The Failures Of Desktop Linux

PDAJames writes "Maybe Linux isn't quite ready for the desktop after all. After an earlier, very positive evaluation of SuSE Linux Desktop, ZDNet UK has carried out a more in-depth review, running the system in a production environment for two weeks, and found it wanting. A key problem area was interacting with the corporate Windows network. When will this stuff finally be ironed out?"

Comments

Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[mu_wtfo]

Well, the obvious solution is to get rid of all the Windows machines on the network. Presto, problem solved!

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmm, you sound like some companies I know of, staff difficulties? Get rid of the staff! Not always the best solution.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain to your boss that your apps aren't 100 percent interoperable between customer machines. Who cares if it saves money if you've managed to frustrate everyone at your company.

A perfect example is a sales and marketing type company with IT setting the standards. When your sales people have to spend more time re-learning the system and less time selling who's going to look stupid? Definitely not the sales team.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[corgicorgi]

Get rid of all the Linux boxes and the Windows machines still won't play well with each other.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[PgDn]

Well let's see here if say my plant was going to get rid of all our windows machines and switch to some nix machines we would have more problems then you might think. Unless your just being a stubborn nix player. You see my plant runs off a Access Database and I know the nix machines can run any Microsoft program but your talking about training hundreds of employes how to use nix every time season rolls around that is jsut absurd. However good nix is on an indvidual basis it is not holding well with a full on coporation.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Honestly, I don't see this as a joke. Linux, or any OS, should be evaluated by how well it does on its own merits. Complaining that it doesn't work well with Windows is like ... oh, say, evaluating an early automobile and complaining that there's no place to hitch up a horse. The question should be "Is the new technology inherently superior enough to what we've got now to justify changing?", not, "How well does the new technology mimic what we've got now?" And if the answer to the first question is "Yes" -- well, then, tell the carriage makers they're going to have to find a new job.

I now expect to get inundated with responses telling me that I don't understand the real world, that companies have too much invested in their Windows infrastructure to just switch everything over to Linux on a whim, etc. To which I say: bullshit. Lots of people had a great deal invested in the horse-and-carriage infrastructure. Changing over to automobiles required throwing away a lot of existing technology. But the overall benefit was well worth it.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[General Fault]

I love Linux! That said, I have always found the mentioned problem to be a major stumbling block. I admit that I am not a huge Linux guru, but I am a software engineer, and can figure out what I need most of the time. Still, it is never "seamless" to connect my Linux boxes to a windows network. Your solution of "getting rid of all of the Windows machines" is not very practical (and I suspect that you know it, but were being humorous). I have 1 Linux box at work on a huge (500+) machine network dominated by Windows. This is normal. Many companies that develop for Windows have employees that like Linux and try to get it shoved in the company structure once in a while. This is a big problem when I need to devote significant resources to getting the Linux box all set up. I can plug a Windows machine into a windows network and without hardly any effort, that machine is happily communicating with the rest of the network. To get a Linux box on that same network, I need to install SAMBA, configure the .conf file, run some command line utils to join the domain, configure PAM, get the init files working.... it goes on! I know that the real solution (and the beauty of Open Source) is for me to "use the force, read write some source". And for me and the rest of the community, the problem is fixed! The trouble is as always finding time to commit to such a large project.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Ruds]

Apples and oranges. Linux doesn't revolutionize the desktop, as automobiles revolutionized transportation. Linux's big selling point is that it's cheaper than Windows. If it can't interoperate or be used without more training or something of this nature, then the price advantage disappears.

Besides, the automobile took some time before it caught on everywhere--horses were still used for some purposes in WWI, and I'm sure the army wasn't the only one.

Matt

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[GigsVT]

You can move the database backend to postgres or whatnot, and keep the Access frontend, while you write up a new frontend in PHP or whatever your favorite language is. It's what we're doing, slowly. Of course, some of the databases are jumping directly from obselete Lotus Approach to postgres/PHP, a fine example of the perils of proprietary software lockin.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

access database? wow

do any of them really know how to use windows anyways.

they know how to do a few individual tasks and thats all.

they dont need to know more. they can also be easily converted to the new way.

btw it was fricking joke. get a sense of humor.oh wait, you run access

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[dspyder]

Complaining that it doesn't work well with Windows is like ... oh, say, evaluating an early automobile and complaining that there's no place to hitch up a horse

Actually a better comparison would be evaluating a car and saying it doesn't fit on the existing roads. That is a legitimate complaint when you have years and dollars tied up into your existing highway infrastructure. New technology won't be adapted unless there's no significant barrier.

Nobody is going to design a new road just to be able to run Linux... especially not in the beginning stages.

--D

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Arandir]

Windows and Linux both use the same roads. It's called the TCP/IP network. The automobile may have put the buggy whip manufacturers out of business, but it did nothing but help the road builders and maintainers.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[mrscott]

An infrastructure is not ripped out and replaced in a day -- or even two. I doubt that we'll see Linux being used for wholesale replacements of corporate desktops in the near future. Until that day does come, Linux needs to play nice with the current prevailing technology. Environments are not necessarily rated as reliable or not reliable based on the individual components but on how well it works overall.

You mention that you expect a number of these kinds of responses. This is because people who manage these kinds of environments understand that Windows is here to stay for the meantime. We have a lot of critical applications that only run under Windows for which there is no open source alternative, for example.

I can't comment on how hard it was to convert from teh horse and buggy to the automobile since I have no firsthand knowledge of the event and it's problems and wouldn't presume to have such.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[truesaer]

I now expect to get inundated with responses telling me that I don't understand the real world, that companies have too much invested in their Windows infrastructure to just switch everything over to Linux on a whim, etc. To which I say: bullshit. Lots of people had a great deal invested in the horse-and-carriage infrastructure. Changing over to automobiles required throwing away a lot of existing technology. But the overall benefit was well worth it.

This may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on Slashdot. I use PCs, SUNs, and Macs on a daily basis and all three have advantages and disadvantages. To say that SUSE is so amazingly superior to windows, the operating system that 95% of the computing public chooses to use, is ludicrous. Linux has a lot of great advantages, but all types of machines on a network should be able to play together.

Case in point is my university's network. We have SUNs, HPs, Linux boxes, Windows machines, and Macs all on the same network. They all rely on machines running various OSes for file servers, etc. It all has to play nicely together.

You think its bullshit that systems should be interoperable? Well guess what, thats why Linux will be a second class OS for years to come. It isn't the top dog now, and unless it is pleasant to switch to it isn't ever going to happen.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Chordonblue]

You certainly can't count on MS playing fair. They've done everything possible to make their version of LDAP non-interoperable and yet still call it LDAP.

Same thing for all the backtracking they've done on true XML support in the new Office.

Linux will have to try harder. It will have to step up to the plate because the MS domain stuff has already beaten them to the production floor. Xandros has it right - if only their implementation wasn't closed source.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[middle]

whatever. Just remember that Apple *does* interact with windoze well.
Better speak 4 languages than start saying that you want everything in english in the middle of Oulan-Bator.

Otherwise.... let's everyone migrate to *BSD!!! :P

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[tarquin_fim_bim]

"Linux's big selling point is that it's cheaper than Windows"

...and more powerful
...and more secure
...and more versatile
...and more reliable
...and NOT Microsoft, that's the big plus.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

you cleary didn't even understand the analogy.. go back to digging in your nose

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux, or any OS, should be evaluated by how well it does on its own merits.

One of the measurements of merit is playing well with others. You don't think that Linux sprung from Linus's mind fully featured with things that didn't exist anywhere else do you? TCP/IP? NFS? NIS? LDAP? GNU tools? compilers? X11? Most of the technologies used in Linux came from elsewhere. It has them for two reasons: 1. You need certain functionality for an OS to be credible or useful. 2. Linux needs them to play well with others.

You don't think that Linux would be in use if it couldn't talk to any other computer do you?

Linux is just getting the same inspection that practically every other OS has had. MacOS, MS-DOS, DR-DOS, BeOS, OS/2, Netware, Concurrent DOS, BSD Unix, System V Unix, Coherent, GEOS, CP/M, CP/M-86, Minix, UCSD P-System, PC/IX, forth, QNX, etc. etc. etc. They've all been there before. They've all been evaluated on how well they work, and how well they play with others. Now it's Linux's turn.

Make no mistake about it, Linux either has to play well enough with others to be accepted / ignored, or it has to carve out a large enouch niche of its own to survive in isolation. Any other result will result in Linux going the way of most of the operating systems I listed: oblivion.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[ameoba]

To cary your analogy out, It's like trying to build a new car that doesn't quite fit on the existing roads and when you DO get your new automobile to fit on the roads, GM goes the roads so that your car still can't drive on them.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[gilesjuk]

This is why Microsoft needs to be forced to open up its protocols. The DOJ settlement partly does this, but I think you need to pay money to see the code?

Samba is good but with each new Windows release they insert more proverbial spanners.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

No crack smoking while on line please.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[NortWind]

Linux's big selling point is that it's cheaper than Windows.

That't not the big advantage for me. The big advantage is that I don't have to *accept* the XP EULA. I want to own my computer, not just use it to house software that somebody else is letting me use for a while, under terms that they can choose to change at anytime. I won't tolerate that.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[bigbadwlf]

To say that SUSE is so amazingly superior to windows, the operating system that 95% of the computing public chooses to use, is ludicrous.

Hold it right there, pal.
To say that 95% of the computing public chooses to use Windows is ludicrous.
Fact is the vast majority of Windows users did not choose it, it was simply preinstalled.

Furthermore, the fact that most people use Windows does not make Windows superior, nor does it preclude another product from being superior to Windows.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[croddy]

You think its bullshit that systems should be interoperable? Well guess what, thats why Linux will be a second class OS for years to come. It isn't the top dog now, and unless it is pleasant to switch to it isn't ever going to happen.

embrace & extend != interoperability
don't blame unix, it's MS that's not POSIXly correct.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Bilestoad]

When will this stuff finally be ironed out?

Never, because instead of thinking about what the issues are and solving them there will always be someone who says "just get rid of the window boxes! Ha ha only serious." And the result is Linux gets thrown out. Why? Because infrastructure costs money and nothing that represents investment just gets thrown out. More important than the cost of windows itself is the cost of expertise in the product and all the products that run in that environment. Perhaps your IT people can switch without breaking stride but what IT people always forget is that it is complete irrelevant as to how well the IT people can use the new systems. They only exist to make sure other people in the company can do their jobs.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[fishbowl]

>Changing over to automobiles required throwing
>away a lot of existing technology.

