Linux Desktop Myths Examined

Call Me Black Cloud writes "NewsFactor Network has an overview of the $95.00 Gartner report titled, "Myths of Linux on the Desktop". It's a good look at several points from the perspective of a corporate user, not a home user."

Comments

Registration NOT required

[A nonymous Coward]

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

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

[_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.

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.

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

[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).

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

[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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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

[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.

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...

$95 report?

[pecosdave]

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

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...

[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: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

[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

[platipusrc]

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

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: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:Dispersing the Linux Myths

[tuffy]

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

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

[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.

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.

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.

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...

[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...

full text of article (not overview)

[Anonymous Coward]

The original article is on zdnet here

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: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: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?

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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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?

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: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.

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:Lets take an objective aproach.

[rsilvergun]

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

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: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?

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: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.

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.

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*...

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.

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

[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: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: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.

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.

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.

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

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: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.

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!

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.

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.

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."

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.

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!

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.

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

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