this: Open source software is only bought from big companies with money. That way, if any lawsuits appear, they won't be directed at us the client but at the vendor with money, thereby protecting ourselves. With companies like Sco about, lawsuits against open source programs are seen as a genuine threat

Re:paid support

[Sabalon]

My boss uses the example "if you were hit by a bus", which is odd, because where I live there is a complete lack of public transport, but I digress. :)

As another response mentioned, most of the tech support is relegated to helping people underline words, filter e-mail, or something like that. We have a whole bunch of staff to support that kinda stuff, and 2 people that maintain all the servers - Windows and Linux.

And our MCSE guy gets real nervous when I go on vacation. Personally, I think it's easier because it's almost all text files and is easier to see what is going on behind the scenes.

But my boss gets worried that I'll disappear or something and they have no support contract if something goes wrong.

Never mind we have no support contract with MS, and it cost when the exchange server just up and stopped sending e-mail...but that's point and click, so it is easier...right? :|

some very good points

[Transient0]

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.

Re:some very good points

[Beatbyte]

I 100% agree that linux is not free or cheaper than other OS's when it comes to support.

I can tell you though, if you spend more money to get a qualified, competent, hard-working systems administrator, it is twice as good as spending that money on your OS and skimping on your employee quality.

But I do also agree that if you put an inexperienced (see MSCE high school grad) administrator in charge of either:
1) BSD/Linux (any flavor)
2) Win2k/NT/etc.

...chances are, you will have better results with the Win2k/NT OS. It's just the way it is nowadays. Windows is still easier to setup a service on (web, smb, etc.).

So your choices (if money is an issue):
1) higher paid employee running linux/bsd/etc.
2) lower paid employee running win2k

take your pick!

Re:some very good points

[pjrc]

... 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.

While at the same time, the above-the-radar entrenched monopoly has legions of sales reps making regular calls and visits to decision makers, saying something like "I'd be afraid to install that if my job depended on it, because it's quite uncertain if it'll save money or even cost more, and I doubt it would work anyway".

Re:some very good points

[cgenman]

I can tell you though, if you spend more money to get a qualified, competent, hard-working systems administrator, it is twice as good as spending that money on your OS and skimping on your employee quality.

Indeed. Our administrator just converted an underutilized webhosting box to a much needed mail-server while 500 miles away on a business trip, over nothing more than his Ibook. That kind of remote-managament is unheard of in the Windows world. "Apt-get install mysql-server"?

The funny thing is, qualified, competent, hard-working systems administrators with years of experience are surprisingly available these days, and are going for far less than people might expect. A friend with 20 years of experience managing Unix networks summed up the problem like this. "All applications are filtered through the HR person. The HR person knows what Javascript is. The HR person has no idea what AWK is. The HR person is going to pass on the resume of the person with Javascript experience."

Of course the issue of the *number* of qualified personnel required should also be brought up. I run in a pure Linux / BSD shop, so I will bring up the experience of a colleague who interned in a Mac / Windows QA shop. For most projects, there were 12 PC's, 12 Macs, 3 PC Technicians, and 1 Mac technician on setup. Generally speaking, the Mac technician would finish configuring and installing the software on all of his 12 machines before the 3 PC technicians. This was quite some time ago and is not directly linked to the Linux / Windows debate, but the point is that the choice of OS can have a tremendous effect on the number of people required to administer the network. In this case if the more expensive employee were paid 2x what the cheaper ones were, you would only be paying 2/3's of what you would with the cheaper ones, and would have a much happier employee to boot.

Having seen what a competent linux administrator can achieve quickly and remotely, for example quickly knocking out scripts to do specific tasks (like migrating datapaths) that would otherwise take hours to do manually, it seems pretty clear that you would require fewer administrators for Linux than for Windows. Anybody either technically competent or extremely well trained can setup an IIS server, but it will take either of them quite some time.

So your choices (if money is an issue):
1) a higher paid employee running linux/bsd/etc.
2) several lower paid employees running win2k.
and if you are sufficiently small
3) a regular employee taking over the win2k work.

(note: this is not attempting to knock the technically competent Windows administrators amongst you, people for whom I have the utmost respect. But even you must admit that setting up a SOHO file server in Windows doesn't exactly tax your abilities).

Re:some very good points

[muletool]

What sysadmin in his right mind would attempt such a project in the middle of a buisness trip?

Re:some very good points

[sgtrock]

A sysadmin caught short due to lack of planning on someone else's part. :)

Half Right

[Apreche]

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.

Re:Half Right

[MrPink2U]

Are you actually suggesting that in-house support is free? If so, you sound like management material to me!

Re:Half Right

[grandmofftarkin]

"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."

That still isn't free, cheaper yes but his point was that for a business that requires support Linux isn't free in the monetary sense.

" 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."

But presumably, Mike Silver (Gartner analyst) could supply the reseach he used to make these comments. Gartner is the biggest IT research company in the world, bigger than IDC, Forrester, etc. If they make this statement they are going have the research to back this up. But they aren't going give it away. Gartner is a paid service. Thier clients paid for the research to be done. Hence this information will only be supplied to clients.

Re:Half Right

[Apreche]

no, I suggest that it might be cheaper than outsourcing. It depends on how many people and who you hire to do it and how you do it.

Re:Half Right

[Maliuta]

When talking to people about opensource options, almost never for a desktop, I always put it like this:
"You are not paying for the operating system or the software that runs on it, like you would do with a windows based solution. what you are paying for is my time to install and configure your system and/or develop specific solutions for you."

This way of approaching things makes it a little bit clearer for them, they know that if they go with a windows solution they will still probably need to pay for configuration and/or development on top of Windows(XP/NT/??) and lets say SQL Server and IIS.

Re:Half Right

[paRcat]

in-house support is not free, but how many companies no you know of that don't already have in-house support?

There are those that want to put the blame for failure on a support-related company, and there are those that have someone in-house that can fix the problem in a fraction of the time of said support-related company.

The point is, if there is already in-house support in place for the windows machines, and if said support is able to handle Linux (yes, it will have to be something other than an MC$E), then there is no extra cost other than the initial time to do the switchover.

Re:Half Right

[vsprintf]

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.

Gartner is the same group of dim bulbs that originally convinced companies to give them money for that worthless number called "TCO". I remember when our company management fell for it. Among other things, you have to give Gartner your TLOC, but comments don't count, one line in a 4GL is equal to 10 in a 3GL, and other weird stuff. We had a great laugh at the wild-assed guesses we passed along. So Gartner got the money, and we got our useless magic number. If companies would stop wasting money on consultants like Gartner, their "TCO" would be a lot less.

Re:Half Right

[kleinux]

I think the often overlooked point is even though you pay for the MS software, they do almost nothing to support it. When a virus is circulating the net and you need a patch, do they come out to install it? Nope, so you still need the IT guy around to do so. Fits the same description with linux. A hole is found, a patch is released, now the IT guy needs to install it.

Re:Half Right

[kbielefe]

I couldn't agree with you more. We have one guy in our department who pretty much is paid to be the liason to the support department of the Ada compiler suite we use. Between filing the bug report, communicating with the company, waiting for a fix, and applying and testing the patch, it takes at least a week per issue. And there may be other problems caused by the first patch that then have to be worked out. Most of the issues require less than 10 LOC patches.

It is sort of ironic because I work in a software engineering department full of people who could write a patch to the compiler in almost the same amount of time it takes to figure out that it is a compiler problem.

The other interesting fact is that I use an open source compiler (gnat) to send libraries to a vendor. The problems I have personally found with the proprietary compiler suite were verified to be compiler problems because they worked fine with gnat. At least for my issues, no support would have even been necessary if we had gone with the open source solution. I realize that is just anecdotal evidence, but it is pretty strong evidence from my point of view.

Re:Half Right

[Qzukk]

So, you're saying that using the people which the company already owns to support it (point to ONE company with servers who does not have someone running the servers.) is "not free". By the strictest sense of the word, if you're starting a new company from scratch, sure. But guess what: Company X, with servers and a pre-existing support staff can install linux on these servers for a grand total added expense of $0, over what the company is already paying the support staff anyways.

So yeah. That's free.

The whole point is moot anyway, since in any case "Linux is free", and "Linux support is not free". They are two distinct products, just like when you buy a product, and you buy a support contract from the vendor covering that product.

Re:Half Right

[bwt]

The whole issue with support is infected with the proprietary thinking model, which is based on the idea that you are stupid, the vendor is smart, and even if you aren't stupid the vendor has access to the real information, which they won't share because it would harm their support revenue.

Support for open source IS FREE (dammit!). The support process is as follows.

1) Use google to search the web for keywords on your question. This give you access to info in howtos, FAQ's, and basic documentation. IF your question is basic it will be solved here.

2) If this doesn't work, use google groups tp search for keywords on your question. This gives you access to USENET posting. If your question isn't answered in the basic docs, but is common enough that somebody else has had the issue, then it will be solved here. This is about the level of question that standard 1st level for-pay support will be able to solve.

3) If the above two steps fail, it's probably a hard problem or an obscure problem or a very new problem. Join the mailing list for the project in question. Search and read the archives for related issues. Then POST to the list and state your question and what you were able to find. Often you will be able to solve your issue. This is about the level of 2nd level for-pay support.

4) If contacting the mailing list reveals that the problem is a known issue or can't diagnose it, then you should at least be able to find out what part of the code causes the problem. Go get the code and figure out who the maintainer is. Write to them personally and explain what the problem is and what you have done and what steps can demonstrate the problem. If the project has a bug tracking database, enter your bug in it and refer the maintainer to it. Some times you will get a patch emailed to you. This is about the level of very expensive 3rd-level for-pay support.

5) If all of the above fails, download the source and start hacking. You have everything you need with open source. While you are doing this, continue to use methods 1 to 4, and for god's sake, post the patch back to the mailing list when you are done. This level of support is not available at any price from proprietary software vendors.

Re:Half Right

[afidel]

hmm, the MCSE bashing really isn't needed or true. I'm an MCSE and CCNA that is working towards his RHCE and has already done several years of linux support both from a desktop and a server role in an enterprise environment. Sure there are people out there who don't deserve the cert, but just because you have it doesn't mean you are a clueless MS drone. But I can tell you that there are FAR fewer people out there with the skills to support linux on the desktop. I have met literaly over one hundred techs in the last couple years and of those maybe 10% could effectivly support linux. That limits you to a much smaller support pool and those that can support linux are typically in the top % of the bracket as far as talent and price.

Re:Half Right

[Karn]

No, he's right.

How much does it cost to upgrade all your servers to Windows 2003? How much does it cost to upgrade everyone's Office suite? It costs $0 to upgrade to Linux if you are already paying for a local support infrastructure, as most businesses are. Just fire all the MSCE's, and hire some RHCE's.

If you don't need all of the MS Office, you don't want to deal with all the EULAs, and you want to be in control of your own software, Linux can be a very attractive upgrade which can save businesses thousands on license fees for Office, Windows, and miscellaneous seats for various servers.

Re:Half Right

[Catiline]

Nah, he used irrational logic to arrive at a mildly reasonable conclusion. Managers justify irrational conlusions with mildly reasonable logic.

Sure, there's not much difference in the end result, but it's the process that's under scrutiny here.

Re:Half Right

[2short]

But if you're, for example, a secretary, without any technical background, then the support process is:

1) Use google to search the web for keywords on your question. This give you access to info in howtos, FAQ's, and basic documentation. Your problem may or may not be solved here, but you won't have any idea, because all this info will be utterly incomprehensible to you, so proceed to step 2.

2) Call the IT guy, just like you would in the Windows world. But wait! This is the FREE support process, so you can't very well be paying an IT guy. Proceed to step 3.

3) You're f*cked.

Don't even get me started on how much the ability to "download the source and start hacking" is worth to a non-technical office worker.

Technical support (for Linux, Windows, or anything technical at all) is only free if the time of a technically competent person is free. If that person is you, or your dutiful son in law, you might well consider their time free. In a business environment, this is unlikely to work out so well.

Re:Half Right

[bwt]

In what world do you live in where a secretary is going to actually call a tech support line?

The secretary will call the person that physically connected her box to the internet and tell them that her PC doesn't work and that they better fix it. This person will do step 1 and fix the problem, because secretaries never have anything but basic setup problems like "How do I print?" or "My email always bounces".

Linux support is "free" in the sense that it does not incur additional expense above what you already have available.

Re:Half Right

[t0ny]

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.

Until you can have the magic T-2000 OSS Support Terminator warp in to your site, fix a user problem, install some software, and warp out, all for free, Linux will never be "free". As it is, its free for Timmy at home, because he fixes his own problems, and its free for Bob the computer guru, because he also fixes his own problems.

But for Dr. Warner and his secretary, who are by no means IT experts, nor is it thier job to be, support is going to cost money.

So please quit saying Linux on the desktop is free. It will take money to convert the user base, money to retrain people, money to support the users, money to re-engineer the network. All these are real world expenses which have absolutely nothing to do with what was paid for the desktop OS.

Personally, given the real-world situation, I think the true cost of using Linux is actually HIGHER than keeping Windows. MS continues to improve their product, users dont have to be retrained, and neither do the support staff. You also dont have to re-engineer the network architecture, security infrastructure, etc. not to mention custom and non-standard applications, the ability to impliment off-the-shelf solutions, etc.

Re:Half Right

[bwt]

The cost of an employee or contractor's time is of course very high, but it is budgeted in a different column than the cost of support. The latter is generally paid to vendors, the former to employees. If you can eliminate the former without increasing the latter, then it is literally free. What you are considering is the "cost of quality" (aka "Total Cost of Ownership") of software, not the cost of support. Open source wins hands down on TCO.

Also, to make things easy lets say your support process takes 1 hour at best, 16 hours at worst. That would mean that the cost of support is anywhere from $160 to $2560. This is for one incident.

You have to do the same calculation even in the "for-pay" support model. I will argue that it will usually take longer to solve the same problem, thus incurring even bigger numbers. This happens because the technical information is systematically fragmented so that access to it can be sold. That adds waste and waste always adds cost.

The other thing that happens is that you purchase support up to level X only be told that your problem's solution is at level X+1. I had a problem with the raid aacraid driver once under SuSE. I called. They said "we don't support THAT". I emailed the guy who wrote the driver. He fixed it in the next release. If it had been proprietary, it would have taken months. Instead it was about a week. This phenomonon adds enormous cost because you have to either go through the purchase order process to up your support level or you have to leave the problem unsolved for longer.

And since you are tracking total cost, you tallied the cost of the support PO's and the licence tracking into your cost of support, right?

Re:Half Right

[afidel]

Actually I'm a sys admin for a consultancy who will be an engineer in a year. Bottom of the barrel, hardly. My last position was as a level 3 tech and part time sys admin for a fortune 10 company.

Re:Half Right

[nathanh]

So "Linux is Free" is a myth.

No. Linux *is* free. It is not a myth.

Support will cost you but that doesn't stop Linux being free. It's no more sensible to say "support costs money therefore Linux is not free!" than to complain that a free beer costs you your time to drink it.

Linux is free. Linux is free. Linux is free. I'm sorry I had to say it 3 times but it'll help you remember.

Re:Half Right

[2short]

I live in a world where secretaries (or other similarly technical people) are the only ones who call tech support, and they call with questions like "How do I print?" or "My email always bounces".
More complex issues are resolved by technically competent people who research the problem on the net. So by the standard you say linux support is "free", so is windows support. You think linux has a monopoly on newsgroups?

One Issue Not Contended...

[billstr78]

... 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.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[Eneff]

Cygwin, my boy... Cygwin...

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[athakur999]

Or VBScript, JavaScript, even PerlScript if you have the ActiveState Perl distribution installed. Windows Scripting is capable of some neat things.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[leifm]

It's kind of ironic isn't it, my first real computer was a Mac LC, switched to Windows when I got the chance because OS 7.whatever was so closed off. Now I am on OS X because it's more open than Windows and more polished than Linux. I think a lot of Windows' success can be attributed to it being more open than MacOS was back in the day, and now the tables have turned.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[bellings]

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.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[billstr78]

The AC writes:

"Your statements are nothing but platitiudes with no basis in fact. In short, thanks, but no thanks for the FUD. You are not helping the Linux movement by offering such ignorant statements. It makes us all look stupid."

So the web server management, user account managment service startup, firewall managment, hardware configuration and the like can all be configured in Win2K using PERL and other commandline utilities?

You make yourself look pretty silly when you champion the utility of an Operating System whose designers themselves admit the inflexibility of. As we argue, Windows engineers are trying to figure out a way to add a usefull file based configuration and command line shell to the next release of windows.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[Chokolad]

Check out TechNet's Script Center
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/ default. asp?url=/technet/scriptcenter/default.asp
and Windows 2000 scripting guide
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/d efault. asp?url=/technet/scriptcenter/scrguide/sagsas_over view.asp

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[billstr78]

Web server management, user account managment service startup, firewall managment, hardware configuration all can be configured using BASH and PERL on *Nix.

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.

THAT is what makes unix more flexible.

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:One Issue Not Contended...

[binaryDigit]

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.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[stratjakt]

There's plenty of documentation on the APIs for windows, the only thing hidden is the source code itself - which is irrelevant.

Whether you're scripting OpenOffice or MS Word, you assume that the methods and objects you work with perform as documented. If it doesnt you expect the authors to fix it (at least you do when you pay for it, if it was free you just cross your fingers or write some kludge to get around it)

Scripting in a world where virtually everything you want is exposed through ActiveX/COM and now .NET is much superior than jerking around with ancient return codes from command line apps.

UNIX is as inflexible and unweildly as it was in the 70s.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[bongoras]

"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." foo? I love that script. I agree, there's no possible way that windows can be as cool as foo.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[VAXGeek]

I can tell you are a real Pearl programmer just by how you type it.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[sheldon]

What's your bash/perl script do?

I'm up for the challenge!