But it was decidedly obvious to anyone in a decision-making role that the change was necessary.

It might also be more accurate to characterize the transition from steam power to various combinations of gasoline and electric power.

If it was more obvious that Linux is an enormous improvement for any given piece of the enterprise, it wouldn't be such a sell that an article like this one is even required.

Go find the articles that illustrate how hard it was to get people to wire their factories for electric lights, abandoning gas. Find accounts of fire departments choosing to keep their horse-drawn equipment instead of fitting out Model-A trucks.

Show me the army that chose to keep iron weapons after steel became available...

If someone wants Linux to take a role that it has not already taken, that someone needs to give it a killer app or contribute some development work to make it the obvious choice. Instead, we hear about how "it" isn't easy enough, of "it" isn't ready for the desktop.

But there IS no "it". It simply isn't reasonable to pass responsibility for this system to anyone.
If it lacks something you need, develop it. When that lack runs into the solid wall of Intellectual Property, blame the real culprit. When that lack is due to the actions of any single entity who is intentionally preventing you using linux for a given purpose, point the finger where it should be pointed.

Or just blame all your IT problems on linux, if it makes you feel better.

Linux doesn't care, becaue there IS not "they."

*YOU* are "they".

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

i love all the high-school reasoning that comes out
of the mouths of the slashbots .. kids that finally
learn how to draw a parallel take great joy in
doing so, regardless of how valid they are ..
welcome to generation-xyz - an genetic wave peopled
entirely with faux intellectuals

get it straight, bucky - you Don't understand the
real world if you're honestly believing that your
analogy holds any water at all .. for one, the
comparison is more like evaluating two different
but equally useful automobiles .. one flashy, with
plenty of standards behind it .. the other new,
more stable underneath, but with nobody making
nice options for it and with a triangular gas
intake that no normal gas pump will fit in .. it
doesn't run appreciably better than the standard
auto, doesn't take the same parts and you can't
get A/C or a decent stereo for it .. you can do
all kinds of cool things with it If you know how,
but who has the time or the inclination to bother?
kit car enthusiasts.

and the whole "changing over to automobiles blah
de blah" bit .. the automobile had much greater
potential than the horse and carriage .. that it
would be adopted was obvious .. linux does not
have a clear advantage over windows in most of the
ways that matter to the consumer .. it isn't
crash proof, for sure - there are barely any apps
that run on it (the linux community in general
seems to think the way to the heart of joe
consumer is through productivity apps .. wrong ..
games .. games games games games games) ..

the thing is - people don't Want to deal with more
than one thing .. they want one thing that works,
works reasonably well .. we're conditioned to be
ok with computers crashing .. this is nothing new
and it isn't a windows-only thing - every computer
ever made crashes from time to time .. linux may
run certain things faster than windows, but the
support for multimedia is pathetic at best .. why?
because nobody is making them .. why? .. because
there is no market

when will you freaks realize that programmers have
to make a living? .. christ

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[eniu!uine]

Honestly, I don't see this as a joke. Linux, or any OS, should be evaluated by how well it does on its own merits. Complaining that it doesn't work well with Windows is like

There's no reason to blame Linux for it's inability to operate with Windows. Clearly MS has a profit motive for not making their products work with Linux, blame them.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see what the problem is.

My Mandrake laptop plugs in quite well. This box has run with Wins configurations, DHCP, and Netware with no problems. It's run on private sector and government networks. Anyone who's ever plugged in to a government network knows how quirky they can be. Yet still no problems

In fact, I can't think of the last time my TCPIP stack got corrupted in Linux (or any major problems for that matter). Although, it happened to me in XP last week. It sounds to me that the people writing the article didn't have the tools needed to make a fair comparison. This is not the fault of Linux. Rather, the fault of the editors at C|Net for letting this stinker through.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[PygmySurfer]

Most medium and large-sized businesses purchase site licenses for Microsoft software, which means they DID choose to use it. And those businesses make up the majority of computer users.

I would imagine most home users choose Windows, as well. Linux is too difficult for most non-geeks, and gamers would be unable to run most games. That trend is starting to change somewhat, with those Wal-Mart PCs that come with Linux pre-installed, however, I imagine the change has been minimal.

Linux is still a niche product - fine for the majority of /. readers, but not necessarily a solution for Grandma to read emails with new pictures of little Timmy.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[AntiOrganic]

The beauty of SQL is that it's incredibly easy to migrate from one database engine to another.

You have an ease-of-use bonus because Access is so ridiculously featureless, so it's not like you're losing your stored procedures and triggers like if you were switching from SQL Server/MSDE to PostgreSQL or Interbase.

As for training, I think someone else already mentioned, but most people don't really know how to use "Windows" anyway; your average computer user is too clueless to know how to remove a program he's installed. The issue isn't navigating the operating system itself, but the programs they'd be using. Mozilla/Konqueror do a beautiful job of intuitive use, and OpenOffice's look being not very unlike Microsoft Word/Excel eases that transition tremendously too.

I think the real problem most corporations are having is finding a suitable replacement for group policies and user permissions. I know this is one of the goals of GNOME, so I'm going to lay off of them there, but most corporations don't want their users screwing with many settings -- it dramatically reduces IT department staffing needs. I mean, even ACLs aren't implemented in any stable kernel yet (though I'm aware they will be in 2.6.x), and these are important when you have 5,000 employees of different access levels accessing the same shares of a file server in the datacenter.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Milo77]

This may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on Slashdot.
really? haven't been reading long, have you :)

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically you picked a minor detail from an insightful comment and chose to throw the rest of it out?

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[b!arg]

My question has always been, "Who's desktop?"

My desktop? Sure.
Worker Bees desktop? Eh...maybe, but probably not.
My Mom's desktop? God no.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, well its certainly not Linux devs fault. Microsoft uses closed properitary protocals. The samba team has done well reverse engineering them but still it has a way to go.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[sniggly]

Kind of says it all - the older, open standard (NFS) is replaced by the closed source less capable alternative (NFS had to support a multi user environment from the start) and yet the latter dominates the market so becomes de facto standard.

But thats the market at work.. The only alternative would be to legislate open standards which would then become practically unalterable...

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[sniggly]

This may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on Slashdot

Don't you start a career in politics. Starting your argument with such an opener makes you look like a arrogant smartass sob. Very annoying behaviour. Besides the poster is making an interesting point...

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Pieroxy]

Another difference:

With windows you don't need the "right tools". They're part of the system

With linux, you need them, and if they , at C|Net didn't have them, it probably means they are not that obvious to identify and/or find for the average end user.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Malcontent]

"Still, it is never "seamless" to connect my Linux boxes to a windows network."

And it will never be. No matter how hard anybody works to do this MS will change windows to make it impossible.

Nothing can be done about it and people should not waste their time trying to do the impossible. It's better to spend that time trying to make a better linux and the hell with co-operating with windows. Remember MS has never ever tried to play nice with other technologies and it still ended up dominating the desktop.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[baggins2002]

I have to agree with others who posted here, inability to work within a MS network is the largest stumbling block. Telling everyone to just get rid of Windows isn't going to work. I have users who want to go to Linux or are willing to try, but once I show them the issues with working with files on the network their jets cool. I have been waiting 3 years for the network sharing issues to be resolved. But I am no longer holding my breath, because MS seems to be making it a moving target. If only the linux solution could catch smb versioning long enough to make a stable version, then managers could see how MS is forcing them to keep paying for the licenses instead of allowing a choice. I keep wondering why Mac OS X was able to create a system which worked with the MS infrastructure and Linux hasn't been able to.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

We have desktop linux boxes side by side to windows guess what linux out perform windows.

I need had any issue with Linux . Windows XP is nothing but a virus to us at work.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

My father used to say "a thousand flies can't be wrong".

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[sniggly]

Home users run windows because it comes pre-installed. Like C=64 users had to learn ROM BASIC because thats what the system booted into.

The perception is that linux is too difficult for most non-geeks. Reality is different. Winxp is preinstalled. Suse's desktop edition has less hardware issues (signed drivers anyone) and an easier install than winxp - knoppix boots into a full OS from cd.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

re: I now expect to get inundated with responses telling me that I don't understand the real world, that companies have too much invested in their Windows infrastructure to just switch everything over to Linux on a whim, etc. To which I say: bullshit

you don't have a fuckin clue about corporate obviously. try thinkin a bit more before poppin off like a lunatic.

don't mind me though. keep on preachin brother!!!

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Wht is this marked flamebait? I'll argue the case:

Versatile: No question. Simply look at the number of architectures that Linux will run on compared with Windows. From the IBM Linux wristwatch to a scattering of top 500 supercomputers. Linux is well represented across the a wide range. API versatility is there too. From win32 (via winelib) to POSIX to Java libraries. Probably 90% of Windows software runs perfectly well or has a functional replacement for Linux. The converse is certainly not true!

Reliability: No argument there. It seems to be a curse/truism that all large software projects have bugs, but the architecure of unix/linux is undoubtably more reliable than the mish-mash that is Windows. Not to mention the bugs the MS themselves introduce. DRDOS anyone? Does it concern anyone that MS's attempts at crippling competitors' products might have an unwanted side-effect of reducing stability of their core product?

Security: Security wasn't even on the radar for MS, until recently. The notion of provably secure architecure is simply incompatible with closed-source, marketing driven software.

Power: I think my comment on 'versatility' mostly covers this. For a more concrete example, take an arbitary shell script from Linux, and try to replicate the functionality from the Windows shell.

NOT Microsoft: This is probably the point that caused the Flaimbait moderation. But, surely choice is good as an end in itself? Software ought to be a commodity, and even if Microsoft software was a bastion of technical excellence, having a choice is nothing but beneficial.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is obviously to remove all the web_toed weineer_dudes fscking around with *nix and - as adults - get on with business.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[intermodal]

also, they don't compare Windows with how well it works with Linux...so why should I care that the opposite is equally inoperative?

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[bmj]

whatever. Just remember that Apple *does* interact with windoze well.

Have you ever had to oversee large numbers of Macs on a Windoze network? It's not pretty, though my experience is with OS 8 and 9, not OS X. But your point is well taken. Apple understood that they weren't going to take over the world (or the network), so they had to do what was necessary to sell product. If GNU/Linux is going to break into the corporate desktop market, it better play nice with Windoze.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Izago909]

Sounds like microsoft's strategy. Make subtle deviations in the networking protocols from published standards so other OS's don't play well together. Everyone knows that a standard that microsoft adopts isn't the exact same as the published standard.

For example you have W3 HTML and IE HTML. You have Java and you have MS Java. If anyone using a non-windows box has problems running a java program or applet, and you can't figure it out, odds are it was written with a microsoft program.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot applauds your agreeable and gladhanding argument.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[windlord]

2 words: Dependency HELL

Maybe all the linux users have got used to it but thats the main reason that I switched to BSD years ago and never looked back.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[mausmalone]

The question should be "Is the new technology inherently superior enough to what we've got now to justify changing?", not, "How well does the new technology mimic what we've got now?"

Well, it should be evaluated on how well it interfaces with current technology. Also it needs to be compared to current technology in order to judge how well one could adapt to it.

Even with the horseless carriage example above, you have a winner because (A) the technology is boss, (B) it interfaces well with the current road and traffic light infrastructure (C) The buyers were easily able to adapt to the new technology.

The simple reason you have to evaluate new technology with regards to current technology is that changeovers are rarely instant, and in that interim, they will have to interface.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say that all microsoft gas stations had a special gas cap, this gas cap is patented so that only microsoft cars can be filled up at microsoft gas stations.

Now, a new non microsoft company starts up and sells non microsoft cars. Now, since microsoft won't tell anyone how to create a gas cap that will allow the microsoft gas pump to fill the car the right way all the time.

Sometimes the new cars spill gas all over and this is annoying for the user.

Now, is the solution, get rid of the new cars? Or force microsoft to allow the cars to fill up without spilling any gas?

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[mausmalone]

I think what he(or she) was getting at was that the larger Windows audience is an indicator that it's more preferred. In most cases that holds true, but you're right that in the world of pre-installing and business environments, that can't totally be trusted.

Still, saying that SUSE is amazingly superior to Windows is ludicrous because it's an assertion you could never support. It's one of those statements that just sits there to infuriate everyone who disagrees with you. It does well just to ignore statements like that. Just like when someone says Windows is amazing, Linux is the be-all end-all of OS's, PC's are superior to Macs, or that Macs are cheaper than PC's. It's all based on certain facts and somebody's gonna freak out on you because they have a disproving case.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Bush Pig]

In fact, I can remember milk, bread, groceries etc, being delivered by horse and cart when I was a small child in the 1950's in Adelaide. My grandmother used to race out into the street with a shovel to pick up the horseshit for her roses.

Aah ... nostalgia!

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but it didn't happen overnight. It took years. Fuck, I can still use a horse and carriage to take a trip. In fact, there are still carriage makers. However, I can't seem to get this C64 to be recogzined by my Windows network.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Richard_Davies]

> I now expect to get inundated with responses telling me that I don't understand the real world, that companies have too much invested in their Windows infrastructure to just switch everything over to Linux on a whim, etc. To which I say: bullshit.

I've got to bite. Have you never worked in a company (I mean a "regular" business - not an IT company) where they have legacy systems? One place I worked kept their mainframe system for literally decades simply because the risk/cost of porting their key business application (written in house) to *any* other platform was too high. Even if linux attains a dominant position, it will have to interoperate with windows because companies simply cannot "throw away" key piecs of software and start from scratch. It just (usually) doesn't make economic sense. Even if the long term benfits are real, the short term risk or cost may simply be too high to even consider doing this.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, it's not more 'usable.' Have you ever tried to install that shite? It's impossible. I don't really care if *you* find it easy unless *you* are going to come over here and install it for me. Otherwise, I'll stick with OK-->Next-->Next-->Next-->Finish. Mod me down if you must but until you geeks understand that human nature seeks out the path of least resistance, Linux will never find wide acceptance on the desktop. Case closed.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

You get a woodie typing all that?

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[MrCreosote]

" the operating system that 95% of the computing public chooses to use,"

and in the last presidential election in Iraq, almost 100% of the vote was for Saddam Hussein.

Henry Ford supplied the Model T in any colour the customer wanted, as long as it was black.

When you have a monopoly (and an illegally maintained monopoly in Microsoft's case), choice does not really enter into it.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

You happen to be forgetting those roads were made for unix, changed little for adaptation to windows, and should work just fine with linux... after GNU/Linux distributions are tweaked to work perfectly with those features that were added during the unix to windows migration.

Unfortunately, the MS road features seem to not be of the most major interest to many who are writing the code, or if they are they're still not handled properly. bah.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[molarmass192]

If you're looking for ease of use, then don't use a product like RedHat or SuSE, they're not aimed at users looking for a GUI-ified desktop. Use a tightly integrated end user oriented product like Lycoris or Xandros. You really need to use the right distro for a) your Linux "skill" level and b) your goal in using Linux in the first place. If you're looking for an environment where you can leverage your Windows experience, Lycoris and Xandros are for you. If and when you want to more fully customize or even modify your environment, use a more advanced distro like RedHat or SuSE. BTW, if any l33t jackasses criticize you for not using RedHat, SuSE, Debian, etc ... instead of the more GUI-centric distros, just tell 'em to shut the hell up.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you don't even have to leave the house. All you have to do is fire up a web browser and find all your horseshit needs in Slashdot comments!

Ah... technology!

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[VonSnaggle]

I own a 1964 Ford Galaxie 500XL, and the roads and parking spaces no longer fit.....

I thought I would eventually be crammed off the road but then came the SUV craze to keep me from becoming obsolete.....

Lets hope there is something that does the same for *NIX....

(actually the best thing about LINUX is it can be any car you want from a from a top alchohol drag racer to a Toyota Prius, you just need to learn to work on it and fine tune it)

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[fitten]

Yes... there are such things as too many choices. The average user just wants something put down in front of them that works. Having to choose, and understand why they are choosing, one particular distribution over all the others is beyond most of them and beyond what they care about.

For most, they know they need whatever is the latest Windows to run all their software and games. In your post, a user would have to choose among (using only those you listed) five different distributions, would have to know that in many ways they are the same, but are slightly different, and why they are different, and why it helps them to be different.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> i love all the high-school reasoning that comes out of the mouths of the slashbots

Funny, I learned how to capitalize and how to punctuate in grade school. If you are going to rant about how immature people are, first learn proper grammer and punctuation.

5% of Windows boxes crash 2 times a day. The other 95% crash more than this. Linux doesn't crash. Every Linux box I have ever had has ran for years with no crashes. This includes computers that had windows installed that would crash a half dozen times a day.

Linux doesn't get viruses. Windows does. Windows is not secure.

The windows fanboys were the first ones to use the car analogy.

I just bought new hardware and threw mandrake 9.1 on it. My new Linux box was able to play Divx movies. It also recognized the sound card, recognized the TV card, recognized the monitor and graphics card, reconized the scanner and printer. I ran grip and ripped my collection of CD's to ogg vorbis format. All from the default install. What was that about multimedia again?

Yeah, you are pretty much wrong about everything. To be fair, that first sentence pretty much tells everyone that you are off your meds.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[OneIsNotPrime]

You obviously don't understand the real world. Companies have too much invested in their Windows infrastructure to just switch everything over to Linux on a whim.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[rute20740]

Well, try plugging a Mac OS box into a Windows network to see how well they play together. I think Linux users need to realize that Windows and Linux are two completely different operating systems, and they should probably stay that way. You never hear of Mac users complaining about these issues? Probably not.

Until Microsoft opens up some of their core protocols and document formats, Linux users will be stuck not being able to communicate as well as another Windows client, and Microsoft will remain the standard in the corporate world.

Maybe the answer is to devote the desktop community to creating something that's free, reliable, and easy to use that works well with open standards. And by that, I mean a groupware system, a solid word processing suite, and seamless network interconnectivity. When this happens, if it works well, could become the new standard in a corporate environment.

Until this happens, the Linux community will still be riding on the coat tails of the rest of the software world as far as using it effectively on the desktop.

One of the major things Linux (or more importantly, the Open Source community) needed in the beginning to work was a sweet application that would push it ahead. Apache was born, and Linux gained wide acceptance in the server market. Other server side apps were soon to follow that continue to run very effectively in many corporate server rooms.

At this point in the game, conquering the desktop is the next step. Linux needs the next sweet application to push it ahead in that world. We already have the base tools, be they Gnome or KDE, but that's not quite enough.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

' My question has always been, "Who's desktop?" '

Well congratulations! From now on your question will be "Whose desktop?".

This correction brought to you free of charge.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Overly Critical Guy]

You're in a very, very small minority who actually chooses operating systems based on their EULAs.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[General Fault]

Very good point. I tried for ages to set up a RedHat firewall for my home network of 5 computers. I was not familiar with iptables or ipchains, so I struggled for about a month until I got it working. Being the lazy guy I am, I did not back up my config files and it was only about a month before my cheap 2GB used HDD stopped spinning. I learned, and downloaded a copy of Smoothwall. It is a Linux distro specifically for use as a small firewall. Within about 1/2 hr, I had a strong firewall that has been a breeze to administer.

At risk of countering my own previous argument, as it goes with my personal system, I am a power hungry geek. If I have an option between a simple but limited piece of software and a high powered but difficult to use piece of software, I almost always choose the later. (note, I do not apply the same rules at work.)
As a result, When I have the option of a windows style version of Linux and a highly configurable version of Linux, well, you know how it is.
So... great advice, but call it self-destruction, I just can't do it.

Now, I do believe that Linux (in all of it's command line glory) will eventually become as simple or nearly as to configure as a windows machine. Just as GUI software goes, it seems logical that command line and text file config based programs will continue to evolve and become easier to configure and more intuitive. I realize that many standards exist for these config files, but maybe there are still too many. Maybe as more main stream applications such as Apache come out, they will gravitate toward some standards and improve upon them. Maybe then other developers in the community will follow the lead. This brings me to something mentioned in another /. post today. Tim O'Reilly from O'Reilly Publishing talks about watching the "alpha geeks" for direction in technology. Maybe some of you Linux developers know of the alpha geeks in your community. These people are the ones that will develop or improve these standards.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that was a flip answer, but it is not far from the mark.