-MCSE

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[JordanArendt]

Man, they need one more moderation catagory:

ignorant

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[sheldon]

"So the web server management, user account managment service startup, firewall managment, hardware configuration and the like can all be configured in Win2K using PERL and other commandline utilities?"

Yes.

"As we argue, Windows engineers are trying to figure out a way to add a usefull file based configuration and command line shell to the next release of windows."

They did that in Windows 2000.

You're either ignorant or a troll, or both. Prove your otherwise by giving specific examples.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[stratjakt]

You also needn't use IIS, you can use the very same apache that runs on a linux box.

None of this scripting has anything to do with linux. It all has to do with the interface (or lack of) that userland apps expose.

In unix, some expose good programatic interfaces, some others are limited to parsing the text from stdout and a return value.

Windows has bad userland apps with no interface as well. But at least theres a framework (ActiveX and now .NET) to expose functionality so that anyone can make use of it.

People can hate MS all day and night, but scripting in a world where everything you need is exposed via COM/ActiveX is a cakewalk.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[10Ghz]

Are you the resident Windows-fanboy or are you just on a crusade?

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[twaltari]

As the other two people already commented, NT (as well as MS Office) provides quite wide management API via COM components. IMHO, it is exactly the lack of this kind of operating system infrastructure that is keeping enterprise software away from Linux. Linux is a nice kernel, system call interface and a load of utilities, but is more into an operating system than just kernel and utils. Linux has some shortcomings in there. We definitely need more stuff like e.g. debconf.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[sheldon]

"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."

Give me specific examples!

"THAT is what makes unix more flexible."

No, what makes unix more flexible is that you know how to use unix. Since you are ignorant of Windows administration you immediately assume something is not possible.

It's the same old story with linux trolls.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[TheSync]

Perl and Python run on Windows - so does BASH under Cygwin - I'd be lost without them!

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[reallocate]

>> 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.


This is only important if you can show a corporate manager that moving to Linux because it supports bash/perl will save him X dollars per year.

And you have to do it before his eyes glaze over.

Unix might be all kinds of flexible, but how do you answer the question: "OK, so how often will I need that perl script?"

Buying capability without knowing if you need it is bad business.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[Sam Gibson]

For everyone who's whining about how Windows can do all this and that, try writing a batch script to update Windows. Oh, wait, not all windows updates can be automated, some of them can, some can't. Some updates can't be installed without rebooting. Some can't be installed before others without rebooting.

However, in Debian:

#!/bin/bash
atp-get update ; apt-get upgrade

Or if you have the packages downloaded already

#!/bin/bash
DIR=/location/of/binaries
dpkg -i $DIR/*.deb

I probably messed that up, but in Windows it's much more of a headache. Or how about scripting cron to automagically install updates on client machines from a server. In Windows you have to install 3rd party software and pay even more.

Anyway, there is certainly something to be said for the ease of maintanability of Linux vs Windows, at least from the standpoint of someone who maintains University labs of Win2k machines ;-)

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[Billly Gates]

Agreed. I use Windows2k for some of my work and I wanted to create a simple macro to enter some directories.

c2 = c:/winnt/system32/documents and settings/administrator/my documents/code/C++/ch02 or chapter2 for school. Likewise p4 = c:\winnt\documents and settings\administrator\my documents\code\perl\ch04. Imagine how much of a pain in the ass it is to type cd .. and this every time when cmd is opened? I decided to write a .bat file to do this. One problem. No aliases??

After looking at msdn for documentation I decided to just create a directory called scripts and add it to my path. From there I just created a whole buch of simple batch files that did the following

cd /...to path
cls // clear screen.

I had to do this for every perl and c++ chapter for school. 20 perl, 20 c++, 20 java, work directory, fun director, and a mp3 directory all from my documents. Yuck. Thats alot of scripts. I just created one edit, cut and pasted 60 copies and changed the directory name. I have c2.bat for c++ chapter 2 as an example.

In bash I could be alot more creative and use the alias command and put it in my .profile in /etc.

I have cygwin but I can not run windows commands like cl in it. My guess is its a path problem but I did not want to deal with it.

Still Unix rocks in this regard.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[VAXGeek]

you know, this may be a bit of a stretch, but why don't you make one alias that takes you to your "my documents" folder and then enable the tab completion in the shell? wouldn't that be easier than piddling away hours and hours writing batch files? Still, Windows rocks in this regard.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[Billly Gates]

Well the tab completion only saves previous entries when cmd is opened. The second you reboot or close it its gone. Unlike bash which keeps your previous commands in .bash_history in your home directory. Also from "my documents" to my specific folders are 3 levels away. Perhaps my directory structure wasn't the best chosen but with several langauges you need compromisses.

It took under 5 minutes to create all those batch files once I made the master one work and by using edit, cut, and paste since they were similiar but with different last directories.

Its great that I can go to my work, school projects, or fun directory with 1 or 2 keys though. It was such a pain before to go into c:\winnr\.. up 8 levels to my folders. My documents are great to store things because whenever you use an open dialog in an application, the mydocuments folder is displayed by default.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[RoLi]

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?

Everyone who wants his scripts to work out of the box without having to install 2 or 3 add-on packages first?

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[sheldon]

Security patches to what?

Applications... no problem, just shut them down before applying the patch.

kernel... well I would like to see Linux do that.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Please give an example of "web server management" that can be scripted on Unix that can not be scripted on Windows.
lessee...
#!/bin/sh
openssl req -new -key ssl.key/www.domain.net-server.key -out ssl.csr/www.domain.net-server.csr
# openssl req -noout -text -in ssl.csr/www.domain.net-server.csr
openssl-sign ssl.csr/www.domain.net-server.csr

#!/bin/sh
##
## openssl-sign.sh -- Sign a SSL Certificate Request (CSR)
## Copyright (c) 1998-2001 Ralf S. Engelschall, All Rights Reserved.
##

# argument line handling
CSR=$1
if [ $# -ne 1 ]; then
echo "Usage: sign.sign .csr"; exit 1
fi
if [ ! -f $CSR ]; then
echo "CSR not found: $CSR"; exit 1
fi
case $CSR in
*.csr ) CERT="`echo $CSR | sed -e 's/\.csr/.crt/g'`" ;;
* ) CERT="$CSR.crt" ;;
esac

# make sure environment exists
if [ ! -d ca.db.certs ]; then
mkdir ca.db.certs
fi
if [ ! -f ca.db.serial ]; then
echo '01' >ca.db.serial
fi
if [ ! -f ca.db.index ]; then
cp /dev/null ca.db.index
fi

# create an own SSLeay config
cat >ca.config '${CERT}':"
openssl ca -config ca.config -out $CERT -infiles $CSR
echo "CA verifying: $CERT CA cert"
openssl verify -CAfile /etc/httpd/conf/ssl.crt/ca.crt $CERT

# cleanup after SSLeay
rm -f ca.config
rm -f ca.db.serial.old
rm -f ca.db.index.old

# die gracefully
exit 0

(Additional script to insert/verify the new cert into Apache and gracefully restart not shown)

>Please give an example of "firewall management" that can be scripted on Unix that can not be scripted on Windows.

I don't have this script on my boxen, but there exists multiple versions (google!) that will add deny/reject entries in the firewall for every rule match -- think nimbda/code-red/etc...

>Please give and example of "hardware configuration" that can be scripted on Unix that can not be scripted on Windows.

Hotplug comes to mind. Dynamic reconfiguration _without rebooting_. Or loadable kernel modules.

>Please give an example of the "75% of it's (sic) [Windows] operation [hidden] from all users."

Wow. This one begs for it. NT Kernel. Direct X, .Net, Samba, etc. Of course, that's just my glib response, since 100% of the linux operation can be in plain view of its users, if they so choose to view and understand.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[easychord]

So Linux is better than windows because it installs interpreters as default that the average desktop user has no use for or understanding of?

If that's the case, why don't Linux advocates praise Windows for those .vbs attachments that cause so much fun in Outlook.

Yeah, this is my bitter and twisted way of saying that windows does come with a script interpreter out of the box.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[spruce]

IIS administration

The other things:

So yes, you can do these things, as well as anything else provided by a COM object.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[medscaper]

I LOVE it.

I probably messed that up, but in Windows it's much more of a headache

Yeah, gotta admit, remembering some cryptic commands and command line switches that you don't even know and will probably fuck your machine up if you goober them is MUCH more of a headache then a little popup that says, "Updates are available and have been downloaded for you. Would you like to install them now?"

Click 'yes'. Reboot(maybe). Done.

OOOOH, my fuckin HEAD!

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[Karn]

I take it haven't installed service packs on too many Windows 2000 machines.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[poot_rootbeer]

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

Same thing. Series of commands to be executed in a specified sequence. The conditional logic in Microsoft's batch language may not be as elaborate as csh, but neither is the plain Bourne shell -- does that mean Bourne shell scripts aren't scripts?

And an MCSD wouldn't write one to do anything in windows - it's a DOS construct

No, it's a command-line construct that's still completely available to NT-derived Windows versions. I can use a batch file to invoke 32-bit GUI applications if I want to.

he'd write a VBScript, JavaScript

So Windows has built-in interpreters for those languages? The only place I've ever found any use for Javascript is in a web browser.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[sheldon]

Ok, you need to readup on the DOSkey command

doskey c2 = cd "c:/winnt/system32/documents and settings/administrator/my documents/code/C++/ch02"

doskey p4 = cd "c:\winnt\documents and settings\administrator\my documents\code\perl\ch04"

etc... You can save these associations to a file and recall them using 'DOSKEY /MACROFILE='. You can create a custom command prompt icon which will set up your environment with that, etc.

"Still Unix rocks in this regard."

Ok next complaint.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[sheldon]

"Or how about scripting cron to automagically install updates on client machines from a server"

How about deploying SUS and then setting it up like so:
http://www.fawcette.com/reports/mec/2002/10_0 9_02/ schnoll/figure1.asp

"In Windows you have to install 3rd party software and pay even more."

Windows has a built in task scheduler.

"Anyway, there is certainly something to be said for the ease of maintanability of Linux vs Windows, at least from the standpoint of someone who maintains University labs of Win2k machines ;-)"

It's sad that so many Windows administrators know so little about Windows.

Ok, next complaint.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[2short]

"So the web server management, user account managment service startup, firewall managment, hardware configuration and the like can all be configured in Win2K using PERL and other commandline utilities?"

Yeah, no problem. I generally find it easier to use the gui, but you can stick to the command lines if that's what you like, and obviously you need to go that way for scripting.

Oh, I see, you meant that as a rhetorical question because you "know" the answer is no. In that case, I'll just quote the AC: "In short, thanks, but no thanks for the FUD. You are not helping the Linux movement by offering such ignorant statements. It makes us all look stupid."

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[DunbarTheInept]

"OK, so how often will I need that perl script?"

"Would you like me to be able to support the system from home when I get called after hours with a problem instead of having to wait for me to drive in to sit at the console and do it? Then scripts like this are a necessity."

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[DunbarTheInept]

And when you are admistrating the machine from afar, that "popup" comes up exactly where?

Unix server: a machine for which a keyboard and monitor are optional wastes of money.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[reallocate]

Maybe, for a tiny shop that can't afford an onsite 24/7 staff. (And even then I doubt you'd need perl on Linux to do that. In any case, perl for Windows has been around for years.)

And that's assuming "the system" has been so messed up that you can't telnet in without that magic script.

So, again, what does perl have to do with it?

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[jedidiah]

No, Windows is written for suckers that bought MS-DOS. This is an OS that exposes much more of the kernel level guts to the end user than does any big iron OS including both VMS and Unix.

Windows is merely an empty promise.

Your mom probably doesn't do anything of any note with her system. Despite of this she probably still needs you to bail her out on occasion.

It's easier for me to write a perl script than it is for an entire cabal of WinDOS users to tell me what app would replace it.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[jedidiah]

That's odd. I didn't see ANY commandline switches in that example.

apt-get is hardly cryptic. Although, you could alias once if a short pneumonic really gives you that many fits.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[medscaper]

That's odd. I didn't see ANY commandline switches in that example.

So, what would you call dpkg -i? A cl "option"? Sorry for my poor discrimination between / and -. But give me a break. Windows is made so any Joe Schmoe can upgrade it. Intentionally. And so it's easy and won't break. Nothing was said about administration or anything else. Trust me...to the average user, who doesn't want a headache, clicking yes and rebooting is MUCH easier than trying to figure out some text-only update command with options. I think it's a breeze, myself, but it's far more complex, and thus, a headache to the regular user. It's made to be stupid easy. Not powerful, or configurable, or anything a ./'er would expect from an OS, but updating is EASY in the newer Windows products.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[SeanAhern]

agreed.

-1: Wrong

It's the opposite of +1: Informative

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[slamb]

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.

There is a Perl module available, called Win32::OLE. The name is somewhat obselete, but it does the latest ActiveX Automation Objects (or whatever they're called; I always forget). So you theoretically can do anything from Perl on Windows that you could from Visual Basic.

But I'd still say it's not nearly as powerful as on Unix, because the documentation for the Automation libraries is crap. It's damn near impossible to ever find any Microsoft library documentation that gives even a passing mention to error conditions. (This seems to be true even of .NET.) For this reason, it really stuns me that Microsoft software is as reliable as it is (and I don't think it's very reliable). I can't even imagine the mindset of such a large group of programmers that talk so little about the exceptional conditions. How you handle those is really what makes a system solid.

There are other problems, too. For example, I developed a script that populates a bunch of contact items on an Exchange server from a Visual Basic database. My two main choices were using CDO (Collaboration Data Objects) -> MAPI -> Exchange or Outlook Object Model -> Outlook -> MAPI -> Exchange. (MAPI is not directly accessible from Perl; only ActiveX Automation Objects are directly usable by Perl and VB, not ActiveX itself.) The CDO method seems very much superior, but completely unsupported...the properties Outlook sets on an Exchange server are to be dealt with only by Outlook. They won't even tell you what the constants are, though you can get most of them from third-party websites. It would have been too much of a pain. So I went the Outlook way...but there are just problems with scripting a GUI client. I couldn't run it overnight unless I left the machine logged in or locked (not completely logged out), since apparently Outlook wanted to access the GUI even when started by the script and displaying no windows. On a Unix system, the whole setup would be pretty much unthinkable...there would be an RFC describing the protocol, I could use the same libraries the mail client uses, it would be unthinkable for a client to store stuff on a server in a way incompatible with other clients, etc.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[slamb]

The CDO method seems very much superior, but completely unsupported...the properties Outlook sets on an Exchange server are to be dealt with only by Outlook. They won't even tell you what the constants are

Ahh. I found the KnowledgeBase article I was looking for:

The Messaging Application Program Interface (MAPI) provides a facility for assigning names to properties, for mapping these names to unique identifiers, and for making this mapping persistent. Microsoft Outlook writes many Outlook-specific fields into these named properties, with identifiers in the 8000-FFFE range. The Outlook Object Model is the only supported method of accessing these named properties. Access to these properties by using MAPI or Collaboration Data Objects (CDO) is not supported.

[...]

Named properties are generally used by clients as a way to add extra information to a message which is only to be used by that client. As such, none of the named properties used by Outlook clients are documented. The only supported way to retrieve these properties is through the Outlook Object Model, if they are exposed there.

You can see this is a pretty lousy way of doing things, and I think it's a pretty typical example of how things are in Microsoftland.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[jedidiah]

That's really funny.

Anytime any "joe schmoe" tries to upgrade a WinDOS box, they go crying to their local Linux zealot for rescue.

Nevermind the fact that there are shiny happy GUI shells for such commands. Such things have been available for "nasty cryptic commandlines" since before a reasonable version of Windows existed.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[Sam Gibson]

Except that it doesn't work that way. Windows update doesn't install all the updates your computer needs. For that you need to use hfnetchk to scan you machine and then go download the patches that it says (it can't do it automatically). Plus there are cryptic switches in Windows too, for example:

%DIRECTORY%\q234232.exe -w -m

Now tell me smart guy, what do those do. At least if I were doing a dpkg I could use --install instead of -i, but -i make's logical sense. -w and -m make is so the machine doesn't reboot and runs in silent mode. On top of that to properly finish the install (if you install more than one patch) you have to run a SEPARATE utility, qchains.exe, otherwise only the first patch will get registered correctly.

And for the record, it wasn't the switches that I was worrying about messing up, it was the bash script (I'm not too hot at it).

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[Sam Gibson]

Wow except you have no idea how to administer a Windows box either. Automatic updates don't download everything, just some of them. To get all the hot fixes you have to use hfnetchk. And I wasn't talking about the task scheduler, I was referring to the option to automatically remotely update machines (completely) without having to do it on every box.

How's that for another complaint.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[sheldon]

Now that's interesting. First you want a way to schedule Windows Update, and now you complain that Windows Update doesn't get all the patches.

Seems like you should have properly defined your problem to begin with.

"And I wasn't talking about the task scheduler, I was referring to the option to automatically remotely update machines (completely) without having to do it on every box."

Well if you want to spend money you can go with HFNetChk pro. If you don't want to spend money you can download psexec from sysinternals.com and script your own solution.

"How's that for another complaint."

Check and Mate

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[sheldon]

kexec still does a reboot, even if it's just a soft boot instead of a hard one.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[medscaper]

Anytime any "joe schmoe" tries to upgrade a WinDOS box, they go crying to their local Linux zealot for rescue.

Yeah, you're completely right, there. Except for what you said.

"nasty cryptic commandlines" Don't misquote me, I didn't say anything about "nasty cryptic commandlines", as I am a Linux developer, thanks. I don't think they're nasty or cryptic. But to a Windows idiot, admit it, it's easier to click yes and reboot than to figure out some command line.

No, don't argue. Just admit it.

Good boy.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[medscaper]

Now tell me smart guy

Well, thanks!