Nobody will ever interoperate successfully with Microsoft for long. Even on the Windows platform itself it was amazing how often a windows upgrade would break either lotus notes or word perfect. MS even "abandoned" dos in Win95 in order to stave off competition from a successful Dos clone that was just about ready to eat MS for lunch.

This lack of interoperablity is by design and has helped Microsoft keep it's monopoly again and again. MS was actually convicted of being felony monoplists in some of the highest courts of the land. A conviction which they never overturned, although they were able to mitigate the punishement to giving away software for free to schools, which they want to do anyway, because the free software program to schools helps them break Apples only successful market.

The only way to interoperate with everyone else's computer in the world using Microsoft products is if everyone has the exact same version of all the software, read that as the latest. Because MS always addes non backward compatible items to every release. This means that you will have to pay to keep up with all the latest MS Windows platform releases and all the latest MS Office releases. This is about $500 every 3 years, or about $2,000 in a 12 year period. Multiply this by 100 for a small company and you can see that over a 12 year period that MS is going to cost you $200,000 just for software licenses. Of course about halfway in you are going to have to replace every machine you have to run that version of Windows. And again at the end of the 12 year period. So throw in 2 complete new computers, plus you just bought new computers when this mess started. That is about $3000 each user. So that is another $300,000. Total software and hardware, $500,000.

Now, if you went with Linux, Open Office, Mozilla and web applications based on Linux-Apache-PHP-MySQL (LAMP) servers you could convert your existing computers to run Linux, even the old Pentium II 366's. Maybe upgrade the ram in all the old computers to 256MB. Call this $100 per machine. And then the machines would run Linux easily for the next 12 years. I run the latest releases of Linux just fine on an old 266MHz laptop with 96MB of RAM. I don't forsee any issues with running the 2.6 release of Linux on the same old pathetically slow laptop. W2K would barely load on this machine, and definately wouldn't run any applications. So, it was nothing for the software to begin with. And it was maybe $1000 per machine for memory upgrades and to replace bad things over the years. This works out to $100,000 over the same 12 year period. And you did a lot less work, so you needed less staff. And the operating system worked better and never crashed, so you need less staff. Less staff means less money spent supporting these computers.

But now lets say you want to actually do business. You can take the money you saved and spend a fraction of that to have contractors write custom apps that work for your company exactly how you want them to work. So you get the reports you want, so you get the data stored the way you want and can pull it out at any time. So you can get the customers and vendors the information they need. You can have the LAMP backend store track and keep all your information safe in a secure, backed up and redundant manner so the data is always available.

And everything now interoperates just fine. If need be you can keep one windows box running Office to convert non standard proprietary documents to a readable format.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Davorama]

It's not a waste of time. You need to make your Linux distro's cooperate just well enough to make them possible and worthwhile to use, but not well enough that people want to keep their Windows around in the long run.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately not everyone is as stupid as you. AC's don't get the $1 fuckwit.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[joelt49]

>>The only alternative would be to legislate open >>standards which would then become practically >>unalterable... Uh, isn't the purpose of a "standard" to become just that, a standard, something that doesn't change at the whim of a greedy company so that many different products can use it? As far as open standards changing, look at the ISO. They have spent extensive time making the C and C++ standards, and revising them. With M$, they change the "standards" whenever they want, creating a bunch of problems and a lack of "interoperability" and then charge money to "fix" it, but it's just another slow, resource-consuming cludge. Personally, I'd rather have slightly dated standards that I know will work 2 years from now than closed standards that might not work tommorow, and requires a "software update" (which you have to legally let M$ do whenever they want) that just F's up your system even more.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like you said, you dont understand the real world. Users want to boot their computers, have access to email, data, web. They want to have a familiar interface and dont give a rats ass about learning new ways to do the same tasks they perform daily. They dont give a crap about promoting LINUX and bashing windows. LINUX needs to integrate with the market share leader to be taken seriously on the desktop in the enterprise. As we all know, the market share leader is MS Windows in its various forms.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[bigbadwlf]

I work in tech support, and in doing so I've learned...

most home users choose Windows
a startling number of people have no idea what is on their computer, and.....

Linux is too difficult for most non-geeks
Windows XP is too difficult for most non-geeks.

Linux is different than Windows, and only more difficult when it doesn't come preinstalled.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[QuadGoatBoy]

The average end user does not set up a multi-million dollar corporate Windows network, and those people that do have almost always learned from someone who has set up a Windows network or have IT/IS experience, college degrees, etc. And, to insinuate the tools are not already provided in Linux is equally as ridiculous. I've not seen a recent (as in last 3 years) end-user targetted Linux distribution that didn't already have Samba available, and if this admin didn't copy the conf files for PAM, Samba, and whatever other custom job he/she had from other computer that were already properly configured, then that's his/her fault/oversight/whatever, not the OS. The fact is that WINDOWS admins are so used to the WINDOWS control panel and quick access functions, that they are trying to configure the stations through Windows techniques - which btw, PAM and Samba have a GUI administration interface if they wish to configure the workstation through KDE, Gnome, etc. Heck, they can even install Webmin and point their Windows browsers to the IP address of the workstation that needs configuring.

If these admins had any sense, they would make a proper, custom install CD for all new Linux machines. If they don't know how, they can most certainly ask. I understand that, in most cases, Linux has more configuration options, and so, many Windows/Linux hybrid solutions may seem to put Linux in an interesting light, but that doesn't mean that configuring Linux with Windows networks has to be a pain. Just like setting up a Windows network, setting up a Linux or Linux/Windows hybrid network just takes a little practice.

Thank you for your time,
Quadgoatboy

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, Adelaide has finally made it past the 50's.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[NortWind]

You're in a very, very small minority...

Go ahead and say it, you think I'm nuts. Just remember, to be normal is nothing to be proud of. :-)

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[bigman2003]

Has anyone ever come under scrutiny, been prosecuted, chastised, or even yelled at for violating something that was only present in the EULA?

Have you ever torn off a mattress tag?

Wash a shirt that was 'dry clean only'?

Used your lawnmower without safety goggles?

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[dhawton]

I agree. Also with VC++ and C++, but that's a totaly different story. I agree the solution is, get rid of all the Windows boxes. My part of the home network is FreeBSD boxes and Linux boxes, they play nice together. NFS + Samba (to the rest of the family's part [Windows, unforunately]) works very nicely.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[bigman2003]

Most of that 95% didn't buy the computer because of what it is- but what it does. Most of the people bought it because it runs Windows, which runs the software they want to use.

I don't think OEMs put Windows on computers because it is free, or cheap, or anything like that. They put it on computers because Windows is the REASON that people buy the computers.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[DeBeuk]

Parent moderated as Funny ? C'mon, this is INSIGHTFUL !
If you tested any Microsoft "OS" would you say it is wanting because of it's total failure to interoperate with any non-Microsoft OS ? Oh no, wait a minute, because MS is a market-leader every other OS should confirm to it's, in this posters humble opinion, fscked up.
Yeah right !

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[ThatMadeNoSense]

we would have more problems then you might think.

That made no sense.

Unless your just being a stubborn nix player.

That made no sense.

your talking about training hundreds of employes

That made no sense.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[nathanh]

Linux's big selling point is that it's cheaper than Windows.

Linux' big selling point to me is that it's similar to UNIX. I couldn't care less about Windows.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Tony-A]

Changing over to automobiles [from horse-drawn carriages] required throwing away a lot of existing technology.
Well, they kept the dashboard.

The question should be "Is the new technology inherently superior enough to what we've got now to justify changing?"
Exactly right.
Now the questions are when and how.
I suspect that Lindows will play a role similar to the Tin Lizzie.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[sheldon]

Is the new technology inherently superior enough to what we've got now to justify changing?

In a comparison of Linux to Windows XP? The question would be NO.

Changing over to automobiles required throwing away a lot of existing technology.

Yeah, but after they changed over to automobiles, no business wanted to go back to using horses.

That's what is so baffling about this pro-Linux position.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[sheldon]

Fact is the vast majority of Windows users did not choose it, it was simply preinstalled.

I was not aware of Apple preinstalling Windows on new Macintoshes.

No, consumers choose computers not for their hardware but for their software capabilities. One of the expected pieces of software is Windows. Your argument attempts to elude the inevitable.

Furthermore, the fact that most people use Windows does not make Windows superior, nor does it preclude another product from being superior to Windows.

The most popular product is ALWAYS the superior product, the consumers have made it so.

You need to stop redefining superior so that it only meets your needs and consider the rest of the consumer base.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[anagama]

Hear Hear

I've used Linux exclusively for a long time now and I've become pretty darn accustomed to KDE. Case in point: I was at a friend's house recently and tried out his Macintosh. I was mystified at how to recall a minimized window - I had to ask him to show me. This was a bit embarrasing as I'm supposed to know a bit about computers, and my friend can't tell the difference between between the end of his phone cord and an ethernet cable. Besides - Macs are for the computer dunces right?

I even had trouble with XP the single time I tried using it. Nothing in XP matched with what I've come to expect, i.e., KDE. So like you say, Linux is simply different, not more difficult. And two weeks is not enough time to really become acclimated to a system. 6 months would be a much fairer test, and the problems on reverting would be interesting to read about

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

"(actually the best thing about LINUX is it can be any car you want from a from a top alchohol drag racer to a Toyota Prius, you just need to learn to work on it and fine tune it)"

That's great. I really do think it is.
I just don't want to take the time to do all of that. It's so much easier and less painful to bend over, pay The Man, and get something that works and I don't have to worry about (OSX or Windows).

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Badanov]

Sure, once you make the change, it is incredibly easy to migrate from one Linux-based SQL module to another.

But going from the kiddie software programs (we are using Lotus Approach) to Linux based databases is not easy at all

In fact, since I am not a genius or anything, it has taken me about a year to obtain all the tools I need to move from Lotus Approach over the PostgrSQL. The changes needed to make this transition has not been easy either, but once we do switch to PostgreSQL, if the need ever arises again for a transition, it will be incredibly easy, assuming we never return to MS.

But going from the kiddie software to Linux is never easy.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that's why the everybody admires the abnormal kids at school.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[MntlChaos]

Sales team? not look stupid? HUH?

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[blakstorm]

well look at microsofts jacked up ideas about EULA's, the way they are describing the licenses here, Windows machines would cost small-to medium-sized businesses a fortune! THIS is "ludicrous". That Mr Gates expects businesses to buy all new licenses every time machines are moved and reassigned is jut plain greedy! I say throw out all the expensive Windows boxes and put Linux on them instead. Employers will learn to use Linux if they have to, especially if their jobs depend on it. Some only need to use the *nix machines a "Windows-level" (i.e. check email, spreadsheets, word processing, etc) and will thus only be familiarised with the interface only. Besides, many very large busineses, including government offices run console Linux machines and the employees are very comfortable using them (at least they appeared to be to me). It's just a matter of teaching them. People will adapt to new technology (learning to drive a car in a time where horse-and-carriages were dominant is a good example of this).

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

But automobiles did co-exist with the horse-and-carriage tradition ad thus were able to show their advantages. The point here is that the horses (or the carriages for that matter) were not able to learn new tricks every other year and then ask "can your automobile do this?"

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[blakstorm]

Forgot to post the link:

http://www.bcentral.com/articles/enbysk/138.asp

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Microsoft published the SMB protocol (as CIFS) for adoption as an Internet standard.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting Windows boxes to play with each other is easy.
Setting them up so that they are not played with by all those other "friendly" boxes outside, that's the problem.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[spectrokid]

Everybody I know runs Window$. NOBODY I know has ever gone to a store and BOUGHT Window$. My company has a deal with Micro$oft so we can all legally take a copy for use at home. The only application I have that needs Window$ is netbanking, but one is enough. I have a dual boot, and it defaults to M$. The biggest problem I have trying to use Linux at work is I can't get authenticated on the company network. And if we will ever convince a corporate bigshot to make the switch, it will be by creeping some Linux stations in and showing they WORK. This means showing it works in a Windows environment.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[happyDave]

Individuals probably don't have to worry...

But a company I used to work for was audited by Microsoft, and had to spend a lot of money getting into compliance. The EULA is not a joke. So yes, someone has been "chastised" and "come under scrutiny" for this. I'm betting lots and lots of people have.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Lussarn]

Figures... Only microsoft would run SMB over the internet.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[mr_tap]

The real point is that as the reviewer states OS X has already implemented a working solution to this problem using Samba. Based on this it seems that OS X is using Samba 2.2.3a from Feb 2002. This would imply that SuSE just have to update to this version or improve their default configuration.

Linux targetted at the desktop has to be "pre-polished" - the average user isn't up to it. Of course this is why I like OS X :)

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

To say that SUSE is so amazingly superior to windows, the operating system that 95% of the computing public chooses to use, is ludicrous.

Who cares how many people using Winders? How does the amount of people using it hold as an argument to it's superiority?

If you accept the choice of most people as proof of superiority, you're saying that McDonalds is the finest restaurant in the world[1].

You go have your bigmac(r), I'm going to get some finnish : )

[1] Or that wrestling is the finest sport or that Britney Spears is one of the best musicians of our times (better than Bach or Mozart by far).

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[RoLi]

The most popular product is ALWAYS the superior product

Wow, that would make Windows98 superior to WindowsXP.

If everybody would think like you, we would still live in the stone age.... Nobody would ever try anything new because they would think the old way of doing it would be "superior"...

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is crap. Switching from horse and carriage to automobile required precisely zero changes in existing infrastructure. New infrastructure had to be added - like gas stations. Old infrastructure - blacksmith shops - changed, over many many years into repair shops.
But the key issue is quality. Even the Ford Model T was ten times better - faster, more reliable, able to travel much longer distances - and MUCH cheaper to buy, run and maintain than a horse and buggy.
Linux is doomed to fail because, as the article shows, it is WORSE not better than Windows for most users. Further, the operating system is only a small (and shrinking) part of the Total Cost of Ownership, so it will never gain the decisive price advantage. And if it looks like it might, well Microsoft might cut its prices.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a joke. You don't think that people LOOK for the latest version of Windows when they buy their machines?

I guess that explains why systems with no preinstalled OS sell so well.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in Switzerland, we had horses in the army until this year. So I guess Windows is here to stay for a few more decades ;-)

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[redtuxxx]

This comment pre-supposes that anyone other than the person who setup the database (if them) actually has a clue about access.

I work setting up access Db's and analysing data with it, and I have yet to meet anyone in an office who has the slightest idea about access, other than the form they see.

Also one of the reasons why access has such a bad name (I'll admit it is one of the very few MS apps I like), is dipsticks think running a few wizards means that they can create a database grrrh!!

(currently I'm redoing a fairly complex DB properly - 3rd normalisation? - you've gotta be kidding, it didn't even get to first normalisation)

So my point is that this a red-herring all you need is one person/consultant to setup a DB backend and a web frontend with your language of choice (php/cgi)

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, that's what I did :), only our CEO insists using windoze in his workstation.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[boaworm]

The beauty of SQL is that it's incredibly easy to migrate from one database engine to another.

Unfortunately you are not entirely correct. It is true that basic SQL functionality follows either SQL92 sometimes even SQL99 in most DBMS. But rarely do you have a database which ONLY utilizes the very basic (insert, select, update) commands.

There are triggers, active databases, temporal databases, rules, orders, transactions, timeliness, atomic actions etc. And these are often not "smooth transactions" from one DBMS to another.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[boaworm]

The horse was actually used far into WW2, mostly to pull equipment, but also artillery pieces and to carry soldiers. (Yes, I am talking about the regular army, not small fractions).

Look at operation Barbarossa (German invasion of Russia), horses worked far better than Machines when fuel ran out, and soldies even ate their horses when food supplies ran short. Try eat that tank... ;-)

Wonder what would have happened if Wehrmacht was Tux-powered! How does a penguin taste ? How many penguins are needed to pull an haubits?

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[khakipuce]

The early automobiles had to be compatible with unsurfaced roads full of ruts. You could not take a modern car (and alot of SUVs) on a road of 100 years ago. If the manufacturers had produced cars with 6" ground clearance no one would have bough them.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

...horses were still used for some purposes...

Horses are still used for horse-racing!

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[ColdGrits]

"5% of Windows boxes crash 2 times a day. The other 95% crash more than this. Linux doesn't crash."

If you are going to argue your case, then you do yourself no favours whatsoever by lying.

Can you cite reliable references to your claims about Windows crashes?

No, you can't. Because you are lying.

And just for the record, Linux crashes. It's a fact. I have 4 machines here, all running Linux, which crash from time to time (we are talking crash'n'burn'n'reboot).

So that's two of your two "facts" which are completely wrong.

Wanna try for the hat-trick?

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[blibbleblobble]

"Actually a better comparison would be evaluating a car and saying it doesn't fit on the existing roads."

Ah yes, Windows: the exploding lada on the information superhighway.

Best start modifying the internet then, to make it more compatible with GNU machines.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Free of charge? You're under-cutting the real people. Shame on you.

http://www.namesys.com/support.html

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Moraelin]

WWI? Screw WWI, there were a lot of horses used in WW2. Everyone thinks ultra-modern tanks and jeeps and half-tracks, but a lot of the "high tech" action in WW2 consisted of ancient guns pulled by horses. Or foot infantry lugging their supplies around with horses and carriages. And even post-WW2, there were a lot of horses and carriages used in rural areas.

The comparison isn't maybe that apples to oranges, too. I mean, a lot of the problem with switching to automobiles didn't only have to do with the cost of automobiles, but also with infrastructure. Automobiles didn't work that great with horse-friendly dirt roads (same as Linux doesn't do always play nice with Windows networks). Everyone needed to invest one helluva lot of taxpayer money into national networks of paved roads, before the automobile really became that useful. They also needed gas stations, repair shops, etc. That's infrastructure too. Then people needed driver schools, traffic laws, some centralized evidence of driver licenses, license plates and traffic offenses, etc. Yep, more infrastructure investment.

So basically, yeah, you are right. Noone's going to change a huge infrastructure over-night, just because there's a new gimmic in town. No matter how revolutionary it is. Didn't happen with automobiles, and it won't happen with Linux.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[DNAGuy]

I've heard this argument a bazillion times, and it only partially holds water. In most cases, if the developer wants to write to the standard, the Windows box will work just fine and so will the other OS's. For example, write some XHTML and CSS1, it'll work just fine on just about any box I can find. Write some MS specific markup, it'll only work with MS browsers. Whose fault is that? Microsoft's? Only partially, in my opinion.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[kalka]

".. linux may
run certain things faster than windows, but the
support for multimedia is pathetic at best .."

mplayer?
xmms?
gimp?

Hello? Anyone?

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[cyb97]

I'd say the OP is entirely correct, it is incredibly easy. What you gotta compare with is moving from one proprietary system (Let's say Access) to let's say dbase IV... none of which conform with any SQL standard.
This requires you to not only convert more advanced functions like triggers, active databases, temporal databases, rules, orders, transactions, timeliness, atomic actions etc, but also timeconsuming thins like the data itself...
Often resulting in problems with proprietary systems not having even having corresponding datatypes, something most SQL RDBMS has...

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

no but it is a firing offense to install Media player9 in this company because of the EULA.

The lawyers actually paid attention to that one..

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[frog51]

The average home consumer wants easy email, pr0n surfing, music, vids and games. There are obviously exceptions, but that is pretty much it.

Home users 'know' from marketing that Windows will do all this. They also 'know' that Macs are better at graphics but difficult to use, and that Linux is only for techy geeks.

It's marketing nonsense. Linux boxes and Macs are possibly more capable for all those purposes except games playing, which is a kind of chicken/egg situation as the games developers put most of their effort into supplying the largest installed platform.

Unfortunately nobody can put up as much marketing budget as MS, so they'll keep winning.

Admittedly, Windows 2003 is actually looking pretty good - not for games, but in the corporate environment - which is nice.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Lumpy]

I doubt that we'll see Linux being used for wholesale replacements of corporate desktops in the near future. Until that day does come, Linux needs to play nice with the current prevailing technology.

You are so wrong you are funny...

Why do I have to RIP IT OUT? what law or section of the Microsoft EULA states that I must not run to seperate systems side by side and make a smooth transition?