Seriously, it DOES work that way. I use Linux, BSD and Windows all day long. I see how the Windows machines update. I see how the Linux boxes update. I see the kernel recompiles and the command line updates. I see all this crap that other people come to ME for to get done. And then I see the Windows idiots, happily cranking away with their word docs and DevStudio projects and Outlook, with nary a complaint about updates. They happen automagically as long as they're doing them when they pop up. I didn't say Windows couldn't be cryptic. It can be, ridiculously so. But I think you should give credit to them for designing a sometimes-working, usually simple interface for updates that your grandma can do without calling you.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[DunbarTheInept]

And that's assuming "the system" has been so messed up that you can't telnet in without that magic script.

So, again, what does perl have to do with it?


Oh, I don't know - perhaps you'd actually like to get something accomplished after telnetting in.

And I never said perl on linux only, by the way, so stop arguing against that strawman.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[jedidiah]

You must be really cloistered.

That is the only reasonable answer for your point of view since you obviously have no firsthand experience with Windows or Windows users and their problems.

Also, one has to seriously wonder if you use Linux either. The distros have gone quite far in simplifying things for the end users. Even 5 years ago, much of the commandline was abstracted away from novices.

The Linux and WinDOS desktop experiences now have a considerable amount of overlap, with Linux often being easier to deal with and WinDOS being harder to deal with.

Re:One Issue Not Contended...

[medscaper]

Well, not to beat the dead horse back to life, but WOW. 'Cloistered' I haven't heard for years, much less being _called_ it. But, thanks. I think.

But goddamnit, you HAVE to argue this one, don't you? I'm not arguing my credentials with you. I'm not getting into some stupid flame war over this. I made ONE statement of obvious fact. That is : Recent versions of windows are EASIER TO UPDATE than recent versions of Linux. Any distro, any flavor. I've used RECENT versions of Redhat and Suse, and older versions of Slackware, Debian and Redhat and I consistently find that, through the Windows lifetime, it's gotten easier to update a single copy of windows, to the point that it's now as simple as point and click. Not hunt and point and click. Not >man dpkg, not >apt-get --help or >apropos update or any of that happy horseshit. Simply click on a box that pops up and asks you to update Windows.

Now, argue THAT. Not anything else. Argue to me that for the average idiot user, let's say Redhat Linux 7.x or Windows 2000, it is HARDER TO CLICK A SINGLE BUTTON TO UPDATE than it is to type a SINGLE FUCKING LETTER ON THE KEYBOARD. Don't criticize me, don't argue about whether or not I know Linux or how to set up ipchains to allow your downstream folks to get ppm to work through your firewall, or about how WinDOS is such a shitty piece of software. I don't care. I have better things to do than argue about those. My original point was that it's easier to update a Windows box, with their automated notification and GUI than it is to use apt-get or dpkg or even some GUI tool in Linux. When the OS pops up a window asking you to update, that's just plain stupid simple. That's still my point, and if you still don't see it, don't reply. We have differing opinions on this one.

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.

Re:Totally misses it on TCO

[stratjakt]

The thin client model is all but dead.

It's also known as the "put all your eggs in one basket so when your big server/network connection goes down, noone in the office can work" model.

Re:Totally misses it on TCO

[chrisbw]

Even companies who source their desktop support to EDS have support contracts with Microsoft. Desktop support for moves, adds, changes, etc., is much different than technical support that a vendor provides.

Re:Totally misses it on TCO

[Jason Earl]

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.

Re:Totally misses it on TCO

[gfxguy]

If you use the cheapest configuration, maybe, but data is BETTER protected when it's on a central location that can be easily backed up. Also, certain RAID levels as well as totally mirrored data storage is quite viable (look at sgi's failsafe configurations - hot swappable components, redundant servers that talk to each other so that when the main one goes down, the second one takes over, etc.).

Is it expensive? Sure it is, but it's no more expensive, hardware wise (a GOOD diskless system can be $1000 or more, although you can get significantly cheaper), than desktops all around. But it can also be a lot cheaper, depending on the configuration, and it's a lot cheaper and easier to maintain - there's only one "main" system - or two, or four - in a client/server environment there's X workstations (one for everybody) + Y servers.

Moreover, with Unix, you have the option of client/server and thin clients - and you can even intermix the two, without any extra hardware or software costs.

It really depends on what you're doing, but for office administration (email, memos, some reports and spreadsheets) the thin client model is hard to beat, IMO.

Now, in your post, where I work we all share huge arrays anyway - so we are still stuck if one goes down. We might be able to run our software (which had to be installed on each workstation separately - another big cost, both installing and upgrading), but we can't access our projects, so it's a moot point. To date, this has happened once (several years ago, and we learned from our mistake), we have redundant systems and haven't lost a byte in years. On the upside, the projects are backed up several times a week, and then permanently when they are finished. Then we also have the flexibility of being able to move around to other workstations to access our data. Using windows, with all local storage, you'd have to map 50 drives to access each individual machine.

Bottom line is the needs dictate which model is better, and thin client would work in a lot of places where people are throwing money away on client/server approaches.

I'll leave you with this article the Roblimo himself wrote. It's almost two years old, I'd love to see a followup.

Re:Totally misses it on TCO

[Jason Earl]

First of all, thanks for the post. That was the best AC post I have seen in a long time.

I use Citrix on a daily basis, and I believe that X Windows and Linux have three distinct advantages over Citrix. The first advantage is cost. Citrix is expensive. In fact, Citrix is expensive enough that locked down fat-client PCs begin to look attractive. The second advantage of Linux and X Windows is closely related in that it directly effects the economics of thin clients. A Linux server can support quite a few more terminals per server than Citrix can. I personally have seen up to one hundred X terminals hung off of one (beefy) commodity Intel-based server. Try doing that with Citrix. The third advantage of Linux and X Windows is that Linux was designed, from the ground up, to support multiple users. Yes, this is mostly worked out in the newer Windows applications, but it isn't entirely uncommon to find Windows software that doesn't fit in the Citrix world vision.

Personally, I think that Linux is going to be the catalyst for thin clients. The price is right, a fairly comprehensive set of software is available, and the needed tools are falling into place. That being the case I think that Citrix also has a place in the thin client world. However, my guess is that it will primarily be used to run "legacy" Windows applications.

Inflama-tastic

[Skyshadow]

If the summary is indicative of the report (and I'm hoping it's not), let me say: Bullshit.

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...

Re:Inflama-tastic

[bryanthompson]

I installed redhat not too long ago, and i can definitely tell a difference in stress on my processor from windows to linux. In windows, my Athlon 1.3ghz get up to about 160 degrees, in linux it stays down to about 130. Not sure how much of a life difference it makes in my hardware, but it's got to be something.

Re:Inflama-tastic

[Drakonian]

Yeah, good point. I thought the analysis of all the points was fair and reasonable but the headlines were going over board and meant to be provocative. I guess thats a byproduct of a CNN society.

Re:Inflama-tastic

[jedidiah]

Been there, done that.

I ran StarOffice and Netscape on a 1996 vintage machine just fine.

However, KDE+Mozilla is a Red Herring. You don't need the KDE desktop to run KDE applications. You don't need Mozilla either. Opera will replace it quite nicely. Plus, the various KDE applications (like Konqueror or Kword) aren't necessarily hogs either.

Re:Inflama-tastic

[salesgeek]

If the summary is indicative of the report (and I'm hoping it's not), let me say: Bullshit.

The report is typical Gartner. Most Gartner reports are written for executives (not IT workers) and deal with strategic issues. Unfortunately I think they are way off on their assessment of Linux because they are stuck in the traditional desktop paradigm. Linux implementations I've seen tend to emphasize enterprise functionality and do not necessarily over emphasize productivity software like windows does. Of course, that gives analysts room to attack because the status quo must be protected at all costs!

$95 report?

[pecosdave]

Way to stick to the spirit of open source that you're reporting on!

Myth #2

[Anonymous Coward]

NewsFactor Network is ready for a slashdotting.

Do the math...

[borgdows]

Price: US $ 95.00
Pages: 6

95 : 6 = 15.83$ per page !

wow! their business plan might be :

1) find something interesting /. crowd
2) write a 6 pages report (not necessarily interesting)
3) ???
4) PROFIT!!

Re:Do the math...

[Otter]

...and given the number of people here willing to write thousands of words squabbling over whether desktop Linux will/won't have a lower TCO than Windows, there seems to be a considerable labor force available.

Re:Do the math...

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Gartner provide highly valuable reports that are more than worth their price. If you were a CTO trying to convince the board that Linux is ready for the desktop, a Gartner report supporting your suggestion would be a very valuable weapon. $95 is peanuts in corporate land.

And, yes, they make a very, VERY handsome profit.

Re:Do the math...

[Alomex]

I have business intelligence newsletters sitting on my shelves that are sold at a rate of hundreds of dollars per page to corporate clients...

Re:Do the math...

[foistboinder]

Gartner provide highly valuable reports that are more than worth their price.

I dunno... I used to have acces to Gartner's stuff and I rarely saw anything worth paying any sort of real money for.

Re:Do the math...

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Gartner are excellent for "proving" stuff you already know is true... You shouldn't view it as the fountain of truth...

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[snoochyboochy]

Lookout everybody, Balmer's started reading /.!!!

Such Research

[Gleef]

"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.

Re:Such Research

[NineNine]

This is an overview of an article that costs $95. My guess is that the $95 article has some real numbers.

Re:Such Research

[grandmofftarkin]

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt but I suspect you may be a troll. Just in case you are not, I'll respond anyway.

Sounds like the only research the Gartner Group did for this report was to call Microsoft, call RedHat, and find out what they do.

Hmmm, yes they only researched by calling Microsoft and RedHat. .... umm, perhaps not? What is your basis for that is? The overview? Since you obviously haven't read the full report, how can you say that?

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 [winface.com], or talk to Businesses who have already made the jump [bryanconsulting.com]. They looked at Windows, and they guessed.

Again do you KNOW they didn't do a study??? Just becuase it is not publically available you assume they didn't? The figures are only going to available to clients, since they are the ones who paid for them.

Also, from about Gartner. Gartner has 10,500 clients, 1,200 research analysts and consultants, in more than 90 locations worldwide. Fiscal 2001 revenue totaled $963 million. They have been around for 20 years. Bryan consulting started in 1999 and whilst they don't list it publicaly probably have only a about 3 consultants, if that. WinFace I have never even heard of but the website looks really professional, not! I also see little evidence they have done a 'comprehensive' Linux TCO study. Anyway, Let's do a Google link test:

sites linking to Gartner5,040!
sites linking to Bryan Consulting8!!
sites linking to WinFace.com0!!!

Call me stupid but I think most people in the IT industry are more likely to take the word of Gartner over Bryan Consulting or Winface.

And they charge $95 per copy for their uneducated guess.

The $95 is for the real report NOT this overview that you have read! Are you trolling or are you serious? I really don't know?

I'll leave you with one last thought. Admittadley, I can find no link to prove it (probably because it has been around such a long time) but when I learnt about IT I was told it was Gartner who invented the Term TCO.

Re:Such Research

[Gleef]

From the language of the overview (eg "we see little reason to believe"), it does not sound like they have looked. If they have looked, the answer might be "the evidence paints a less favorable picture", or "the evidence is inconclusive". The things they are saying are not a matter of belief, they are a matter of observing the world we live in.

Re:Such Research

[Gleef]

By basis for speculating that they only contacted RedHat out of the Linux vendors is quote from the overview that you seem to have dropped from my statement, namely that the Linux vendors only support their releases for two years. This is RedHat's new policy, but not the policy of most major Linux vendors; in fact it wasn't even RedHat's policy a year ago.

I don't know they didn't do a TCO study, but it's strongly implied because rather than saying that their TCO study supports or disagrees with the "myth", they merely say they don't "beleive" that the Linux world is enough different from the Linux world to make a difference here. Since it's something that they can check, and it's something that they ought to have checked, why didn't they check? Of course I don't expect them to give their TCO study for free, but I also think it's pointless to pay for a study that says that the price savings of Linux are mythological unless they give some evidence that they've actually looked at the real world examples in front of them.

I say this is poorly researched because the overview contains some glaring untruths like that one, and they strike me as the untruths that result from lack of research. I say this is poorly researched because the overview talks about belief when they could have talked real world figures (or at least advertised that real world figures were inside).

The fact that Gartner Group is more listned to than Bryan Consulting or Paul Murphy is a sad truth of modern times, but that doesn't change the fact that I wasn't linking to them because they are better, I was linking to the information they were discussing. Specifically, Bryan Consulting was discussing the Burlington Coat Factory enterprise migration to Linux and the cost savings associated with it, and Paul Murphy has done a comprehensive and detailed TCO study that comes up with a vastly different result than Gartner Group's "belief".

I don't care how many clients or employees or links Gartner Group has compared to Bryan Consulting or Paul Murphy (at least call the man by his name, not by his website). I was not recommending one over the other in terms of consulting services. I was just pointing out that there is real information out there while the Gartner Group sounds like they're guessing.

"The $95 is for the real report NOT this overview that you have read!"
Wow! What a revelation! I never would have realized that, given the fact that I didn't spend $95 to read the overview.

"Are you trolling or are you serious? I really don't know?"
I am quite serious, the Garter Group sounds like they are charging $95 for a report, and the overview of that report gives every indication that they didn't do their homework.

"but when I learnt about IT I was told it was Gartner who invented the Term TCO."
Whether they coined the term it or not, of course Gartner knows what a TCO study is, it's one of the things that they sell as a business. The fact that they know what one is makes no difference if they haven't done one.

I guess this is one time...

[mfifer]

...when NOT reading the article will be considered excusable ;-)

What you failed to mention

[pecosdave]

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.

Re:What you failed to mention

[starunj]

Removing IE is:
Control Panel -> Add/Remove Programs > Add/Remove Windows Components > Uncheck IE > Click on OK.

You're done. And as a windows user: RTFM! or press F1.

Re:What you failed to mention

[platipusrc]

Since when is removing a shortcut the same thing as uninstalling an application?

Re:What you failed to mention

[Shadowlion]

Control Panel -> Add/Remove Programs > Add/Remove Windows Components > Uncheck IE > Click on OK

Nope. All you've done is hide the shortcuts for IE. Both the help viewer and the Explorer windows are "integrated" with IE, and if you were to actually remove IE from your computer, those components would break (which is why, if you use 98Lite to get truly uninstall IE, you need to have older versions of Explorer that don't integrate with IE).

Re:What you failed to mention

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Fighting moronic ignorance on slashdot is like trying to drain the ocean with a thimble.

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to why Red Hat provides so much non-optional, unremovable "bloat", while the sainted distros like Debian, Mandrake, Gentoo, SuSE, and Joe-Bob's Basement Linux get things right.

Or maybe you're just trying to look like a badass by railing against "The Man" like a Jr. High student.

Re:What you failed to mention

[YrWrstNtmr]

Try removing IE from XP

The reason IE is so hard (impossible?) to remove is, rightly or wrongly, MS tried to treat external files and internal files the same.

Make seamless file operations from inside your own PC, or on a network, or out on the wider Internet. In that context, it sort of makes sense to use the same basic tool (IE/Explorer) to do the same basic task.

It may be argued that this is a bad premise, but (IMHO) that's what they were trying to do.

Re:What you failed to mention

[chihowa]

Having not used Windows in quite some time (Win95 didn't take up too much space, and deselecting components would drastically reduce the size), I was shocked to discover that WinXP with all optional components removed needed more than 1GB on the hard disk.

The fact that I'm typing this message from (albeit, not as pretty) LNX-BBC shows quite a bit.

Re:What you failed to mention

[nege]

Could you please ellaborate on why RedHat is getting worse? Is it blucurve or something else? I find that RedHat is one of my favorite distros because it has been around for a while, and seems to follow the most standards for their config stuff, (even though sometimes they add crappy shortcuts, like the redhat-config stuff) but I HATE the new bluecurve junk - which is why I stick with WindowMaker or E.

Re:What you failed to mention

[pecosdave]

Elaboration = Bluecurve

What they do to the windowmanagers perhaps? I mean at least one really high up official left the company over it. They want both gnome and KDE to look exactly the same, molded by Red Hat.

United Linux is forming to try and make a few standards so things will interoperate better and software will remain easier to compile/create for multiple distros across the board. They aren't participating.

Overall wierdness. I don't think to many distros are immune to some wierdness. Right now I'm using SuSE, I don't like some of the stuff they put into KDE so I got rid of it. I actually don't even use the KDE provided by SuSE (though it's not to bad) I download and install my own.

As stated by others, RedHat trys to force things into wierd places with their own settings. I guess it's okay if you like that sort of thing. Good beginner Linux, I started on it, but I would suggest moving on afterwards.

fair report

[poot_rootbeer]

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.

Re:fair report

[Keeper]

The major costs/risks associated with upgrading arn't the liscensing costs, but rather the migration costs. The OS is free, but getting everything to work exactly the same as it did before the upgrade is another story.

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[mmol_6453]

It's probably obvious, but plese note that the above is not the article at the "overview" link.

TCO

[Mistlefoot]

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.

Re:TCO

[saintjab]

I don't really disagree with what you have to say, but I don't feel your final comment is correct. I think that as the market share for *NIX grows we will see more, not less, hacks and security holes. Number one from poorly written/configured apps.. When *NIX is as popular as Windows to the mass market (Joe Sixpack) there will be a huge demand for apps quickly, just like in the Windows world, and there will be a line of poor coders waiting to produce and sell/share those apps. Number two, once the script kiddies start dillengently poking away at the *NIX OS's we will see a lot more previously ignore or missed holes/exploits appearing. I have NO DOUBTS that the community will keep up with these new issues as they are discovered, just as has been in the past, but there will still be more identified. -just my opionin.

Re:TCO

[jedidiah]

The primary cause of WinDOS security issues is not shovelware. The primary cause of WinDOS security issues is a fundemental lack of design, or consideration for past mistakes. Infact, much of this lack of design comes not from the general community of WinDOS coders but from the OS vendor itself.

If you eliminated Microsoft applications from the WinDOS landscape, the vast majority of your app level security issues would evaporate.

Also "new apps quickly" is not a demand of "joe sixpack". "new apps quickly" is a requirement of the shrinkwrap software business model. Conventional consumer software producers need to keep pushing new versions in order to keep perpeturating revenue.

Microsoft can get away with this crap because they are both prime supplier and prime competitor. There is no comparable Linux distributor.

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[tuffy]

It seems /. has transformed "proof by anecdote" into something both "interesting" and "informative". Bravo.

Re:MODS ON CRACK -- AGAIN

[pecosdave]

I realize that, I just had to vent some philisophical feelings. Now, lets go break stuff!

Gartner...

[pvjr]

Isnt this the same Gartner that has issued other pro-MS "reports"? Certainly not worth $95.00...

Re:Gartner...

[pvjr]

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/01/28/072322 3&mode=thread

Re:Gartner...

[yomamasbooty]

No stupid it's the Gartner group that recommended everyone abandone IIS.

There is a more insidious thing about Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:There is a more insidious thing about Linux

[maxbang]

Modded as flamebait? It's funny. Lighten up.

Re:There is a more insidious thing about Linux

[plastik55]

Very interesting. Were you also aware of

• the distribution named "Mandrake" (after an herbal drug used in witchcraft)
  
• the e-mail program named "Evolution" produced by a company named "ximian" whose logo is some kind of monkey, intended to seed Darwinist propaganda.
  
• The informal, Pagan caste system used by open source advocates, with "wizard" and "guru" being the highest levels. Indeed, Open Source terminology is rive with Pagan references; check the so-called "jargon file" for terms such as "deep magic," "incantation," "rain dance," "voodoo programming," "wave a dead chicken," and "magic numbers."
  

Re:There is a more insidious thing about Linux

[swankypimp]

Perhaps you should use this operating system.

Re:There is a more insidious thing about Linux

[Holocaust Administra]

You're just mad because Linux is a competing religion.

Re:There is a more insidious thing about Linux

[stevey]

If you don't like the anti-Christian attributes of Linux, then you'll hate Lesbian GNU/Linux!

Re:There is a more insidious thing about Linux

[Rudeboy777]

A classic! Bravo to you sir, that's the best I've seen in some time.

*stands on desk and cheers*

Re:There is a more insidious thing about Linux

[tindur]

Please note that Nils Torvalds, the father of Linus, was a prominent communist. Google will tell more.

Re:There is a more insidious thing about Linux

[The Phantom Buffalo]

Actually, I prefer this one.

Re:There is a more insidious thing about Linux

[Slime-dogg]

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.

Hey now. Little Christians have to come from somewhere. I think what you are referring to is the Catholics, a large sect of people that lost their faith in the middle ages. It was rediscovered through the discourse over the fallacy of justification by works.

Sometimes, it's best to know that Luther was a heavy beer drinker that was really into sex (with his ex-nun wife).

:shrug: It's my place to defend, even if it's in jest. :-)

Re:There is a more insidious thing about Linux

[BrokenHalo]

Time was when Slackware was believed to be the province of Satan-worshippers... (OK, then, muwahahaha if you insist :-)).

But I've had Linux on my desktop exclusively for about 6 years now, and I do not miss winbloze one bit. And yes, I do use the machine for more than browsing the internet and WP.

Re:There is a more insidious thing about Linux

[Holocaust Administra]

WP = White Power? I didn't know Linux supported such things.

Re:There is a more insidious thing about Linux

[claud9999]

Oh oh oh, you forgot the most important indication of Paganism: Magic smoke! (Or is it "magick smoke"? ;^)

And for an unbiased opinion...

[Flabby Boohoo]

Read the comments posted at the end of the article :-)

Linux users often compare uptimes.......

[oliverthered]

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.

Re:Linux users often compare uptimes.......

[stanmann]

Well, if I am running a P-166, I can get exchange and server 4 for around the cost of the computer on the grey market.

Re:Linux users often compare uptimes.......

[rifter]

Yes, and you will be running a platform with known security vulnerabilities Microsoft will not fix, with no new patches available. Also, ask someone who has actually had the pain of admining an NT4 Exchange Server about uptimes, and why their company bothers paying the $$$ for Win2k and new versions of Exchange, neither of which will run on a p-166. Besides you would have an interesting time running even NT4 and Exchange 5 or something on a p-166, whereas your favorite Linux distro with qmail or sendmail is another matter altogether.

It's NOT about the OS

[saintjab]

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.

Re:It's NOT about the OS

[saintjab]

Why would I bother spell checking a /. post? Oh wait, me sees the Anon Coward and knows.. Troll.

Re:It's NOT about the OS

[timmfisk]

Your points are valid and I argue those same points almost every day with those whom have been asimilated, but lets not forget the real reason why this thread is alive and well... Its because M$ decided to move into the server environment using a GUI that any monkey can become familiar with. They create an infinitely complex and limited NOS that grows because it is familiar, and to some extent you can justify that.

There are two problems with this:
1. After the whole cosmos is familiar with how a mouse functions, it becomes clear that you instantly have 'experts' who say "It works on a desktop, lets put it on a server". Ooops, we dont have a NOS, let quickly put one together before the market is out of reach. Now you have someone familiar with a mouse administering a NOS that is clearly not ready for a production environment and a business model that only supports the vendor. How managers can justify this is beyond me. The culprit here is the term compatibility, it is being used in a context of a GUI, not the function. How can a tech preach the benefits of a system that requires a reboot when a service locks up? A typical tech's response to any M$ issue is "Did you reboot"? Get real...

2. Now that you have a half-baked NOS running half-baked services, you find out that every hacker in the world is now developing "virus's" looking for their 5 minutes of fame, setting the IT industry on its ear and at the same time feeding the M$ monster and affiliates (ie: Symantec). If it wasnt for the malicious intent of a hacker, I would applaud each one for exploiting the incompetance of those who worship false Gods.

If you are serious about security, stability and compatibility, put your money where your mouth is and support vendors who share those ideas. Dont throw your money at a machine that forces you to upgrade your software and licensing. Wake up and realize that you are only paying for a RC-xx or Beta that never lives up to its promises, its an illusion. What you are really paying for is a pipe dream and headaches.

The best example of this is M$'s new commercial, you know the one, we are saving millions by moving our PDC's into a Forest.".... ya that one. I would love to develop software that is so inflated from the get-go, and later explain how cost effective it will be to bring old symptoms into a new light. Developers and engineers should be more responsible than that.

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.

Re:This seems like FUD

[saryon2413]

Reply to your comments:

Linux will be less expensive:
OpenOffice works *almost* as well as MS Office does, but I doubt that's a reason for Windows users to get it. And one MAJOR hurdle against it is...the 100 megs download ("man...that takes me a week, no way i'm gonna download that, i'll just go to the store and buy MS Office, much easier." or: "man...that takes me a week...no way i'm gonna download that, but though i'm willing to try it, i can't buy it in the shops, so i have to get MS Office"). But that's just an office program...there are more programs to/for linux.
But license per license, yes, linux is cheaper, I think, especially in the server departement:
Windows requires licenses for each client connecting (for filesharing, terminal capabilities, etc), whereas linux that's free.
Support on the other hand is also less good, so that's a trade-off (unless you use redhat/suse).

Linux needs to forced upgrades:
Bull. Complete Bull. Every program needs upgrades, especially Linux. How else are the problems fixed?

Linux management is easier:
Again...Bull. Linux administration is *not* easier. It's harder. You have to look up files, figure out how the syntax is, and fix the problems. This will take more time to learn than the click-and-run stuff on windows. But it is better configurable, and in the hands of a skilled administrator better running (and faster configured).
And your argument about Linux Terminals being cheap. Guess what. Windows 2000 server (and later editions) have Windows Terminal Services. Argument nullified.

Linux has lower TCO:
I agree. One unix admin can do more machines at the same time than one Windows admin can. Simple timing: Clicking is slower than typing something in.
And please......get rid of the LTSP argument. Windows has had Terminal Services since windows 2000 server default installed.

Skills are transferrable:
Have you *seen* the amount of different unices? It's learning a whole new operating system each time you sit behind a new one. Sure, many config files are located at the same spot, but definately not all, and they also handle various commands differently.

Bottom line:
I agree, no desktop linux for normal users for a while. But not for above reasons. The reasons (in my view) are:
- Incompatability between programs (copy-paste between progams? yeah...right)
- Slow grapical (Refresh under X is gastly, ever used KDE? Compare that to windows.)
- Slow bootup (Turn computer on, go to toilet, clay a bit, flush, go back to computer, see xdm start up)
- Terrible installation of most programs: Decompress file, ./configure, damn...library wrong...find library, install library, damn...needs other library, ad infinitum, make, damnit....compile errors, wtf is this program?, fix errors, make install. damn...segfault...what? no uninstall? aarggh!!! (try having a non-geek user do that) Ok, RPM works....but see library/segfault bs.
- Bad multimedia capabilities: Some programs have working audio, others don't. Some have working video codecs, others don't. Installing a codec often fails, if it's even there for linux, no *real* dvd software (mplayer et al have dvd ability, but that's illegal: hacked codec). And lindvd exists, but that's a not-really-released-verison.
- Overall INSTABILITY of PROGRAMS. While I agree that Linux (the operating system) is stable, the programs running on it are a NIGHTMARE. Many, many segfaults, unaccountable crashes, mysterious hangups, weird glitches, etc.


But you do get 500000 shells, 5912719471391 editors, and 50 different windowmanagers!!! (woohoo?)

Saryon

Re:This seems like FUD

[jedidiah]

Yup, suuure. The maturity of DVD players is just so critical to the corporate desktop.

Actually, the like of xmms and videolan have quite respectable multimedia capabilities. Only for something highly proprietary like Sorenson would you need to run a Win32 application.

QT4 and WMP run quite well under Linux BTW.

Although VideoLan is better than QT at playing MPEGS (especially fullscreen).

TCO musings...

[wwest4]

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.

Re:TCO musings...

[MrRudeDude]

When he talks of "too much complexity, lack of sufficient policies or standards, or cultural and political issues" he is not talking about problems that are solved being able to list open file handles and bound ports.

He is talking about the CULTURAL immpedances to efficiency. A group of developers needs special setups on their machines, and the company computer services refuses or takes forever to set things up, so the developer group ends up with one developer actaully being the groups personal sysadmin, and in a constant war to hide and block computer services from getting in and screwing things up. A manager try XP at home and likes it, and mandates a department wide upgrade without realizing that custom software the company uses doesn't work on XP. The company web page designer insists on using a weird html creator mostly to maintain her job as the only person who can change the web page.

Introducing the best software in the world won't fix these problems. After you switch to linux, computer services will try to grab turf by insisting on being the sole controller of root access, and then not install things developers need fast enough, so the developers boot up with a floppy, copy /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow aside, reboot and do their work and then fix it, and engage in hiding the strategy from CS; managers will still try and mandate crappy software that they learned about in a hotel bar somewhere; web page designers will use jakarta or j2ee or whatever to lock in their positions; etc.

If you work with shit people you will pay a price and linux can't save you. It's a valid point.

On the other hand, the fact that this observation applies so generally to Gartner's customers is incredibly amusing to me. They are basically admitting that buying Gartner reports is a sign of a broken organization.

Hopefully the economic slowdown and rise of cheap Free Software will result a lot of that dead weight being shed from our society. Perhaps companies will either become leaner, more practical, more thrifty and more efficient, or else find themselves out of jobs. It's high time we left the telephone dis-infectors adrift in space.

Re:TCO musings...

[rwsorden]

Although this has nothing to do with Linux TCO vs. Windows TCO, here goes:

list of open file handles - how about Handle

list of bound ports - how about TCPView

robust scripting language - how about ActivePerl

All of the above tools are free, high quality, and easy to install/use on WIndows 2K/XP. I automatically install them along with many other tools whenever I prep a new Windows 2K/XP machine. And to think I'm not even an MCSE...

Re:TCO musings...

[mrroach]

A list of bound ports is not terribly useful without being able to map them to a running process/user.

Oh, but look (link at bottom of your page), you can get a program for windows for only $69 to do what netstat and fuser will do on any unix system. I am sure that for some reason or another, that doesn't factor into TCO though, right?

Re:TCO musings...

[Keeper]

And yet if they were to be included tomorrow, a bunch of people would complain about how evil microsoft is trying to squeeze the little guy out of the software industry.

Re:TCO musings...

[pi_rules]

The original poster chose a really poor example there: finding a list of bound ports. Sure that TCPView thing will do it, but you can do it in Windows with the built in utilities.

If I want to do it in a Linux environment I run:

netstat -n

If I want to do it in a Windows environment I run:

netstat -n ... You can usually tell which Windows utils were inspired by *nix equivalents. They usually use the - notation instead of / before command line options.

Re:TCO musings...

[Read Icculus]

Right you are. He chose a really bad example. How could someone not know about netstat on Windows? It's even got a way to set the delay before it updates, I'd like to see that on my linux netstat for sure. I get a bit tired of "netstat -anc" with no way to set the delay.

95 bucks!

[starunj]

Make yourself a linux box for 95 bucks and see for yourself.

full text of article (not overview)

[Anonymous Coward]

The original article is on zdnet here

Well it sounds like they missed the point

[joeflies]

Corporate desktops need to worry about the things listed above, but in addition, they also need to think about:

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.

What I find interesting

[Synn]

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.

Re:What I find interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

No, next year they will say that while Linux is great for new setups, you shouldn't replace existing windows networks with Linux.

I agree with you that this report is a great sign for Linux. They really didn't find much wrong with using it as a desktop system. In each bullet, they say it's only slightly better than Windows. Sweet!

Lets take an objective aproach.

[oliverthered]

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?

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[Usquebaugh]

Take a look at LTSP.

In my mind LTSP is how Linux should go after the corporate desktop.

The client/server model is so costly as to be laughable. Ditch it and save money.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[johnnyb]

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.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[NineNine]

You're under the false assumption that a hundred bucks is worth a job. I really doubt that anybody is going to voluntarily save $100, then worry about whether or not they can even get their job done.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[rsilvergun]

"3720 terminal emulator" Shouldn't that read 3720 terminal emulators?

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[AppyPappy]

The technically-savvy folks are the ones trashing their machines. With Linux, that ability is greatly diminished because a vast majority of the Adware/Cuteware won't run on Linux. With Linux, you can actually lock down the desktop without the administrator being bombarded with requests to "add this to my secretary's PC so she will get off my back".

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[YrWrstNtmr]

hmm...ISTR a comment similar to this a couple of weeks ago. Obviously, Windows comes with a LOT more than just Wordpad and IE. I thought that was a main gripe about Windows...too much bundling.

And as far as installations, especially in the corporate world, ghost images are the rule of the day. We have several standard setups for different user groups. Takes maybe an hour or two (unattended) to fully install everything.

Not saying that Linux is easier or harder or more comprehensive to push out a new install, but let's do be objective, shall we?

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for typing all that so I didn't have to. Once again, people lacking the experience with BOTH OS's are chiming in with their idiocy. If you don't use both regularly people, you have no business even discussing the issue. There are tools, features, and options that you don't even know about.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[marktoml]

True, true, true and oh so true. The problem at present is that objectivity has nothing to do with it. Too few businesses (or people) are willing to 'risk' the possibility of being unable to easily share the data generated by said apps.

Note that 'risk' is a perception thing. There are many fine solutions to this preceived issue, but unfortunately almost all require thought. Something the masses are largely unwilling to do.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[pmz]

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.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[jtdiii]

All that for a cost! With Linux all that is builtin and comes with it .... With Windows you have to buy Office With Windows you have to by virus protection With Windows by A ghosting app. The functionality is there with windows but it relys on third party vendors to fill in the gaps.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[pmz]

Then you sir, have some OTHER issues.

Normal install on a Pentium 400-class PC, including a hard drive format. 50X CD-ROM, 5400RPM hard disk, 256MB RAM. Performance of the OS after installation is just fine.

You probably thought that was normal too.

Should I have expected something better? Were talking about Windows, here.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[Master Bait]

Or don't you have a clue what TCO and ROI stand for? STFU, troll

You stfu, Lumpy. $450 per year is plenty, unless you're so stupid that you buy a whole new set of software every year.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[ichimunki]

Or don't you have a clue what TCO and ROI stand for? STFU, troll.

That's very nice. You have heard a couple of financial sounding acronyms and are now a finance expert? But a business is not just about a balance sheet, it's also about a cash flow. In many cases, Linux might have the same TCO or ROI at the end of the year as another option, but the initial investment would be low and so the I in the ROI would more regular and the TCO would be spread over time rather than requiring a single lump expense at the beginning of the accounting period.

Also, no study has conclusively shown that Linux has a higher TCO than other options. Nor is it at all intuitive that a Free Software would have a lower ROI than a proprietary solution. In fact, quite the opposite, as the potential for minimizing Linux expenses is much greater than the potential for minimizing proprietary expenses.

Lower barriers to entry are essential for the marketplace to work correctly and Free Software (e.g. Linux) does just that.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[johnnyb]

"And as far as installations, especially in the corporate world, ghost images are the rule of the day."

Are you sure that your application licensing allows you to do that? Are you sure your Microsoft licensing allows you to do that?

In addition, ghost images don't work that well with dramatically different hardware setups. However, setting up a custom RHAT _installation_ disk is just as easy and, since it's an installation disk, works on a wider range of hardware.

"Windows comes with a LOT more than just Wordpad and IE."

Like?

"I thought that was a main gripe about Windows...too much bundling."

You miss _why_ that is the problem. Bundling with Windows is a problem because only Microsoft can control what is bundled and what isn't. If Microsoft has decreed that IE will ship with Windows, no matter if I go to Dell or HP, I will still get IE bundled. If Red Hat says that Mozilla will be always bundled with Linux - well, if you like it great, if you don't someone down the street will have unbundled it in about 30seconds and come out with a version that only supports Konqueror. One way is anti-competitive, and the other way is very competitive. That's what Linux/Free Software offers - a completely open marketplace.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[oliverthered]

$100 x 500 =
50000
Thats enough money to employee a techie for a year and a small pay rise for me!