SQL servers.... replaced with Oracle or PostgreSQL or for 90% of SQL uses... MySQL easily.. ( Yes MySQL works for 90% of the corperate uses out there..) no problems at all doing this. Boom we just switched 10 servers... WEB services servers, print servers, File servers... easy transition to linux saving the IT department Tens of Thousands because the Old Proliant dual P-II 333 server is still useable, while 2003server wont install on it. and 2000server is very slow on it. Now we are saving money in tough economic times on hardware and software while the Windows desktops are happily working yet we are slowly transitioning the backend and infrastructure.. Now we can add Linux desktops easily for people like the receptionist and database guys... (Listen to them whine!)... Everyone other than Sales or departments with specalized vertical apps can be slowly switched to linux over a 2 year period.

only those that dont have a clue about migration to linux say it's impossible, can't be done easily, costs too much, bla bla bla....

until any of you nay-sayers give me real numbers and proof, you are all just making wild speculation

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

To follow your analogy, shouldn't your reply be "horseshit"?

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Technician]

It's kind of like saying people prefer the Palm OS over Win CE because it came pre-installed on their handspring. Many people buying an off the shelf computer are buying more than just the hardware. They are buying a system, including an OS to make it work. It is true that usualy a MS OS is pre-installed. Would you buy that neat P4 system with DrDOS installed? Seldom do people buy a system with the intent of installing their own OS. They buy it for what it will do off the shelf. Did you buy your last system because it came with Windows, or did you buy it because it can Rip, Mix, Burn? The OS is part of it. It's true a part could be replaced for an upgraded part, DVD burner, memory, OS, and such, but most people buy systems for what they are advertised to do.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[saskwach]

Mattress tags are not to be torn off by anyone but the consumer. It is actually a pretty big deal if someone is hawking mattresses without tags.

Your other two examples do not have anything to do with the law, and as such are irrelevant.

The big deal with the MS EULA is that they claim to own stuff that's on your hard drive. Nothing else that I can think of compares to that.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[IkeTo]

> [OEMs] put it on computers because Windows
> is the REASON that people buy the computers.

Most people buy computers because they want to do tasks like preparing and printing documents, browsing and using the web, sending, receiving, reading and posting E-mails and newsgroups, managing their bank accounts and their tax forms, creating presentations, getting, storing photos and movies they get from their digital cameras, etc. Windows is nearly never the "REASON" why people buy their computers. Instead people scold Windows when the work they want to get done gets in the way when Windows tell them that their applications has an error.

This is, of course, unless you equate preparing and printing documents with Microsoft Word, browsing and using the web with Internet Explorer, sending, receiving, reading and posting E-mails and newsgroups with Outlook Express, managing their bank accounts and their tax forms with Microsoft Money, creating presentations with Microsoft PowerPoint, getting, storing photos and movies they get from their digital cameras with Adobe Photoshop, etc. But then its the problem of the clueless user, not the problem of Linux.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hrm. Macs can connect to Windows file shares. They can also share files using Appletalk, Samba, FTP, and HTTP. Did I mention that you this all comes standard with an easy to use GUI?

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[jav1231]

I totally agree. Using Windows as the yardstick is to miss the point largely. Unfortunately, it's a Windows world and these comparisons and arguments will be made for some time. Perhaps the best thing that could happen is to be pervasive enough in the enterprise that people start asking "How well is my Linux workstation going to integrate with my Linux backend?" We can only hope! JAV ....

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Seekerofknowledge]

Actually a better comparison would be evaluating a car and saying it doesn't fit on the existing roads

Two words: Hummer H2

The fact that it is a huge obnoxious pile of metal doesn't stop idiots from buying them.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[cluckshot]

I don't think horses have gone obsolete yet! They seem to be very popular as "Recreational Vehicles. Besides does anyone remember the Special Forces in Afghanistan riding horses recently? They might still have value.

Just because Linux isn't photocopy of Windows XXXX etc means exactly nothing. I just installed Slackware 9.0 on my machine and it plays well! The problem is that Windows is assumed to be the standard. If Windows were measured against Linux using it as the standard, I suspect that it might be found seriously lacking as well.

Lacking on Windows:

Serious security like permissions that actually mean something. Actually being able to back up and restore a set of files in a reasonable amount of time.

Windows for example does not have a working backup system where you can make a full disk image of all files including those in use whereby being able to recover easily. But this stems from the Microsoft Purchace Structure. The MS guys don't want you to be able to restore your system without their "Permission." Allowing that might allow "Pirates." Because Linux doesn't care about "Pirates." It works. The objective of Linux is to work, not to pay Microsoft.

Real Security also goes against Microsoft. They think that they own your records and files.

As a Developer I have to be able to strip out and restore an operating system entirely on a regular basis for testing. Only Linux allows this! I boot up Linux and copy all the files I want to be able to restore and then I can at any time restore this image in a few minutes without going through the MS processes of hours to reconstruct an OS.

Yes Linux is under development, unfortunately MS was never under development. MS was a "Pirate" reseller from the beginning. If you developed software, and it was of value, they would contract to sell it initially. If it started to make money, they would pirate it to a parallel development team and then make the product they essentially stole and place it in the market against the original developer. The intent here was extortion to make the original developer have to sell off his product at no profit. As a result Microsoft has essentially stolen all the market for software in the USA. Linux promices to destroy this market process and as such is very valuable to programmers

Linux also has profound value to Companies. Their hardware and software can now work for them without the "Planned Destruction" of a marketing cycle such as Microsoft's newest edition of software. In My company we can still use the old slow computers very well using linux. What is more they can update easily. The developed software does not have to be thrown out regularly.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a lot of this has to do with the small in-house projects that some companies write. They don't want to have to rewrite all their Windows-based programs in order to switch over to Linux.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows is the leader. Until Linux can prove they are needed Microsoft will have no reason to provide interopability between the two.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux doesn't get viruses. Windows does. Windows is not secure

Gee. Why would someone writing a virus target Linux and their 1000 vulnerable users when it can target millions of machines at once? *Think* about it!

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you need to learn cfengine, JumpStart, how to make a customized installer, etc.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows comes preinstalled--OEM Windows was the only choice for hardware vendor. MS did a great marketing job promoting and selling their software. I think the weakest point for linux is its marketing. Technically,linux is a much superior product (although it is not as well supported by application companies) Software vendors (proprietary companies) are still trying to grapple with the Opensource business model. Much of these decisions are not technical but rather, commercial.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[SnowZero]

...and never looked back.

Obvioulsy not, or you'd know about tools such as apt, which is over 5 years old now. Or Gentoo, which has a ports clone and very bleeding edge software and support.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[amendonca]

"Corporation" software running on Access? Whatever this application is, it can't be too complicated, otherwise Access would scream and die. I agree with you, though, when you say that the migration is not as easy as some people would like it to be. More so in the client side. In any case, the migration process should be gradual. No sane person would advocate an overnight switch of operating systems.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

they put windows on them because they are FORCED to do so under a contract gun to their head by Microsoft.

Sorry, but if anything you said were true then the PC makers wouls also have versions without windows available...

No OS pc... is illegal by microsoft contracts..

get a clue before your boss at MS fills your head with crap that people actually choose microsoft...

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[electroniceric]

Spot on. You gotta work with what people have got, not what you wish they had.

This is perhaps the best review Ive ever read of a real install of Linux in Microsoft work environment (which is a huge number of places). Thorough, and insightful, and amazing propaganda-free. The point of the article was in fact that Linux is very close to being the biggest bargain of the new century - imagine getting for free what costs several hundred dollars otherwise (not to mention the TAO - Total Aggravation of Ownership of MS CALs).

The cut-and-paste problem is a tremendous nuisance, of the oh-for-Chrissakes type. In the year 2003 AD, you should just be able to copy and paste text. In fact, even the separation of the selection buffer from the cut-and-paste buffer is still imperfect in most Linux WMs. That fact that its very rarely mentioned as a shortcoming of Linux, which highlights how few times people have actually done the experiment ZDNet did.

Linux may yet take the desktop, but only after a good open-source usability model emerges.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Some Bitch]

I just migrated a site from mysql to psql, I discovered in the process that it's not just migrating from MS to linux that sucks :/

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[dublin]

My Mandrake laptop plugs in quite well. This box has run with Wins configurations, DHCP, and Netware with no problems. It's run on private sector and government networks.

You're having far better luck than I am. I've wasted a dozen hours I couldn't afford trying to get Mandrake 9.1 working on a network on my very well-supported IBM laptop. It installs OK, but absolutely refuses to get correct DNS server information from DHCP. (The DHCP server is a Linux box, BTW.) No Windows client (9x, NT, 2K) has ever had a problem, but Mandrake refuses to let itself talk to the rest of the world, making it totally useless for anything more serious than frozen bubble.

I no longer have time to spend trying to figure out how to fix broken software, so I'm sticking with Windows on the desktop for another year or two. I've even finally bitten the bullet and decided to swallow the distasteful upgrade to XP Pro with its activation hassles.

It's sad really, I've been regularly giving Linux a try on the desktop since 1997, and it's never made the grade even once - that's right, not even one time have I had any Linux distro I've tried flawlessly install and allow access to the network. (Over the years, I've tried Caldera, Debian, Corel, Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, Turbo, etc., even spending hundreds of dollars for official boxed copies in the unlikely event this would improve my chances, but no dice - I was ripped every time, although Caldera came very close to being usable.)

This is pretty basic stuff, and I'm a 20-year Unix veteran, so I'm pretty capable, but I also have better things to do than chase endless bugs and misconfigurations in flaky distros - bugs that should have been fixed long before the software shipped. It really is sad, but even today, Linux is still not up to snuff as a desktop, which is why it will have to remain confined to server duty for another year or two - until someone finally builds a distro that *does* work. (Quite oddly, Knoppix comes closer than anything else to actually delivering, but it is far too slow and constrained to be a real option. Perhaps Klaus should do a regular distro...)

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Versatile ...
>Reliability ...
>Security ...
>Power ...

Blah blah blah...

Linux fails on the desktop for four reasons:
1. Usability - 99% of the computer users are not geeky or technical enough to deal with the geek/tech slant of major linux distros. Consider how many linux setup/configure exercises force you to edit config files (not an option for most users).

2. Consistency - Very few, if any, linux applications have a consistent look and feel which makes them much harder to use since each and every application has a different UI method. Gimp is a great example of this.

3. Documentation - The overall quality of open source software is best shown through its poor or unusable documentation.

4. Overdoing the installed number of applications - A significant problem is that giving the users multiple different applications which do the same thing (e.g., text editors) means that it is much harder for the user to know which one will do the job that they want. Experienced users will want multiple choices but novice and average users (e.g. the vast majority of them) will want fewer choices.