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[Torgo's Pizza]

Ah, but you forget that Windows also comes with:

* Solitare

* Minefield

Together, these two "killer apps" is what really separates the two operating systems. Just wait. I hear that Microsoft is working on a two-player version of Solitare that is going to seal the fate of Red Hat and it's ilk.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[afidel]

Actually ghost is ok if all your hardware is identical, otherwise there are better solutions that will bootstrap a machine from a netboot to a full windows install with drivers and apps in a couple hours unattended. We also used RH custom kickstart disks and from a tech's perspective it was virtually identical, insert disk, wait, remove disk, walk away. Sure work has to be put into both to setup the installer app, but from what I could tell the two groups were roughly equivilant in size and so should have been able to accomplish roughly the same amount of support work. The liscensing costs for the windows boxes though were through the roof, office, utility apps like winzip, etc whereas we had the cost for redhat and ximian connector, a fraction of the cost. Support costs were lower too, in fact I would say that linux had about 1/3rd the support calls per machine.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[Cromac]

All that for a cost! With Linux all that is builtin and comes with it .... With Windows you have to buy Office With Windows you have to by virus protection With Windows by A ghosting app. The functionality is there with windows but it relys on third party vendors to fill in the gaps.

You don't have to buy Office for Windows, you can download Open Office for Windows just like you can for Linux.

You think all those apps on Linux are from a single vendor? If MS tried to bundle all that with the OS they'd be hauled into court again.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[malfunct]

Yes and then I want you to have the MIS department charge $80 an hour for support calls and see how fast those people ask for windows back. Also I want you to objectively measure the amount of time the people spend fucking around to get thier applications to work the way they expect.

That said I don't hate linux, I just realize there are some costs related to it that are not included in the purchase price.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[cHALiTO]

I've never tried RH's kickstart disks, but what about dd ?

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[johnnyb]

Same problem as with GHOST - you are copying a drive of an already-setup machine. Linux handles this better than windows when the hardware conf changes, but it is still better to install new.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[Holocaust Administra]

Windows sucks, but it does have FTP ;) Also, most administrators create ghost images and use those instead. Especially with Window's shite DLL management.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[NineNine]

$100 x 500 =
50000
Thats enough money to employee a techie for a year and a small pay rise for me!


One support person for 500 Linux users? Are you trying to describe hell on earth?

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[tomhudson]

If you're going to charge them $$$ for Linux support, to keep things the same, you should do the same for windows users. Of course, since the windows user is going to try to 'fix' it him/herself, they'll probably do much more damage before calling tech support.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[Doug Neal]

Network booting with PXE combined with Debian's "fully automated installer" system gives you a fully functional setup from a cold boot in under 60 seconds.

Of course this is most useful for servers and corporate desktops where you have a pre-made setup, a la Norton Ghost.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[johnnyb]

"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

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[An Onerous Coward]

I thought XP had CD-burning software, graphics editing software (if you bother to count MS Paint), a command line FTP client, Outlook (an Evolution clone :P ), and a bare bones telnet client. There's also Windows Media Player (which I despise, but is probably more user friendly than the Linux equivalents) and the server version comes with IIS (okay, it's no Apache).

Still, having an office suite and a trainload of development tools installed right out of the gate doesn't suck. Overall, your point is well taken. But there's a bit of exaggeration in there.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[johnnyb]

"I guess the Opera installation on my home PC is not really there. Or Mozilla."

Again, the OEMs are not allowed to decide to package them for you, or remove IE. That's the whole point.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[King_TJ]

Not that I really disagree with you, but just for the sake of fairness and reporting all the facts, a new purchase of Windows does give you a little more than just "IE and Wordpad".

They've always included at least a command line ftp command that runs from a DOS command prompt. They include a GUI telnet client as well. They've always included the "Paint" program to edit bitmapped graphics and do simple drawing/doodling.

If you purchase Windows XP, you also get a movie-maker application, as well as the ability to burn files and directories to CD, integrated into the OS. I believe both 2000 and XP include a moderately decent image viewer/editor application as well.

Of course, there are also a number of less important "applets" like the calculator, Windows notepad, the sound recorder utility, and "Character Map" (to make it easy to copy/past a non-standard ASCII character into a file/document).

Any decent Linux distro includes *far* more software than a Windows installation CD does. There's no contest there.... I'm just not sure how important that really is to most buyers?

Don't forget, most of the chain-store bought PCs not only come preloaded with Windows, but also come bundled with loads of commercial packages (things like Quicken, or MS Works, 3D Home Designer, etc.). I've actually had more than one person pay me for my time to come over to their house and *remove* a lot of these packages - because they didn't use the stuff and didn't want it cluttering up their computer anymore.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[conteXXt]

Ghost works better with 2000 and XP (in terms of different hardware) than it did with 98/NT4

At the very least, the later ones can boot and somewhat self configure. Just standardize on your nics.

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:Lets take an objective aproach.

[conteXXt]

Corporate desktop?

I am using this as we speak and I am at home.

It's easier to stick the fast/big/noisy machine is a spare room (in the basement) and use cheap OLD laptops over 802.11 instead.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[Cromac]

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....

That is likely the point of view that MS fears most. When small and medium size business realize they can get the job done without losing that 1/3.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[rikkards]

Let's say you install Windows and Red Hat Linux on a PC. Windows comes with:
* Wordpad
* IE

You forgot the government staple....
Solitaire :)

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[rikkards]

Ghost will work on hardware that isn't identical (to a certain degree)) as long as you sysprep the machine and ensure the drivers are included with necessary paths in the Sysprep.inf file (OEMPNPDriversPath is where you would be putting the path)

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[Hrshgn]

CD Burning with Media Player and FTP browsing with Explorer??? I really pity you.

Hell, i just went through yet another WinXP reinstall because the earlier install grew like a tumor and finally made my system unstable.
A blank WinXp install is worth nothing. It takes me at least a week until all tools are downloaded and set up again, not to mention all the 'dont check for updates' and 'dont show hidden files' checkboxes which I have to find and de/select every time.
Plus, there isn't really that much freeware as some people claim here. Most downloadable software is shareware.

With a full SuSE 8.2 Installation on the other hand I have 99% of the tools already at hand at the very moment I need them.

Rince

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[Karl Cocknozzle]

Most corporations may use GHOST, but are usually violating a large number of license agreements in the process. That can mean big problems later.

As an everyday user of Ghost (and, FWIW, I think it rocks) I must ask you to elaborate on your contention that Ghost somehow inherently violates the license agreements of software.

I don't see how: Your license fee is per installed usage of the software. Why does it matter that I installed the software at the same time as the OS?
How is this different from restoring a backup copy off of a tape? Or does that also violate licensing agreements?

At our site we (meticulously, I might add) track each license of each program. Each workstation has a physical license page for each installed package in a physical folder (in addition to our electronic tracking.) There are two enormous file cabinets near my cube that represent the paper licenses for ALL of our systems. Is it a pain in the ass to maintain? Sure, but a lot less of a pain than installing everything from CD. Software installed via Ghost image is tracked very damn carefully to ensure compliance with the license agreement.

Sure, if we just ghosted machines willy-nilly, and ended up using more copies than we'd paid for, that would be a problem. But we're not, and "not enough licenses" is a seperate problem, unrelated to Ghost or other disk imaging software.

Also, to use GHOST, you have to have a _very_ uniform hardware platform.

We have two laptop styles, and two desktop styles. If we add a new kind, I'm in the habit of ghosting the first one so any subsequent machines will have an image to work from.

I fail to understand your anti-Ghost sentiment. Most of your arguments seem to be based on ignorance of its actual use in the real world.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[notasheep]

I guess I'll have to uninstall my fax services, paint program, disk management tools, etc., from my Windows box so I can take the same "objective" view you have.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[johnnyb]

" Yes, I've use The Gimp - but as I said, for most people, they don't even know what most of those things are. "

Actually, most people are starting to get pretty hard-core into photo manipulation.

"Terminal emu ? Still not big deal for MOST people.
"

For _businesses_ running Linux, it is a big deal.

"Price ? See yesterday's comparison of the 12 month Lindows price with the no-limit Windows XP Home price. And Bill's had to write and test every line of code for that money. Compare Red Hat's annual software budget with Microsoft's."

Why compare Lindows? Why not Red Hat? Or Mandrake? Or Cheap Bytes? And no, Bill did not write all that code. A lot of it is from BSD. There is also some speculation that a large part of DCOM is stolen outright for DCE.

"Yes, the hardware does have to be uniform. I wouldn't argue with that. But, where's this evidence of software license infringements ? And what's that (poor argument) got to do with Microsoft anyway"

If it makes it harder to manage, that would be a point against Microsoft, don't you think? About the license infringements -- without special licensing, you are not allowed to copy installations of Windows from one computer to another without deleting it on the original computer. If I have 5 XP licenses, I can't take an image from 1 and burn it to the other 4 machines without getting one of Microsoft's special license agreements. In addition, you have to make sure that you have site licenses for everything in your installation, and that it is allowed to be copied in that way. Did you pay for all those copies of WinZip? Are you sure?

"Windows Terminal Services, based on Citrix technology, works perfectly fine with Windows-type terminals - no moving parts and will run high volumes."

All of the Citrix/WTS systems I've seen have a WinCE installation on the hard drive of the terminal. Having a hard drive causes maintenance problems. There may be ways around it, but all of the installations I've seen do it the WinCE hard drive way. In addition, I've never had one run as good as X11.

"MS Performance Monitor, etc, let you look into the system to a very detailed level and there are many cool free utilities from Sys Internals, etc. Let's not forget the ResKits too."

that's what I'm talking about, they are all external and have to be installed separately.

"And don't mention games. As a keen FPS fan I'd be stuck without being able to run Windows. The titles just aren't there for Linux like they are for Windows."

Doesn't matter for a business desktop.

"What does irritate many people though is the stream of silly comments coming from people who hate MS for the sake of it. The comments are often wrong and childish to the nth degree. The use of terms such as Micro$oft, Microshaft, etc, add nothing to the Linux cause and just throw doubts on the integrity and sensibilities of those that do it."

What does that have to do with the present discussion?

"Also, I challenge the Linux fans to say some positive things about Bill."

He's very generous with his money. I don't think anyone has denied that. In fact, most Linux people (including myself) see very positive things in Windows. However, those of us who look at the requirements of a business desktop usually see that Linux fits the bill just fine and at a lower cost.

Do I think Linux fits the bill for the home desktop? Only for the extremely simple user (like my parents). People who buy and install off-the-shelf software probably wouldn't like it and would be better off with a Mac or Windows box. And I tell them as much.

I think you are looking for someone to have blind hatred, when in fact the conclusions have been arrived at by logic, not emotion, even if not everyone agrees with the conclusions.

"Why don't the Linux fans have a go at Scott and Larry ? They're hardly having to beg for a living."

You need to read Slash more often. We do this every day. PostgreSQL doesn't have all of the ultra-high-end stuff that Oracle has, but for the mid-size down it kicks ultra-butt.

And almost every day there's a story about Linux taking away marketshare from Sun - why pay the high toll?

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[SyscRAsH]

I installed XP on my 400MHz AMD K6-2 laptop, with 192MB memory and a 16x DVD-ROM drive. Installation took slightly less than an hour.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[johnnyb]

I am relatively certain (though not absolutely) that if you have a license, to Windows XXXX that you can install from that CD, but can't copy it to other machines, even if your license count is correct. I could be wrong here. If you are doing this I suggest you check your license agreements just to make sure.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[rifter]

You are correct, and Microsoft has specifically said that using Ghost is a violation of their EULA.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[Unregistered]

dude, i emerged somitare the other day and was just like, wow. Linux is complete. btw, anyone know what the default solitare is called in AisleRiot

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[johnnyb]

FYI - I looked it up - OEM Windows versions do not give you the right to install a GHOSTED Windows onto that machine, even if it's the same version:

http://www.microsoft.com/usa/presentations/SAM_Aug ust_IIA_2002.ppt

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[johnnyb]

If all you have are OEM licenses, you cannot use GHOST:

http://www.microsoft.com/usa/presentations/SAM_Aug ust_IIA_2002.ppt

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[oliverthered]

Ummm... what happened to the 'windows' support person.

The extra peson or two could be traling the Linux source code looking for bugs helping make linux work better for your organisation. or just training everyone else so your workforce is better.

Either way, 500 seets ditching windows give you at least enough money to employee another person.

Re:Lets take an objective aproach.

[curri]

I did this with Win2k, and it had an extra, and pretty annoying step :) Type the license key (It was an enterprise key, but you still had to tupe it :)
Thank god I'm out of that

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[GrimReality]

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.

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.

I know Windows costs money but its not that expensive and besides Linux is only free if your time is worthless.

'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)

Re:Sure there is support!

[slushpupie]

Sure, but it will cost you $95 to read the article telling you this.

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[kavau]

it is obvious that it is a deliberate effort by Linux fanatics

I've always viewed discussions of this kind as some sort of miscommunication, rather than as a conspiracy by microsoft haters. The problem is, and probably always will be, that one has to distinguish between "Linux for Nerds" and "Linux for the Masses". The latter includes KDE or Gnome, OpenOffice, multimedia tools, and many more applications that anybody would ever install on his Windows machine, or ever use for that matter. Certainly there is lot of bloat.

Strictly speaking, though, KDE and Gnome are not Linux. They are applications that run on top of Linux. Hence you should accuse the applications of bloat, not Linux itself.

What the "Linux on a 486 PC" advocates are saying is that the Linux kernel itself is very compact, and that it is cleanly separated from any GUI. So the knowledgeable user (i.e. the Linux Nerd) can put together his own collection of apps, and his preferred lightweight window manager, to create an entirely unbloated distribution that will run just fine on old machines.

Obviously this miscommunication is partly the fault of the Linux enthusiasts. Linux advocates have to learn that Joe User will never bother to understand the difference between the GUI and the underlying kernel. And I don't blame him for being a non-nerd. It is the responsibility of the Linux community to put this kind of statements into a language that can easily be understood by non-technical people.

But if you decry those people as Linux fanatics, you are clearly overreacting. One can either discuss those issues matter-of-factly, or one can start a flame war.

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[tacocat]

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?

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[MadChicken]

I agree with much of what you say...

1) Linux(tm) is fine for old computers. Mandrake, RedHat et al are NOT. You need to start at the bottom and work up with the minimal amount of things. The great thing about the newer distros are things like kudzu that PnP hardware for you. This is the first thing to nix in a low-end machine. My P166 32MB is running like a champ with a surprising amount of services on it. Of course, it IS Debian :)

2&3) Uh, see above. It is but it isn't. I agree with the sentiment. In fact, when I got my latest computer with XP, I still haven't reinstalled Mandrake on it!! I find the Win2k model has addressed many of the serious shortcomings of Win9x. I strongly disagree with your toleration of Win9x, I have had nothing but bad experience with it (I've used every release, quite extensively). The poor architecture shows up every time you use it. WinME was a nightmare.

4) It seems like you're confusing applications with services... applications don't slow down Linux (or Windows) in the least, but many daemons sure can... expecially monitoring daemons like hardware detection daemons. Same with Windows. Why have the Fax service running on a machine with no modem?

Probably the only other thing I *disagree* with in your post is "get work done" by not using Linux. I found it exactly the other way around, you can easily get work done, but the fun -- i.e. games, video & sound processing, you know, candy -- is Windows' strong point.

besides, OpenOffice.org & Mozilla run on both platforms! :)

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[Rinikusu]

Erm....

I had a Sony Vaio 505FX, with P266MMX and 96megs of RAM. Win98 was dog slow. Gnome + KDE were *slower*. However, with linux, I had the option of running entirely in the command-line or a lighter-weight wm (windowmaker ran excellently on this). Where's the "lightweight" Win98 option? you won't find one.

While I'm not saying that Linux is perfect for every situation (far from it), it does fit a particular niche (reusing old hardware efficiently and cheaply). Granted, I sometimes wonder what the power costs of running a headless mini-tower vs. a small linksys router would be, but that's besides the point.

And as to your linux "problems", I've had them, too, and the community response was generally "PEBCAK". "My floppy gives me errors when I try to write to it." "Your floppy drive controller is bad." "Huh? YOu know, if I boot to windows and write to the floppy, it writes and reads just fine." "Then you must be doing something wrong!" Uh.. okay....

so many

[m1chael]

lies and deceptions, computers will ruin us all... run for the hills and become hermits.

Re:so many

[kliment]

What, you mean become like RMS?

Case Studies?

[redptam]

Are there actually any companies out there that have switched (either well in the past or recently) from windows to linux? If so, what have been their experiences?

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.

In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

... the Linux Desktop owns you - probably because you can't afford Windows...

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[Otter]

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...

I can tell you -- it goes back to the start of Linux advocacy, around the days of Red Hat 5.x. (Before that, the only people who could possibly want Linux wanted to run Unix on their PCs, so choosing Linux was a no-brainer.) Back then, Linux desktops running fvwm or AfterStep were usable on hardware that couldn't run Windows 95. So while usability, features and ease of installation were lacking, there was the ability to run on old hardware.

Now, the software and usability have vastly improved, but at the cost of requiring the same hardware as Microsoft OSs. But the old argument of "It runs on low-end hardware!" still floats around, however irrelevant it is to a modern KDE desktop.

Same, by the way, for "It's more stable!" At this point, I'm more likely to see desktop lockups from Nvidia XFree86 drivers than a Windows crash, but that doesn't stop the shrieking about how XP crashes every ten minutes.

not sure about that "linux security" thing

[jlusk4]

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.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[spencerogden]

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.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[sporty]

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.

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.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't security, it's executable content.

No, the problem is allowing executable e-mail. If Linux starts to do that, it will suck too.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[Alien Being]

"...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)?"