The bright spots of Linux are in bootable general purpose OS (Knoppix) and special purpose bootable distros (Whomp, multimedia applications, knoppix mame, etc.).

Some suggestions for Linix distros:
1. Ship only one of each application type
2. Contribute cross application common look and feel as well as quality online help and documentation for open source software packages.
3. Ship the OS distro on bootable CDs.
4. Adopt a modern windowing system instead of X

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[sheldon]

Wow, that would make Windows98 superior to WindowsXP.

I don't see how considering WindowsXP is outselling Windows 98.

But certainly Windows 98 was superior than NT4 from the consumers point of view.

If everybody would think like you, we would still live in the stone age.... Nobody would ever try anything new because they would think the old way of doing it would be "superior"...

Now where did I ever suggest you not try new products?

As a consumer, you evaluate the options given to you and pick the solution that is best for you.

My point is only that the term "superior" means something different to different people. For some a BMW is the superior car, for others it is a Honda. Does the Honda drive better than the BMW? No... but it's more affordable, and for those who can't budget $40k for a car, the BMW is a non-starter.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[AstroDrabb]

Write some MS specific markup, it'll only work with MS browsers. Whose fault is that? Microsoft's? Only partially, in my opinion.

What? How the hell is it only partially MS's fault? There is a standard. If you deviate from that, you cannot expect others to be able to use it unless you publish those deviations. We all know MS does NOT publish their deviations from standards. For example, IT at my company just upgraded to the "latest and greatest" exchange server (damn it sucks). It has a web interface. When you log in with IE, you get completely different HTML, then if you log in with a none IE browser. I then used Mozilla and got completely different HTML, next I had Mozilla use an IE User Agent string, now agian, I get different HTML, that is no where near the published standard for HTML.

Industries work on standards, the world works on standars. The only industry that is screwed up is the IT industry because of ONE nasty monopoly that is MS. Electrical Engineers can build based on standard parts that have a known function such as transitors, capacitors, etc. Surgeons, can use medical equipment with know functionality. Automakers make cars with know functionality and standards, etc, etc. Remove MS the monopoly and the IT industry would become a much nicer place to work in with far greater interoperabilty.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[blakstorm]

It's easier to target windoze lusers with viruses, being that MS's idea of "security" is Norton Antivirus and crappy aftermarket firewalls.

You wouldn't believe how many of my computer iliterate friends just run Noton when their computer is running slow. They automatically assume it's a virus (which it probably is anyway), but most of the time its the Windows system itself (i.e System Restore) or some crappy software/adware they installed like Kazaa Media Desktop.

I'm new to Linux, but from what i can tell, the machines are extrenely secure. I would assume that viruses would need root priveleges to wreak any real havoc on a Linux system anyways.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[kmac06]

This reminds me of something a friend once told me. He said if he ruled the world, he would only have two laws:

1. No one can have a gun except for him.
2. Wearing blue is punishable by death.

The idea is to never enforce rule #2, unless someone is an enemy, then you can kill him and say, 'Well he was wearing blue, and that is clearly punishable by death.'

I'll leave it to you to find the similarities here...

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[General Fault]

The point is not of course which is faster to set up. I certainly don't disagree that setting up Linux can be (when it has all been pre-scripted) much faster to install and configure than Windows (also running a pre-config install). The point is that it is much more difficult for the guy working in a Windows based company to set up a single machine. I have done this several times for different reasons (file server, web server and a source server) and each time took a considerable amount of time. It would not have been practicle to spend even more time to create and test a scripted intsall for these one time uses.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[blakstorm]

i'm an ASE certified automotive mechanic, trust me BMWs really do drive better than Hondas. In terms of performance, stability when turning, safety features, features (like limited-slip differentials), larger, more responsive engines with rear wheel drive, i could really go on and on... BMW's are FAR more superior than Hondas, but for broke college students like me, they are a godsend.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

To the majority of the populus, a Mac is "a computer for a different demographic."

That's slowly changing, but it's still true.

Most people don't consider a Mac on technical merits when purchasing a PC.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[FurryFeet]

Used your lawnmower without safety goggles?

Yep.
I also removed the cover of my brand new Braille keyboard.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[bninja_penguin]

I'm in that same minority. I mean, sure, the EULAs are probably not leagally enforceable, but what if they are? Where will the person be who just agrees to any EULA, thinking it doesn't matter, if they are enforceable? I'm sure you are aware of the stunt SCO is trying to pull. What if Microsoft decided one day to put their rescources into enforcing the EULA, and claiming every system running XP as their own? Besides, if I DON'T agree, why would I click the button that says" "I agree"?? That would be stupid.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[bninja_penguin]

Exactly what my experience has been. XP is a bitch in pretty clothes and a smile. Most of my customers have just barely grasped basic functionality of Win9x, and when confronted with XP, just about panic. It is that much different from what they just spent three years trying to figure out.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[occupant4]

Linux is different than Windows, and only more difficult when it doesn't come preinstalled.

I beg to differ. Linux is FAR more difficult, regardless of whether it was preinstalled or not.

A few months ago, my girlfriend was getting sick of Windows frequently crashing, and she suspected it had a virus. At my suggestion, she decided to give Linux a try. After all, the only things she used her computer for were surfing the web, listening to mp3s, and the occasional word processing. I installed Redhat 9 for her. It's been a few months since then, and she is still confused by Linux. For one thing, she doesn't know how to install new programs. Windows: download .exe file and double-click. Linux: download .rpm file, fire up a shell, rpm -i file, download dependencies after it fails, rpm -i files, repeat; OR, fire up a shell, apt-get install package.

Despite how simple you may think .rpm's are compared to installing something from source, they are still way too hard to use!. Double-clicking on an install file and have it immediately work is orders of magnitudes better than the (many) Linux alternatives. Having to fire up a shell is simply too complicated for the average user. Yes, it may be easy for you and me, but learning these commands are not what normal people want to do in their spare time. And the wonderful diversity everyone always harps about actually makes Linux a lot harder to use - instead of a nice set of standard libraries, everyone chooses their own, and it creates dependency hell. In Windows, I don't have to download 40 libraries to use a program. I don't care how it works, all I have to do is double click and my program is running.

It amazes me how so many /.ers think Linux is just as easy to use as Windows. It is not! Get over it! I've been using Linux for 10 years, and I still don't delude myself into thinking it's easy. The fact is, in Windows, things work instantly. In Linux, you have to know what you're doing, and play around with it for hours or days before getting things to work. Perhaps the effort is worth it (and in my case, I think it is) - but that doesn't make Linux easy to use.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[cyb97]

Just wait until you have to do psql->mysql... that's worse (if you use all the advanced features of psql).
But then compare it to migrating from Access or worse ?

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[AstroDrabb]

I have yet to see where Linux does not play well with other OSes. I have no problems with samba under Red Hat 9 and connecting to the MS network here at work. I can work with Mac's, I can work with Active Directory and other LDAP servers. I can work with NFS shares from Solaris and connect into Oracle and SQL Server. I think the article is way off base because they only tested out how well SuSE was able to build thier OS to use Samba for ms windows shares. Why didn't the reviewer try to tweak samba? Why didn't the reviewer try the largest Linux distribution which is Red Hat? You have to configure an MS Windows network, why wouldn't someone be expected to do a little configuration for a Linux/SMB netowrk?

And as far as working with other OSes, MS sucks at it. How many file systems can it do out of the box verses what Linux can do? How many different network protocols can ms windows do out of the box verses Linux? I just recently had to handle some mac files on my Linux workstation because the other guys ms windows workstation didn't know how to read the CD. MS windows does not play nice with any other OS. It is ever other OS that is expected to play nice with windows. If you were to take away every ms window box, you would be suprised at how well all machines played together. Solaris, FreeBSD, Mac, Linux, BeOS, etc would all be able to work together over standard protocols.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[tetabiate]

Installing new programs in RedHat 9 is as easy as in
Windows. Open nautilus or KDE filemanager, click on
the icon of the application to be installed, type
root password and that's all. Dependencies will
continue to be a problem, there are some efforts to
provide automatic dependency resolution (Ximian
RedCarpet, Apt-rpm, urpmi, etc.) But I agree in
part with you, Linux does not have (at present) an
intuitive desktop interface nor has resolved the
problem of integrating all the facilities Windows
provides.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[ccp]

Why FUNNY?

This comment is clearly +1 INSIGHTFUL!

Cheers,

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone ever come under scrutiny, been prosecuted, chastised, or even yelled at for violating something that was only present in the EULA?

Yes. Try to sell your old copy of Windows that you don't use anymore on eBay, and you will become one of those people.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[el_chicano]

I've wasted a dozen hours I couldn't afford trying to get Mandrake 9.1 working on a network on my very well-supported IBM laptop. It installs OK, but absolutely refuses to get correct DNS server information from DHCP.

You can either edit resolv.conf and manually add a DNS server entry (one line!) or set up a local DNS cache. Both are simple fixes, and should take no more than a couple of minutes for your AVERAGE computer geek to accomplish.

No Windows client (9x, NT, 2K) has ever had a problem, but Mandrake refuses to let itself talk to the rest of the world, making it totally useless for anything more serious than frozen bubble.

Mandrake works great for me on both my workstation at work and my PC at home. I was actually surprised at how easily it set up my internet connection sharing, I thought I would have to read a few FAQs and HOW-TOs and manually edit some config files. As a computer geek I look forward to doing stuff like that but if I can free up a few minutes so that I can do other stuff I will not complain too much! :->

I no longer have time to spend trying to figure out how to fix broken software, so I'm sticking with Windows on the desktop for another year or two.

LOL! Nice non sequitur there!

It's sad really, I've been regularly giving Linux a try on the desktop since 1997, and it's never made the grade even once - that's right, not even one time have I had any Linux distro I've tried flawlessly install and allow access to the network.

PEBKAC. Don't blame Linux for your shortcomings as as computer geek.

This is pretty basic stuff, and I'm a 20-year Unix veteran, so I'm pretty capable, but I also have better things to do than chase endless bugs and misconfigurations in flaky distros - bugs that should have been fixed long before the software shipped.

Hmmm... how about all the security updates that Microsoft has been putting out? Do you blindly install all of them due to a lack of time or do you take time to inspect each and every one to see what "endless bug" or "misconfiguration" Microsoft has foisted on you this time?