Easy. Here's an undocumented MS security feature. Start->Run->FORMAT C:
Give it a try!

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[johnnyb]

Most Linux email software is developed with security in mind. Thus, they prevent users from using executable content without making sure they know what they are doing. Most of them require you to save the file to the disk, change the executable permission to "on", and _then_ run the programs.

Macros in documents _may_ come to be problematic, but that's yet to be seen.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[SubtleNuance]

..I dunno, remove chmod from /usr/bin and do a man on mask and umask to keep users new files from being executable... no user should be installing new executable sw anyway... solved.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[metamatic]

When's the last time you encountered a luser who had a backup?

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[LadyLucky]

Am I the only person that *only* cares about my personal files and not about the system? That thinks the computer is here to do stuff for me, not for me to protect the stupid computer?

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.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[Bas_Wijnen]

The point is that GNU/Linux has chroot, and other unices have similar things. Microsoft doesn't seem to be going to spend money on developing anything like it on windows. If virusses become a problem on any unix system, chroot will most certainly be used by any email program that executes attachments. Actually it will probably be used if there is not yet a virus problem, too.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[Arethan]

actually, the parent you replied to is correct. Neither scp or rcp are "defying" what he is saying. They don't copy files with the execute bit turned on. Rather, they copy the file, and its permissions. Same goes for cp and mv. They all try to maintain permissions as best as possible. That isn't a default of the open() posix function, it is an option that the application in question (scp, rcp, cp, mv, etc) all choose to use.

So like he said, unless the email client sets the execute bit for you (which would be really dumb), attachments won't be executable until you make them so manually.

anyhow, cheers!

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[Alien Being]

So you proved that there are people stupid enough to try it and that there are reasonable measures the software can take to prevent such foolishness. Those were my points.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[ivan256]

Am I the only person that *only* cares about my personal files and not about the system?

No...

Corruption of personal files is *catastrophic*. Imagine your house burns down, what do you want to save most?

You convieniently ignored the "Personal files can be restored from backup" part of the parent comment. Even the best security in the world doesn't protect you from hardware failure, so it's a given that you should be backing up your personal data. It's not that hard or expensive, you just need to get in the habit of doing it. When you take that into account your house analogy falls apart. You can't easily make a duplicate of all your personal stuff from your house, but you CAN backup your data. If you DO backup your data, all all that's left to save is "the house".

If you're not backing up your data, you will loose it. You're flirting with catastrophe. You've been warned.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[DunbarTheInept]

The point is that the feature that makes Windows e-mail security suck so much is not tied to the underlying technology. It could very well become commonplace to send linux executable files as attachments, and it could become commonplace to make these attachments easy to execute automatically. The problem stems from stupid users wanting stupid features they should not be wanting - like auto-executing attachments. There's nothing about linux that prevents this feature from existing in the future. It just isn't commonplace like it is in windows.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[nmos]

It's easy to restore personal files from a backup if the rest of the system is working, restoring the entire system from backup tends to be a lot more complicated.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[WhiteWolf666]

I don't know how many megs of personal files you keep, especially files that get updated often.

I have about 400 megs of really imporant 'personal' files on my system.
I back those up about once a week. But it really is such a small amount of data that I could feasible setup a backup everytime I log in or log out.
Log in---all data copied over the network in 10 seconds or so. Log out---all data copied over the network in 10 seconds or so.
I could even keep 3-4 days worth of logins, if I was really paranoid.
And this is starting out REALLY paranoid. I could just backup files that I changed--voila, most backups are under a meg.

The other 50 gigs of crap on my harddrive takes a great deal longer to move around. Though not that long, in the grand scheme of things.

And as long as your system remains functional, your automated document backups can be nice and seamless. You don't have to futz with tapes, cds, dvds, or any recovery booting. Just log in, log out. Or setup your 'backup' script. Or put a copy icon on your desktop top.

In fact, if home files are sufficently well segmented, and your system is properly secure, personal files can just be backed up to a separate directory. Very fast, entirely automated.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[TheRealSlimShady]

The problem stems from stupid users wanting stupid features they should not be wanting - like auto-executing attachments

And who are you to be saying what users shouldn't be wanting?

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[ReTay]

Personal files are also the easiest to backup.
You are backing up your files right?
Then why would you care what happens to the copy on your computer? Oh you mean that you want the system to back up your files for you with no effort on your part. It can do that, it just has to be told to.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[ReTay]

The people who have to clean up after the stupid people. Esp at work...

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[Rakarra]

You convieniently ignored the "Personal files can be restored from backup" part of the parent comment.

You're also ignoring the fact that "good backups" are only common in the business world. Almost no one else actually makes any, and rarely thinks about it until disaster strikes.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[Excarnate]

Am I the only person that *only* cares about my personal files and not about the system?

I hope so.

Caring "*only*" about your personal files and not the system shows you don't quite understand how a computer works.

If the computer doesn't work or doesn't work right, you can't get at your precious files, nor can you work on them, and your personal files are entirely useless until put on a working computer. And of course anyone else using the computer is screwed, too.

Using your analogy of a house, imagine your house does burn down but you are able to able to save your personal stuff. Where will you store it and use it during the months it takes to rebuild your house? It's raining here as I type, so think fast!

Do you want your personal files not mucked with? Fine. I'm OK with that. But not caring about the system at all means you lack clues.

Sorry.

If you want a system that doesn't allow a virus or trojan or x to mess with your files, you need write-once storage, not read-write. I suppose it'd be a bit cumbersome using a WORM drive instead of a hard drive, but *shrug*.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[einstein]

I don't know about you you, but I'm change distros so often, I have a least 6 backups of my /home from the last 4 months laying around...

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[D_Gr8_BoB]

What a strange idea... I suppose for some, super-high-security systems, keeping users from running any of their own binaries is useful, but it utterly nullifies one of the UNIX model's major advantages, namely that users can install and run their own applications.

Because I use a few alternative applications, almost no system that I use is going to have everything I want installed. I can pester the admin, or I can just build a copy and put it in $HOME/bin.

Besides, anyone who's really determined can just write their malicious code in an interpreted language and then do "/usr/bin/perl < badprog.pl".

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[derF024]

What a strange idea... I suppose for some, super-high-security systems, keeping users from running any of their own binaries is useful, but it utterly nullifies one of the UNIX model's major advantages, namely that users can install and run their own applications.

umm.. super-high-security systems like your average single-user desktop. i can see your average user installing things via RPM or apt when they need them, but installing them from source (and modifying the prefix to ~/bin/)? that's well above their heads.

Because I use a few alternative applications, almost no system that I use is going to have everything I want installed. I can pester the admin, or I can just build a copy and put it in $HOME/bin.

why wouldn't you just install them yourself? we're talking about single-user desktop systems, remember? eg. you are the admin. sure, for multi-user remote-login systems, it makes very little sense for /home to be mounted un-executable, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Besides, anyone who's really determined can just write their malicious code in an interpreted language and then do "/usr/bin/perl < badprog.pl".

umm.. and they're going to tell konqueror/nautilus or the person's email program to run it like that how? maybe they'll just have instructions to download the program, move it to /root, chmod +x it and run it as root. that'll make a great virus. sorta like the joke "set your sig to this string, then type rm -rf / as root" honor-system viruses that went around as jokes a few years ago.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[ketamine-bp]

this is not correct, we can use

/lib/ldlinux.so.2 /home/ketamine/evil_executable

;-)

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[BrokenHalo]

Maybe you don't, but I do. OK, I'm an ex-sysprog turned student (again), but I keep a very much bombproof set of multi-volume CD-RW backups of /home and all the relevant boot and library files. It might be paranoia, but good judgement comes from experience. And a lot of that comes from bad judgement :-).

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[sporty]

Well, in terms of code level observations, yeah, it does what he says. In terms of applications, such as email clients, etc.. as he gave as an example, they do.

-s

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[ishark]

Am I the only person that *only* cares about my personal files and not about the system? That thinks the computer is here to do stuff for me, not for me to protect the stupid computer?

No. While the distribution do not provide this "out of the box", it is trivial to set up applications so that they run as another userid.
For example I run some programs which I don't fully trust thorough a setuid wrapper which launches them as a different user. Those applications write in a directory which is owned by that user and which is part of a group for which my main userid has RW access.
This way I can access any downloaded/generated data without changing user, but at the same time, if the application fucks up (or say a web broweser manages to run rm -rf) it ONLY affects files related to that application.
It would not be difficult to do this with a mail reader, in which case the worst which can happen is that your mail folders will be damaged (the mail program needs write access to that). In any case, if executable mail is required for some reason, it's perfectly possible to write a mail client which runs as nobody and operates on folders though a socket to another app. This way the mail program can execute stuff which won't even be able to delete your mail folders.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[sgtrock]

Well, if you live alone I guess you *only* care about *your* personal files. What if you share a computer with roommate(s)? gf? wife? kids?

Hmmmm. Having an OS that is built to contain damage on a household PC suddenly seems like a good idea, doesn't it?

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[DunbarTheInept]

If they actually knew the full consequences of what they are asking for, they'd understand why it's a bad idea. Unfortunately the explanation of what those effects are takes longer than most people's attention spans can tolerate when it comes to computers.

Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing

[spencerogden]

What I find interesting is that it doesn't seem to me that users need, or even wanted auto execute email. I don't know if someone at MS thought it was a good idea, or whether some marketer wanted it. I have not seen any other use of executables distributed by email other than porn and stupid games, which are probably trojans anyways.

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[crazyaxemaniac]

You don't need Microsoft to bully companies into not releasing detailed specs for their products. As far as they're concerned you, the consumer, don't need detailed specs. The hardware companies are just being overly protective of their intellectual property and that which they might have incorporated into their products belonging to someone else.

Desktop on Linux is a myth.

[$criptah]

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.

Sacred Cows Preserved

[imsmith]

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.

umm..

[Vampyre_Dark]

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!!!

Gartner isn't always kind to MS

[diatonic]

Remember this Gartner recommendation?

.:diatonic:.

It all depends on your frame of reference.

[IGnatius T Foobar]

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.

Linux is free...

[dpilot]

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.

Oh, no, not Gartner...

[WWWWolf]

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.

Gartner group must have been paid by Microsoft

[MrJerryNormandinSir]

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.

Myth of the free lunch

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Desktop management

[demaria]

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?

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:Desktop management

[Anonymous Coward]

Mass deployment script:
#!/usr/bin/perl
$ipbase=192.168.1
$ip=1
while ($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.

Re:Desktop management

[demaria]

Your script is, enterprise speaking, useless. It doesn't handle computers that are disconnected or offline. It also doesn't show any error output. If an install fails, you won't know. It doesn't check for nor deal with dependencies. It doesn't allow for static nor dynamic groups. It assumes the rpm is on the end nodes, and even if you pull from a central site it can't load balance or throttle. There is no metering or monitoring capabilities. That is not a mass deployment script. I'm talking about 5000, 10000 or 50000 nodes, not 50.

Re:Desktop management

[Cyno]

I can also configured a serial console in grub so I can completely admin a multi-boot system remotely. And on the system's console I can perform system backups over the net from single user mode or booted off almost any install CD. No GUI, no 3rd party software required. All of this software costs $0.00 and there are at least 3 ways to perform any task in case one of them doesn't work for whatever reason.

I like features, but in Linux we just call it choice. There's no need to inform our marketting department about rsync, scp, ssh, tar pipes, etc. Its all included in the documentation.

Re:Desktop management

[pi_rules]

I didn't look at the parent, but everything you wrote -can- be solved with a Unix-like script for deploying software. Apt-get comes to mind there. At any rate... my real point:

And -you're OS- will refuse to update a file if the system has it open for 'read' access. This negates the possibility of upgrading software while the user is actually using the system. I know it sounds foreign, but I see no darned good reason as to why I can't have a .dll file open while an application removes the old one and drops in a new one.

It's because of that -shit- that I had to turn off our company-wide software push system. The only safe time to patch the box was after I logged in and couldn't fire up any applications. Newsflash: When I log in I have work to do.

Re:Desktop management

[demaria]

My OS is Mac OS X.

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[Ogerman]

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.

What is it with these reports?

[pchown]

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.

Myth #6: Linux has lower TCO

[gigowiz]

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.

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!

We've already done that.

[banzai51]

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.

Re:We've already done that.

[Surak]

Read my original comment. The sort of thin clients I'm referring to are a bit different ... sort of a cross between a full desktop Linux box and an X terminal. Think Sun's strategy. Besides who says bighorkinmachine isn't a cluster with full redundancy and an entire mirror stored in a different building?

If you think about it, many applications are already setup this way. Try using Outlook if your Exchange Server goes down. It ain't happening. With Office, you might be able to still work, but if your file server is down, you probably can't get the files you need.

Re:We've already done that.

[jpetts]

If the bighorkinmachine ever went down, you're SOL, EVERYONE is down.

You're absolutely right. But this doesn't really need to happen, except in case of a real catastrophe which will take down all the client-server stuff too. People, back in the '70 and '80 I used servers that had uptimes of 2 *YEARS* or more, and these were serving apps out to over 400 people. People are *so* used to the prophylactic reboot (Ooo-er, Missus!) on Windows machines, that they seem to accept machines going down regularly as normal. It currently IS, for Windows servers, but it doesn't NEED to be for other servers.

The real issue here is control: people don't feel happy about letting IT control the resources. I would urge everybody to read A Unix Guide to Defenestration before they comment on centralised vs client-server computing.

Re:We've already done that.

[john_roth]

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.

I believe the City of Largo in Florida (may have the wrong city, tho...) went almost completely to a linux server / linux thin client and saved a boatload in terms of % of tax revenues spent on IT dollars.

Why? Among other things, they cut support cost in userland to the bone - nobody has to diagnose a bad client to get the user back up and running. Just plug in another workstation, and they're back doing whatever they're supposed be working on.

You don't have to have all your eggs in one basket to benefit from a thin client environment.

John Roth

Re:We've already done that.

[banzai51]

True, but you still miss out on the benefits of distributed CPU power. But everything has pros and cons.

Re:We've already done that.

[Grishnakh]

Distributed computing power is useful where I work, where we run huge simulations in the background on our machines. City employees in Largo, FL aren't running simulations. They're doing word processing and spreadsheets, which doesn't require very much computational power. Most offices don't require much besides basic office apps like these, and are the perfect place to deploy the large server/thin client model.

Places that do require large computational power can satisfy that need the same way Hollywood studios do: renderfarms. Large racks of compute servers that anyone can send jobs to. The only people in a corporate environment who really need a powerful desktop computer, rather than a thin client, are those doing full-motion video, animation, etc.

Re:We've already done that.

[spitzak]

Though I agree with you, saying that you are saved from the central machine going down is a myth. On all setups I have seen when some central machine goes down all the clients lock up and are useless. There is always some vital piece of information stored on or behind that central machine. Redundancy in the servers does not really help, it will just help locate what thing you forgot to make redundant, and when you fix that you will just find the next thing...

The benifits of client/server are elsewhere.

Re:We've already done that.

[Grishnakh]

Of course, PC-centric people are completely clueless about just how reliable mainframe-class hardare is, and it shows every time they talk about it being a "single point of failure".

Everything in a mainframe is redundant. Everything. On IBM's Z-series mainframes, for example, the processor actually executes every instruction twice, by two separate cores, to make sure the result is the same. Processors are hot-swappable, as is memory and everything else. Intel server users are still wowed by hot-swappable power supplies, but mainframes and enterprise grade machines like the Sun E10000 have had these features for years. The end result: these machines DON'T go down, unless you drop a bomb on them, or the power goes out (and if you've shelled out for a mainframe, I'd hope you installed a backup generator).

Re:We've already done that.

[geekoid]

Use a cluster of machines as your server.
put groups of them on different dedicated power. Use back ups.
Really paranoid?
Put a redundant cluster in another State/provence/whatever.

If the whole cluster goes down, I would bet you have bigger problems that require evacuation anyways.

Re:We've already done that.

[fferreres]

If the bighorkinmachine ever went down, you're SOL, EVERYONE is down.

I'd say YOU are simply out of luck, because everyone with one gram of gray mass would make application servers redundant (remember, you don't even have to pay per machine instalations with Linux) and will also have redundancy of the /home dir. And it doesn't gets as expensive and unscalable and messed as Citrix ad hoc solutions.

Re:We've already done that.

[prepp]

heh actually i've been admining a vax/vms big-F*CKING-HONKING-IRON redundant mainframe that had been rebooted something like 3 times in 10years... first it was used for the inhouse thinclients and for climate modelling (or whatever the bearded ones liked todo when they'd see it fit)

Re:We've already done that.

[banzai51]

I'm not talking about render farms. Some applications are better off running on the user's CPU. Office applications are a prime example. Putting it on a large box sounds like a good idea until you realize that EVERYONE in an enterprise will use it. Tons of connection licenses, CPU power, RAM, BANDWIDTH. On top of that, every user will have unique settings or quirks of use. (I like that tool bar over HERE). Believe me, putting Office on the local PCs is the most cost effective way to go.

Re:We've already done that.

[banzai51]

Let me add one more thing: Everyone is going to want to print out of that Office application. Runing that through Citrix is a huge headache. And even more bandwidth on the WAN will get chewed up sending those print spools to the local printers. Far better to send all the CPU, RAM, and bandwidth needs to the local PCs and LANs. 50,000 PCs are going to have more aggregate performance in this case.

Re:We've already done that.

[Grishnakh]

Word processors don't consume that many resources, unless you're running some stupid "Office Assistant" with it or something.

Connection licenses? What the hell is that? OpenOffice doesn't have license tracking.

CPU power? This is a word processor, not an MPEG editor or Doom 3.

RAM? Again, it's a word processor. When you have one large server with 8 or 16 GB of RAM installed, it shouldn't be a problem. (Obviously, you wouldn't want to use 32-bit Intel hardware for this level of performance since it maxes out at 4 GB).

Bandwidth? Not a huge problem on a 100 Mbps switched network with X11.

Unique settings? WTF? That's why different users have different local configuration files. Are you telling me MS Office only allows one config per machine? What a piece of crap. All Unix apps allow different users to have different settings.

Believe me, putting all users on server-class hardware, using Linux and OpenOffice, and giving them thin clients is the most cost effective way to go. If you don't believe me, ask the administrator of the City of Largo, FL, who actually has put this into practice and can testify to its veracity.

Using MS Office at all, esp. in the presence of OO, is just stupid. Why deal with the licensing hell, single-OS limitation, macro viruses, high prices, limitation to 32-bit hardware, etc. when a better alternative exists?

Re:We've already done that.

[banzai51]

Thanks for playing. Now try playing the same game the rest of us are. AKA: get a clue.

Re:We've already done that.

[Grishnakh]

What, is this snide reply somehow supposed to convince me you have a clue? What are your creditials? Put up or shut up.

Re:We've already done that.

[banzai51]

Your answers prove you have no clue. Go back and reseach the issue and figure out why.

What about the cost of a possible audit?

[psgalbraith]

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?

Re:What about the cost of a possible audit?

[north.coaster]

If Microsoft wants a company to perform a license audit, then I suspect that the audit is going to happen regardless of whether the company is running Linux. Microsoft will ask for proof that the company is not running Windows. Period.

Re:What about the cost of a possible audit?

[deanpole]

Joe Barr wrote my favorite article about software audit costs being a frequently overlooked part of TCO.

Stupid

[Jacek Poplawski]

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.

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.

Re:These aren't "myths".

[Drakonian]

Exactly. You put it better than me. The analysis was reasonable.

Free as in freedom

[sharph]

Linux? Free as in beer? Maybe.

Free as in freedom? ALWAYS YES.

ERP solutions

[trajano]

From the article

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 ... and most current vendors do not charge less for a Linux user than a Windows user."

There is an Open Source ERP solution http://www.compiere.org/. It was a the first entry when you do "ERP open source" on google

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:Reality says "Hi"

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Please say more?

Server-side, desktop, or both?

Geeky people or non-geeky people?

Full-time users of vertical apps, or generic office-suite users?

Please notice I'm not arguing, just trying to rephrase "They simply never look back" to "People who need $FOO simply never look back".

Coming from Gartner, this is not too bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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 /.'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.

Now imagine an entire Beowulf cluster of.....

Longer term savings

[rsilvergun]

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?

Re:Longer term savings

[$criptah]

It is not all about savings. The thing is that, like it or not, *NIX is not ready to be a stable desktop due to the lack of applications, stability and being friendly to beginners. Even KDE and GNOME are buggy with questionable support. For everyday user that does not want to be a system administrator using Linux is a freaking nightmare.

Re:Longer term savings

[rsilvergun]

I'm not sure how you figure KDE or Gnome is unstable. I've used a stock Redhat 9 install since it came out (and everything back to 6.2 as well) and it's stable as a rock for me. Then again, on cheap (read:faulty) hardware, linux is really unstable. Windows has a huge amount of code to deal with faulty hardware that Linux just doesn't have. This is a problem for OEMs who like to ship things like bad ram and faulty video cards to save money. The root of the problem is consumers who either won't pay for quailty components or just can't afford good hardware and want a computer anyways.

As for needing to be a sys admin, I think you underestimate how well configured a Linux box is out of the box. Most people would be more than happy checking their email and typing a letter to mom with the default nv driver for XFree. Heck, I know people running win98 who are using standard vga 'cause they don't want to bother installing a proper driver, or even changing the video resolution.

And in the end, for people running win98/95 (most people), Linux right now would be a signifcant upgrade in functionality (provided their hardware didn't suck, see above). Fonts in Redhat 9 look far better than in win9x, mozilla is more useful than I.E., and muliple desktops rock.

Re:Longer term savings

[$criptah]

Interesting, then I might have been using a different version of Red Hat 9, because in my version some of KDE apps crashed on save, java apps crashed or grabbed screen focus without letting it go and every time I tried to update an rpm package I ended up with a list of dependencies that had to be removed/updated and it went on an on. Linux and Unix are awesome as servers, but they are too far away from the desktop world. For past 7 years of using Linux I haven't figured an easy way to use software like scanners, digital cameras and printers without consulting a list of supported drivers first. When I finally got a Mac everything worked out as magic. Go figure.

Re:Longer term savings

[rsilvergun]

Dependencies are a non-issue. Use apt-get for rpm (www.freshrpms.net). Compatibilty with older biniary software packages is a problem though, but not as much as might seem since newer packages of the most popular/important software are ussually available.

I can't vouch for the stabilty of java on linux. I don't really use java for much besides tinkering with coding. On the other hand, if your getting crashes with core kde apps (KOffice excepting, use open office) then your hardware sucks/is broken. Hardware support is lacking, but it's hardly impossible to find cameras, scanners and printers that are compatible. Yes it's more trouble, but I'm of a mind that believes it's worth the trouble to track down good hardware. Right now I'm running a cheap PIII 800mhz. My buddy with a nice PII 350 can run rings around my system.

As for your Mac, yes it works, but it's expensive as hell and utterly proprietary. See Richard M. Stallman's arguments on the subject of free software. Ultimately my point is any vender that locks you in is bad, and apple locks you in worse than Microsoft. At least with MS you can pick your hardware vender (for right now at least).

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[GMFTatsujin]

Obviously this miscommunication is partly the fault of the Linux enthusiasts. Linux advocates have to learn that Joe User will never bother to understand the difference between the GUI and the underlying kernel. And I don't blame him for being a non-nerd. It is the responsibility of the Linux community to put this kind of statements into a language that can easily be understood by non-technical people.

Um... When one is paid $95 for a six-sheet summary of the business impact of one way of doing things vs the other, one had damn well know what one is talking about. It is the responsibility of the guy writing the report to do his homework.

If that involves highliting the distinctions between little quibbles like "Linux is the kernel, KDE is the GUI," then so be it. While I don't blame him for being a non-nerd, I do blame him for not taking the time to research his material and articulate it accurately.

GMFTatsujin

Myth: Linux Means No Forced Upgrades

[saada]

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

If there are enough people who want to retain the same version of Linux for long periods of time, then there will be companies that will support exactly that. It's called competition, something you will never get in the windows world.

Live and LEARN

[w3weasel]

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?

Re:Live and LEARN

[pi_rules]

I hear the Jeff Dahmer is reformed and available to babysit your kids... when can he come over?

He's reformed alright -- got beat down and died in prison. Probably not babysitting anytime soon.

Security blanket

[lysium]

It strikes me that many companies prefer to skimp on payrolls when it comes to technicans. Since 75% of the fixing is drudery (mice, printers, moving equipment, and so forth), why spend all those extra dollars per hour on expertise that might get used, once?

----------------

Re:$95 for a report?!

[greymond]

Well I wouldn't pay $95 for a report, but....

a lot of companies would. Many business people (like at my work) are not computer savvy at all - most have trouble checking their own email. So we have a senario that goes like this:

Bob Exec: "Hi Mr. IT Guy I heard on the TV we could save mucho denaro if we switch to some linux machine - what is that?"

IT Guy: "Hay Mr. Bob Exec, linux is great because it reroutes the hyper matter phase kits to the pasatronics and...."

Bob Exec: "oh um... yeah..."

Bob Exec now calls up Gartner Group after hearing their add and asks them to do a report for him. Gartner group sends Mr. Bob Exec a detailed report in plain english (with tech specs too) telling him what he needs to know - they ALSO include charts and graphs that Mr. Bob Exec can understand. In the end Mr. Bob Exec can now make a decision based on FACTS that pertain to HIS company and not some blanket statements from the linux comunity of h4x0rZ :)

All Linux vs Windows comparisons miss the point...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[Master of Transhuman]

The lie spouted by many Linux users that Windows 9x is an unusable crap OS is something that perplexes me...

Oh really? Doesn't perplex me - I have to reboot Windows 98 five or six times a day or more. Two out of three times I try to load Opera, it loads but does not execute - worked fine before. Programs freeze up for no reason, the machine gets lost and can't even shutdown properly half the time. Windows 98 is a fucking joke! DOS with all its memory-resident program problems was more stable than this!

blame game, lawsuits

[dpilot]

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.

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[NineNine]

'free' in the GNU/Linux terms means freedom, not moolah.

No. You're still talking about money. I'm "free" to buy all of the Windows licenses I want. My "Freedom" isn't restricted at all.

I meant "executable" in a more abstract sense

[jlusk4]

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.

Cost and unpaid staff

[Simon Lyngshede]

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.

if this doesn't say hot air, what does?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

There's one tiny little thing missing point:

[adilsonoliveira]

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.

Left and Right sides of the brain

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Support costs

[FooBarWidget]

"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*...

MS FUD Day!

[DaSpudMan]

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 .

Brought to you by:

[incom]

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.

Something smells...

[sirgoran]

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

The Gartner article

[Mikey-San]

I sumbitted this story and it was rejected. That's no shock. But why wasn't this:

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/m ai n/0,14179,2913456,00.html

Added to the story that /was/ posted? (Or am I wrong, and this isn't the actual Gartner report?)

Either way, an appropriate read.

These carefully crafted reports are there to

[xutopia]

waste our precious time.

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.

Anti-windows FUD

[rgmoore]

On Windows, once some executable content runs, it has free reign over the system.

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.

Re:Anti-windows FUD

[nitehorse]

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.

Re:Anti-windows FUD

[msaavedra]

Internet Explorer runs with Adminstrator privileges. So does Windows Media Player. And Microsoft Office. Including Outlook.

Not that I think you're lying or trolling or anything, but do you have any evidence to back up that assertion? A link perhaps? Maybe I'm too skeptical for my own good, but accepting a statement from some random person on slashdot with nothing to back it up seems a little dumb. I guess at least one moderator disagrees with me though.

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).

Re:Anti-windows FUD

[rice_burners_suck]

Not that I'm taking sides or backing up you or the parent, but...

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.

Re:Anti-windows FUD

[Carewolf]

If I understand this correctly you are confusing "root" and priviledged mode. Internet Explorer, Outlook and Media Player are all running partly priviledged, and therefore they can potentially do the same or more damage than running as Administrator, but they are not running as Administrator :)

Re:Anti-windows FUD

[CounterZer0]

Mod this idiot down, user applications run as the user that launched them! If his system is running them as Administrator, it's ebcause he LAUNCHED THEM as administrator.

Re:Anti-windows FUD

[Reziac]

I don't recall how ownership was set and I've since made it go away so can't check, but on my XP box (unmodified, no SP), OfficeXP's installer was allowed to clobber protected system files (and this was NOT fixed by an uninstall and Restore; I had to run SFC to fix what it broke). So OfficeXP seems to be operating in a grey area insofar as what it's allowed to do. Could it have backdoor access to admin level while still calling itself user? How would one check whether such behaviour was happening?

Wow, only 100 bucks for this?

[antis0c]

I can get the same stuff directly from www.microsoft.com.

"Objective"???

[V_drive]

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.

you can get crap from all of them

[pecosdave]

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.

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[b17bmbr]

there is more to it than price. with microsoft, they own your computer. don't think so, read the eula. they tell you what you can and cannot do. and they own your data. tell me, without .doc, really, what keeps businesses so wed? there is hardly the anti os x sentiment. sure some, but not rampant. and only the core is OSS. and it sure aint free. having used linux on my desktop for years (and yes i also have an ibook), there is nothing i am missing not using windows. (and no i'm not some IT dude, i'm a school teacher) the whole linux desktop debate is stupid. if employess are too lame to understand /home/janedoe == c:\my documents, and can't figure out how to use star writer after using word for a few years, hell then a company deserves the morons they hired. that'll cost them far more than any software will.

outhouse

[cascadingstylesheet]

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.

Interesting, but incomplete

[DaveV1.0]

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.

All in time

[pjrc]

1999: Linux [Server] Myths (microsoft has since removed it from their website)

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.

Re:All in time

[talks_to_birds]

Do I sense a small contradiction within all this cr*p?

"Real Myth...and you will not be able to support it in-house..."

"Real Myth...Your existing desktop support staff are old dogs who can't learn new tricks..."

Which is it?

You can't support Linux yourself, or your "old dogs" really can learn a new (read: Linux) OS?

Od do we want to have it both ways?

And:

"...You will not be able to pay anyone else for [sic] provide support once it is no longer available from the original linux distributor..."

There's no aftermarket support industry?

Who the hell says?

Of course, inconsistency and the rush to write anything to support their own agenda are pretty common traits among Micr0$ft pimps...

t_t_b

Re:All in time

[pjrc]

There's no aftermarket support industry? Who the hell says?

Well, Gartner, distilled by Newsfactor (and published for $95 less, plus a couple banner ads).

That's why I wrote "real myth" in front of each one. Please re-read the parent message alongside the Newsfactor summary of Gartner's "linux desktop myths".

Which is it?

It's not my opinon, it's just my paraphrasing. But they seem to say that you won't be able to support linux yourself and they your support staff can't learn linux.

Um...what??

[SeanAhern]

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.

Re:Myth #1

[Holocaust Administra]

Gas the hippies.

Bingo

[ragid]

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

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Sly Deception

[Euphonious Coward]

This is a very sly article. Its overall level of articulateness and internal cohesion suggest that it was written by a Gartner customer and published more or less unchanged. Make no mistake, despite the apparent evenhandedness, this report is meant to muddy the water. If Free Software really offers only a "slight edge" here and there, and numerous "problem[s] replicating this [or that] technology", who would dare switch? The section headings, identified as "myths", are meant to be taken as false, when in fact they all remain substantially true despite the author's quibbling.

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.

The one thing holding Linux back in Corporate...

[Chordonblue]

...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:

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. :P

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[r3jjs]

How true this is. I've managed to get Xfree86, the "Evil Window Manager" (evilwm), dillo and graphical links running on a P75 laptop with 16M ram and a 1.2G hard drive.

Throw on GAIM and I've got a wonderful machine to keep tucked beside the couch in the living room to just surf the web when I get tired of being in the computer room. Not to mention its nice for sitting in the shade of the backyard doing my research.

Yikes, $95?!

[tetesuro]

How long is that document? Certinley not as long as a hard covered novel.

mostly FUD. spurious questions, dubious answers.

[twitter]

These myths were invented for FUD. I've never heard anyone say, "You never have to upgrade" or "You get support forever". It is true that "upgrades" are a fundamentally different thing in the free world than they are in the closed source binary world. It also is true that the support you can get from board posts and google beats out Microsoft.

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.

The execute bit is not such a big deal

[spitzak]

The execute bit is really there because original Unix systems ran on very limited memory, and for reasonable performance needed to cache a list of all runnable programs in the shell. By having an executable bit, valuable memory was not wasted storing the names of files that were not commands. Actually opening the files to examine if they were some executable format was prohibitively expensive.

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.

Re:The execute bit is not such a big deal

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

Well and then you get a more insecure system!
Any executable file sent via email then
can be a virus...

If you have a problem with how this works you
probably are downloading way too many executable files.

Yes - I find it good security feature if you have to deliberatly make a file executable.

The bottom line

[g4dget]

Well, the bottom line is:

The bottom line is that Silver sees some cost savings in migrating to the Linux desktop but says the move "will probably not eliminate all of the costs the enterprises expects."

Isn't that all that counts?

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...

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[repoleved]

Now, the software and usability have vastly improved, but at the cost of requiring the same hardware as Microsoft OSs. But the old argument of "It runs on low-end hardware!" still floats around, however irrelevant it is to a modern KDE desktop.


You want fast, on low-end hardware? Use Linux with the xfce window manager, dillo quick web browser, konqueror general web browser, and sylpheed email client. You will be amazed by the speed and usability, especially if you're used to KDE or Windows.

Want a step up in terms of the desktop? Use kde's startup scripts, trim out the font-refresh stuff, take out ksplash, and install super-karamba w/ tuxbar theme.. :) Then configure tuxbar to use xterm, mozilla, sylpheed, xftree (file manager), amsn, gqview, kcontrol, kfind, and dillo. Beautiful and functional, and useable enough for kids! (I know, since I've tested that!)

Word processor? Abiword loads as fast as you release the mouse button, and works great for the majority of letters & other documents.

Spreadsheet? gnumeric works great for most purposes, MS Excel is available, and while I agree that OpenOffice is pretty huge, once loaded it can probably share memory between users, in case you are running an application server with thin clients, which would require even less hardware than I was originally thinking about...

Linux TCO?

[slagdogg]

Why don't we ask Google about Linux TCO ... ;)

am i the only as/400 lover here?

[evilmatt67]

actually the as/400 uses 5250, though applications such as x3270 can have a keymap for this

Re:am i the only as/400 lover here?

[rsilvergun]

I sure hope so. That's an even weirder fetish than Furry.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

right back at you, Gartner

[geekoid]

"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"

Yes, forced upgrades... but they're FREE!!!

[jamezilla]

The article states that:

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.

Yes, you may be forced to upgrade, but it's FREE!!! There are some costs associated with rolling out the new version, but they aren't licensing costs. And upgrades can automated fairly easily with scripts, and the like.

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.

Re:All Linux vs Windows comparisons miss the point

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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!

Re:These myths aren't flouted anyways...

[WhiteWolf666]

Your right, not much can be done about this. Tough problem to solve.

* 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.

This is a really tough problem, but is becoming less 'relatively' important. Why? As MS Office develops more version, it becomes less capable of reading older versions of its documents. Office XP botches Office 95 documents sometimes.

And I think it is simply unacceptable to have multiple versions of the same office suite installed.

* 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.

See Wine. Its really come pretty far. Codeweavers Wine runs MS Office, Internet Explorer, and most custom apps as long they aren't really bizarre.

Enterprise-class apps, I'm not sure really what your talking about---- are you talking about things like Photoshop, or the Macromedia products? Or are you talking about esoteric server apps?

Some of these Wine will run well, and some of these it will botch.

Nearly everything you can possibly want to run, however, will run brilliantly on VMware. This is a poor solution, because it requires you to have a virtual machine running windows. It's not a terrible idea for an intermediate step.

If you haven't played with wine lately, you should download it and give it a try. It has gotten much better, and there are several projects working on it (CodeWeavers, ReWind, Transgaming, and the original Wine crew). It is certainly not a broad migration solution yet. But it is about 90% there, and depending upon your needs, may or may not be good for your needs.

Re:These myths aren't flouted anyways...

[debest]

Enterprise-class apps, I'm not sure really what your talking about---- are you talking about things like Photoshop, or the Macromedia products? Or are you talking about esoteric server apps?

I'm talking about really expensive, really specialized client-server applications that all big businesses need to have. Stuff like products from Peoplesoft, SAP, Primavera, and a whole lot of others that make solutions that really don't enter the radar screens of folks like us. These guys don't advertise or get articles written about their products in enthusiast or consumer press. For this stuff, look to big business magazines and journals.

The client tools (even if they work through a browser) for these applications are almost always supported ONLY on a standardized Windows platform (these days W2K or XP only). Their back ends MAY be more flexible for their implementation, but generally not. They want their customers to have their systems run on a standard (read: Microsoft) platform, or they won't support it.

The "support" issue

[njdj]

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.

No one says it better than Microsoft

[oneself]

I think no one said it better then Microsoft's own
Hotmail team in this /. article.

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[Lord Kholdan]

Actually I've seen that very problem when people are helping other people with computer problems.

When Linux user is helping a Linux user he tries to make the other side understand what is it all about, how it works, why it works, where you can read webpages about it etc. Goal being the educating of the other party.

When Windows user is helping a Windows user it goes like this: Click button labeled "1". Good. Now click button labeled "X". The goal helping the user to get past his problem. (Personally, I even go as far as to provide screencaps of what to do so the user simply cannot fail).

Now, consider the average user having a problem. Does he want to learn inner workings of the computer or does he just want to know what button to press.

That is a large problem of Linux community, unability to understand that vast majority of people simply dont want to learn computing, they just want to use their computers.

Holy COW what a concept.

[ratfynk]

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.

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[kavau]

While I don't blame him for being a non-nerd, I do blame him for not taking the time to research his material and articulate it accurately.

I certainly agree with you. My points were made in response to the parent comment, not to the article itself.

When wil moderators stop modding this up

[Johan Veenstra]

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

Re:When wil moderators stop modding this up

[LNN]

The exact same story has been posted at least 10 times, each time it was modded up like I don't know what.

It's just as fun each time too. And if it wouldn't be modded up, I would have had to wait for the next time to spot it. Funny comments have the right to be funny, even though it's been posted before. If each joke was only posted once, this place would be dull. :)

Re:Holy COW what a concept.

[gimple]

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.

The essence of the report

[Julian Morrison]

"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."

That is pointless though

[Srin Tuar]

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.

Re:That is pointless though

[derF024]

The execute permission doesnt affect your ability to run scripts.


well, you can still do "/bin/sh file.sh" or something like that but you can't run the script directly, which means that it won't run by double clicking it, and it won't run out of your email program.

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.

worms smash stacks (although this is now nullified with recent changes to 2.5) not viruses. the execute protection doesn't help against a worm, but a properly set up (firewalled) desktop system shouldn't be attacked by a worm anyway. properly protected firewalled-by-default systems only need to worry about user error allowing a virus on the system, and the execute protection effectivley stops viruses.

Very few local->root exploits rely upon the ability to create exec'able files.

i fail to see what difference this makes on a single user desktop operating system. in theory, every local user on a desktop machine has the ability to get root after typing in their password, so that they can safely install applications or make system-wide changes. in a corporate environment, a malicious employee can only take down their own machine, they can't send a virus to everyone in their dept. taking down everyone elses systems in the process.

Not to be inflamatory

[Johan Veenstra]

> Myth: Windows is easy to use

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: .DOC is a good document interchange format

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

Ths sad fact is . . .

[Eric Damron]

that after paying $95.00 for the six page FUD document, management is going to believe that it must be true.

What's with the bias?

[Trogre]

Is Gartner a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsoft or what?!

Re:What's with the bias?

[nagora]

Is Gartner a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsoft or what?!

No, they're a report-for-hire firm. You want a pro-Linux bias, pay them for a pro-Linux bias. Makes no odds to them who's filling the bank account.

TWW

Re:What's with the bias?

[Trogre]

Ah, I get what you mean.

So they're a bit like senators in that respect?

Re:Even better

[rifter]

Windows defragmentation toll was written by a good christian company and banned by Nazi germany.

DisKeeper was created by Executive Software, who are a Scientologist company. The Nazi Germany predates Scientology. It was the clearly non-Nazi German government who made doing business with the Church of Scientology illegal.

After reading your post. . .

[Eric Damron]

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...

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!

What about non-myths?

[joebeone]

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.

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[jedidiah]

This post is simply rubbish.

My 32M 486 quite comfortably ran WindowMaker with StarOffice & Netscrape. While "the whole ball of wax" with Gnome and KDE may be bloated and piggish these days, the simple fact remains that you don't have to use or even install 99% of GNOME or KDE.

Linux remains quite modular and you can use as little of, or as much of the bloated GUIs as you'd like. You could even ignore them nearly entirely and just use some of the better K & G apps.

BTW Windowmaker has a nice spiffy GUI configuration "wizard".

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[jedidiah]

Your time is only worth something if you are allowed as much overtime as you'd like and you get paid for all of it.

dictionary.com can't be wrong

[benjamindees]

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).

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[jedidiah]

> What the "Linux on a 486 PC" advocates
> are saying is

If you only want to run Kword, you only need to have the libraries necessary for Kword loaded. The rest of KDE can be PUNTED and you could run Kword from a twm session.

full restore doesn't need to be complicated

[Tim Evans]

What I use for backups is a separate box that updates itself using rsync every night. It exports the backups via a read-only NFS server. Doing a full restore involves:

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.

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[jedidiah]

The only problem with that is this only creates a vicious cycle of dependency. Linux users don't want to keep on babying the same people over the same issues.

There are simply better ways to waste your time.

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[jedidiah]

Mandrake is fine on older hardware. You will even be presented with a nice "shiny happy" method for running GUI's other than KDE & GNOME.

This is preferable to a vintage copy of redhat where the user would be forced to set up all of this themselves.

Even if KDE is sitting there on the disk, there's no reason you have to load all of it.

Re:All Linux vs Windows comparisons miss the point

[MoosePirate]

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.

The GIMP

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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?

Re:The GIMP

[johnnyb]

I'm sorry, you think GIMP is bad because it doesn't work on _Windows_? Windows is not it's target operating system. The fact that someone bothered to port it to Windows is a testament of the flexibility of GIMP. The fact that the developers are not concentrating their efforts there does not reflect on the GIMP as a project. Rather, it just means that if you are using GIMP in an unsupported configuration, you get what you get.

GIMP is _extremely_ stable on Linux boxes, and comes pre-installed with most distributions, so most of your argument goes out the Window there. The fact that the GIMP is unintuitive for _you_ means very little for the rest of us. My own biased opinion is that GIMP is extremely easy to use, because it doesn't restrict you to a single frame like Photoshop does. The toolbox/canvas paradigm is intuitive if you're used to it, and actually has a lot of advantages over the MDI paradigm, which even Microsoft is starting to get away from.

It doesn't break every UI convention in the book, it breaks every _Windows_ UI convention in the book. Why? *Gasp* It's not a Windows program.

It seems to me that your little mini-review is an attempt at avoiding the real issues of the capability and usability of the GIMP. Would you think I was fair if I judged Office XP based on it's performance under Wine and how well it meshed with my UNIX desktop? Of course not. Likewise, your review of GIMP on Windows tackled none of the real issues of image manipulation.

Since most of our designers use Windows, they use Photoshop. However, many times if they have to do a similar design for many pieces of text (such as headings, buttons, etc.), we will build scripts for the GIMP to handle them (and no, Photoshop Actions are not intelligent enough for what we are doing). We simply create a file of the text we want and GIMP will autogenerate images into files named using our standard naming conventions.

Anyway, I'm open to disagreement, but your review of the GIMP was very, very poorly done.

As for Mozilla, I can't live without my tabs, my popup Window blocking, or my cookie manager. What do you find lacking in it? Many people in my office have switched to Mozilla.

I can see some people disliking OpenOffice if they've invested heavily in Macros. Personally I love it for it's save as PDF features, and in the new versions I can convert PowerPoint files to Flash with a click of a button - and it is an exact replica of the PPT presentation in 10% of the file size, generally. In addition, OpenOffice handles DocBook quite well (we have many tools based around that), and it's native format is XML. In addition, it doesn't require a separate tool for database access like MS Office does. It also has a decent (but not astounding) vector graphics program with it.

Anyway, I'm sure many people disagree, and have good arguments for doing so. I found yours disingenuous.

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[ShadowDrake]

I recall using Linux on a 486/80 with 32M of memory. Even with 20Mb it was adequately fast. The then-new KDE Beta 3 was a bit sluggish, but is anyone surprised?

With a 486/40 and 20Mb of memory, X11, even with FVWM2, was unusuable. I believe the factor may have been the acceleration-- or lack thereof-- in the video board, and the cache (256k vs none)

I now use a PII/266 laptop with 96M of memory. Everything's plenty fast, except starting Mozilla. I'll allow it that much, as it's sluggish on a K7/1666 too.

Re:$95 for a report?!

[c64k]

$95 is steep, but probably average for Gartner reports. It pays not for the text but the research, and presumably, the IT sector knowledge that went into the report.

Strange that you spend more time explaining how you are a *VERY IMPORTANT PERSON* than actual comments about the report. I have trouble believing such an important person would not have heard of Gartner.

Nice how you managed to get the Michael Sims dis in too. Extra points for total irrelevance.

Now, your writings had disposed me to thinking of you as smart, but proclaiming your own genius, and using your income as proof of that, tends to make me think you're an idiot.

Re:L1nux r0x0rzx

[jedidiah]

With monopolyware, a common copy-paste standard becomes a moot point actually. A common copy-paste standard only becomes relevant when you're computing in more of an OpenDoc paradigm where your components come from multiple disparate sources.

Most users haven't computed that way for quite some time actually.

Total Cost of Ownership^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Admining

[Isaac-1]

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

Ssh

[redhog]

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.

User files

[xixax]

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.

Re:User files

[chthonicdaemon]

There is already such a tool. I am using it at my office. Brilliant - dayly incremental backups, full backups every week. And all the lusers have to do is use My Documents.

Ninety five dollars?!?!

[rice_burners_suck]

Hey. I ain't paying $95.00 for a 6 page report. If the report was 1,000 pages long, I might consider such a thing reasonable.

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.

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[MadChicken]

I never said the GUI was the problem...

Mandrake, as much as I really really love it, is slow. Slower than Linux really should be. I tried my old install (HD swap) on my new Athlon XP 2200+ 256MB DDR and it was slower than Windows XP is on the same box. :( Possibly a reinstall would show up some improvements.

Of course, I'm also a KDE guy, and nobody can say that ain't overhead. There comes a time when you have to ask if the overhead is worth it. In these cases, it is.... but I wouldn't run either of these on my P166 server.

Debian isn't vintage, and it runs fine. It's just a little leaner, and doesn't have any all of the hardware detection daemons running. By default, I mean.

Myth #1

[aelfwyne]

Anybody that would pay $95 for a 6 page document actually cares what Linux costs...

Interesting advantages of Linux over Windows...

[podperson]

This report seems to mainly constitute statements of the bleeding obvious, but one thing caught my eye:

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 .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.

My Plan:

[Unregistered]

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.

Yeah and Gartner blew it 5 years ago too

[argoff]

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.

Sigh.

[drinkypoo]

Assuming that this is an accurate synopsis, I have some things to say about the report.

Myth: Linux Will Be Less Expensive

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.

Myth: Linux Is Free

"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.

Myth: Linux Means No Forced Upgrades

That really is a myth. If nothing else you will have to upgrade glibc and the toolchain; upgrade glibc enough and you have problems.

Myth: Linux Management Is Easier

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.

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.

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.

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 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."
He points out that a new PC bought with Linux today with a goal of a six- to eight-year lifespan likely will require an expenditure for at least one OS upgrade during that time.
Furthermore, "enterprises should realize that if they buy two different model notebooks and two different model desktops and keep their PCs for four years, they will have 16 different varieties of hardware to manage," the report says, and more varieties of hardware and software will be more difficult and expensive to manage.

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

Myth: Gartner releases independent reports

[sould]

FUD FUD FUD!

Just so you know...

[rmdyer]

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.

umm, hello! knock knock...

[rmdyer]

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.

Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[timmfisk]

Outstanding points to make to the ignorant masses, both Linux and M$ communities.

What I tend to see these days are techs and engineers who have lost the zeal of understanding the underlying reasons (and solutions) for hardware and software issues. We have been trained to "upgrade" the problem. Remember those days when you first started tinkering around, the days when you were categorized as "s/he's dangerous"? You were learning and understanding. Just because you get older doesnt mean technology is slowing down.

Look at it this way... you have the blind M$ tech who is given an ambiguious blue screen or red 'X' in a message box which leaves no other course of action but to reboot, reboot, reboot... and if that doesnt work, reboot again. If all else fails, upgrade. This is not a solution, its a work-around for a problem that will someday be given a different description. No wonder why M$ is what they are today... dont fix the problem, give it a new name. It all boils down to respect for the consumer.

There comes a point though when accountablility should rest upon management. Just as a software developer is held accountable for their design or coding flaws, so should the IT/IS/CTO be held accountable for loss of production. If you know that something will fail with a high degree of certainty, why continue to use it? Did the masses go out and continue to buy tires that they knew could cause physical and fiscal harm not only to themselves, but those close and dear to them, not to mention passer-by's? How is the act of purchasing predictably unreliable OS's/NOS's any different?

Use the right tools for the right job. Sure, you most likely will be more cost effective as a small business to use software that can keep you focused on what you do best, but once demand goes beyond capability (both litterally and those relating to licensing) your attention should turn to software that can grow with you. It amazes me how employees and consultants boast the benefits of M$ NT family of software knowing that the cost out-weights its usefullness. Downtime speaks louder than words

Look at your options and make intelligent decisions based on a track record that does not fall short of what your customers expect of you, not convenience.

I doubt it would stand up

[Karl Cocknozzle]

You are correct, and Microsoft has specifically said that using Ghost is a violation of their EULA.

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.

Re:I doubt it would stand up

[rifter]

I do not think MS' claim would stand up in court, and they have not been willing to try... yet. People are probably ignoring them. But as I understand it, they have a different license for imaging. OEMs for instance consistently image systems they are selling, though the image is approved by Microsoft and puts one in a state such that the license key still has to be entered usually.

I however no longer license Microsoft products, and avoid them even at work. I also take pains not to be responsible for the Microsoft licensing decisions at my current employer. Essentially over the last few years their claims have become increasingly more ludicrous. They have retroactively invalidated Win9x licenses and those for previous Office products, created a new license for XP and newer such that the forced upgrades/annual fees to microsoft are now formalized, and essentially made a serious nuisance of themselves, besides their constant terroristic threats (ever receive one of their audit letters?).

Businesses which continue to rely on Microsoft products have continued to squeak by because at the end of the day unless they are actually forced to undergo the expensive audit process they can essentially ignore a lot of Microsoft's licensing schemes with relative impunity or greatly diminished effect. Besides, legacy technology has them somewhat locked in. I personally think this is a bad model for business and anyone relying on Microsoft for their business is effectively negligent, but that is my opinion.

Holy Inflated Ego, Batman!

[karlandtanya]

This guy thinks 6 pages of his opinion is worth $95.00 a read!

Can't moderate, but somebody else should

[Karl Cocknozzle]

I personally think this is a bad model for business and anyone relying on Microsoft for their business is effectively negligent, but that is my opinion.

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."

Myths, open source, reviews and helping out

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

It seems to me that your little mini-review is an attempt at avoiding the real issues of the capability and usability of the GIMP. Would you think I was fair if I judged Office XP based on it's performance under Wine and how well it meshed with my UNIX desktop? Of course not. Likewise, your review of GIMP on Windows tackled none of the real issues of image manipulation.

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:

For _businesses_ running Linux, it is a big deal.

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

AS/400 prefers 5250 not 3270

[GerardM]

A standard AS/400 terminal is using the 5250 protocol. It CAN do 3270 but best used with AS/400 is 5250.

Re:Even better

[Black Copter Control]

Scientology predates Nazi Germany. The daemons referenced in the texts of L. Ron Hubbard have been in existence for aeons. So has the fight against them.. Hitler banned the predecessor to The Church of Scientology after they tested him and declared him to be "as 'clear' as a mudpuddle".

Re:Even better

[rifter]

I would agree with you on Hitler being "as 'clear' as a mudpuddle". I would even go so far as to say that the things LRH was describing are fairly old, and if you believe his writings, then you would believe the things he described were very old. But since LRH is the founder of the Church of Scientology, and did that, IIRC in the 1960's (but certainly after WWII), I am afraid I am going to have to ask you for some additional evidence to support your claims.

It's hard to prove the truth of spiritual matters in a scientific way. But it is another matter to produce evidence of human beings performing scientific experiments with historical figures (which is essentially what you are describing).

Re:Even better

[Black Copter Control]

But it is another matter to produce evidence of human beings performing scientific experiments...

What part of "It's a joke" don't you understand?

Re:Even better

[rifter]

Sorry, man, when it comes to Scientology, you never know what people are going to claim. Though there is always the rumour that Scientology itself started as a practical joke....

Servering Windows

[fm6]

do a routine weekly backup on e-mail files and bookmarks

Aha! Another excuse for me to get in a round of POP bashing!

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.

Re:All Linux vs Windows comparisons miss the point

[intermodal]

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.