It really is sad, but even today, Linux is still not up to snuff as a desktop, which is why it will have to remain confined to server duty for another year or two - until someone finally builds a distro that *does* work.

Well for me and millions of others out there Linux works! It obviously works on the server or else people would be migrating to the various BSDs. It also works well on the desktop, otherwise you would be seeing millions of ex-Linux users switching to OS-X...

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

The difference is that getting rid of the staff means getting more staff to replace them. Getting rid of the windows boxen doesn't mean get more windows boxen to replace them...

When you have a staff member who steals from you, it is the best solution to replace him/her with one who doesn't. When you have an operating system that steals from you (theft is what I call it when a company intentionally breaks compatiblity with previous versions to force you to pay them more money, or breaks open standards to keep you using their products) the best solution is to replace it with one that doesn't.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[bigbadwlf]

The most popular product is ALWAYS the superior product, the consumers have made it so.

Definition of "Superior"

Nowhere in that definition does it indicate that "superior" is a synonym of "popular"

Do you also believe that the Backstreet Boys are superior to all other music artists because more radio stations play them?

The fact is, I haven't tried to redefine "superior" pal, you have.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[bigbadwlf]

They buy it for what it will do off the shelf.

In that case, Windows is a means to that end. People only care about the end result, not that Windows is what is being used to get there.

You can Rip, Mix and Burn on a Linux system too.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

ummm ok, now enclose a table between two tags. Display that on IE6wsp1, note how the contents are centered rather than just the table.

Now display it on any standards compliant browser, note how the contents are NOT centered but the table is.

Explain to me how creating an entirely different method of invoking javascript than the one that netscape created and the standards body adopted creates some kind of enhanced functionality when the standard method already gives the ability to define any type of scripting language. Explain to me how populating this IE only method of starting your script, that will instantly break it on every other browser for no reason, all over the net is an extension or improvement. This is one very good example. They create their way of invoking javascript that gives you zero additional functionality, not even on the surface, isn't easier or shorter or more flexible or less flexible, simply different syntax. They spread it around in all their examples and tutorials etc. In the meantime their browser will interpret it with either. People all over who don't know any better start using it in their code and publishing further examples with it. Now you have lots and lots of websites out there who scripts won't function in any browser but IE. Did microsoft do something wrong? Your damn right they did.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[bigbadwlf]

The fact is, in Windows, things work instantly.

No the fact is, things are supposed to work instantly.
You should really try supporting Windows XP sometime.

As for your girlfriend, she finds Linux difficult because she's already learned something different.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

Yeah, especially considering every movement in access, every record opened, every client opened etc, communicates with EVERY open copy of access on the network. The network overhead caused by access increases exponentially.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[el_chicano]

Yes... there are such things as too many choices.

In a capitalist economy there is NEVER such a thing as too many choices! Look at cars: Ford, GM, Toyota, Nissan, Audi, BMW, etc. How would so many car companies exist if consumers had a hard time choosing between them?

The average user just wants something put down in front of them that works.

That is where standards come into play. If every car had the controls in different places can you imagine the confusion?

Having to choose, and understand why they are choosing, one particular distribution over all the others is beyond most of them and beyond what they care about.

That is where experts come into play. If you want to make sure the car you want to buy is not a lemon then you go to a mechanic. Why should buying a computer be any different?

For most, they know they need whatever is the latest Windows to run all their software and games.

That is a cultural, not a technical issue. Microsoft has convinced the less-than-clueful that everyone must drive a six-cylinder sedan with automatic transmission that comes in one color only! That in spite of the fact that some people need more power, some need better gas mileage, etc.

Choice is always good, but Linux needs a six-cylinder sedan with automatic transmission that comes in one color too. Some people will never progress beyond driving that kind of car but Linux needs to keep giving people options in case they need a pickup truck or want a sports car instead...

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

"1. Usability - 99% of the computer users are not geeky or technical enough to deal with the geek/tech slant of major linux distros. Consider how many linux setup/configure exercises force you to edit config files (not an option for most users)."

Consider that especially in corporate desktops and really on a home user level that 99% of computer users have no business performing any task that could be labeled as "setup/configure exercises". This is a thorn in linux's side. Microsoft has spread a load of crap that these tasks can be acomplished by your average user. Sometimes they manage them using microsoft's wizard, 80% of the time they do they call me to come in and fix what they broke because they don't know how the machine works and how applications interact and in short, didn't know what the fucking consequences of their actions were.

"2. Consistency - Very few, if any, linux applications have a consistent look and feel which makes them much harder to use since each and every application has a different UI method. Gimp is a great example of this."

I used to agree with this, but not anymore. It isn't that linux is getting better on this subject (although it is). But consider this, every Nintendo, sega, playstation game, has a different UI, yet gamers who buy a new game usually just stick the cd in and play... why can they adapt so easy? Because every nintendo, sega, and playstation game has a different UI. The different UI's on linux won't mean it will take someone significantly longer to learn computers, it will mean that your average computer user will be adapt at learning new applications once they have worked with a couple, regardless of UI.

"3. Documentation - The overall quality of open source software is best shown through its poor or unusable documentation."

Actually I somewhat agree here. At least with the shoddy documentation. The people making it are programmers and not technical authors, the docs are about what I'd expect if you asked to programming staff at any corporate software project to write the docs as well. The real problem here is an unsolvable one. The is too much documentation! I can write a howto or tutorial etc on any open source technology I want and publish it... the quality is dependant on me and not the author of the app.

"4. Overdoing the installed number of applications - A significant problem is that giving the users multiple different applications which do the same thing (e.g., text editors) means that it is much harder for the user to know which one will do the job that they want. Experienced users will want multiple choices but novice and average users (e.g. the vast majority of them) will want fewer choices."

I agree, there is no point to this at all. Including is fine, installing by default is not. Simply including a synaptic interface for those who want to install other editors etc is more than sufficient and gives those underknowledged users a clean seperated understanding of what is going on. They don't need great knowledge to install a text editor through synaptic, but they know they did it, and when they have two different ones they know why and they should at least know that the one they intentionally installed opens text.

P.S. X is actually fine, if you run the current stable kernel that was released not too far back it's actually amazing how much "snappier" everything is. It wasn't x, it was kernel ide handling that makes the linux gui feel sluggish, go figure.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[occupant4]

No the fact is, things are supposed to work instantly. You should really try supporting Windows XP sometime.

I don't know what problems you've had with Windows XP, but it works fine for me. Videos, sound, games, everything works perfectly right away and is all integrated. Programs take seconds to install as I have said. None of this works so easily in Linux. The bottom line is, Windows is easier (far easier) to use than Linux, no matter which OS you first grew accustomed to.

I'm not sure what you mean by "supporting", but I have developed software for Windows. Trying to get my friends to install it was at first a pain, because I distributed a .zip file and asked them to copy it to a certain directory. This was too difficult for a surprising number of people. When I released it with a self-installing .exe, people had no problem downloading it and double-clicking it. Why? Not because they have "learned" to double click install files. It's because it doesn't take any learning to do simple tasks in Windows, whereas in Linux, you have to know what you're doing.

As for your girlfriend, she finds Linux difficult because she's already learned something different.

That's ridiculous and incorrect. As I had stated, things work much more simply in Windows. It takes no learning. She never "learned" how to use Windows. Things just worked. Now that she has Linux, which requires her to know things about the way the system works (not a requirement in Windows), it is difficult. One might argue that the steep learning curve is a good thing to keep non-techies away from computers, but I'm sure anyone who isn't a sanctimonious geek will admit that computers should be easy to use.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the sales team are the ones being dealt with it will make them look stupid regardless of IT being at fault.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

What absolute crap...

Windows gets harder to use with every version. Case in point, try sharing a folder and assigning permissions in Win2K. With XP, sharing folders is a serious PITA. Secondly, try finding a file. Thirdly, oh wait gotta go reboot...just got my daily Windows critical security patch installed.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately preinstalled or not, they still choose it, I've help many people upgrade and buy new computer, the vast majority of them starting from scratch, no os instsalled but they still choose microsoft and as much as I don't like they have good reasons for it, Linux doesn't always play well with there devices and with there work needs, especially if you use a pda and have anything other than the basic software installed. I know that most the people I help out are member of the medical community and they would switch if they could use the programs the need and if it would always connect to there work machine... but it doesn't so they choose windows over linux. Me I have time to sit and try to figure it and I can't always get it working, now I don't want to have to explain why they can't log on to get there work done.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[bigbadwlf]

By supporting Windows, I mean providing technical support to end users in instances where things don't "just work" as you say they should.

You're also taking for granted that every Joe Sixpack knows what "double click" means or what the difference between a "desktop" and a "screen saver" is.

For something that's so easy to use, I spend a lot of time explaining remedial things to end users, so don't try to tell me that Windows has no learning curve for the average user.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[rifter]

Well, the obvious solution is to get rid of all the Windows machines on the network. Presto, problem solved!

I know you are being funny, but really my reading of the article leads me to believe they needed to bring in someone who actually understands how smb browsing and windows permissions work and set up SAMBA correctly. The problems they describe would actually happen to a Windows box which was incorrectly set up, but frequently people blame the tool instead of learning to use it.

Windows smb browsing is not magic; it follows a very specific methodology. I also had a chuckle when they found it unaceptable, upon not getting permission to read and write to a directory, that they should have to change the permissions on that directory. The problem is probably more complex than they make it out to be and unfortunately we have no details, but I don't see how this could not have been overcome by having more competent windows and/or samba staff.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Citizen of Earth]

horses were still used for some purposes in WWI, and I'm sure the army wasn't the only one.

They were also still used in defending Poland in WWII.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[intermodal]

Windows is the leader in market, Linux is the leader in cost-effectiveness and actual work-related statistics. Only when you compare apples to oranges like this do any of Linux's "problems" mean a thing.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[occupant4]

Okay, so perhaps it takes some amount of learning to be able to use a computer. Like learning how to use a mouse and/or keyboard. And learning what double clicking is. And learning shell variables and PATHs and shell commands and rpm flags and how to organize your filesystem so you can install rpms + resolve dependencies and how to understand what "unresolved dependencies" even means. Oh wait, that last one only applies to Linux.

I'm not taking for granted that Joe Sixpack knows his ass from his elbow. All I'm saying is that Windows is far easier to use than Linux. Try explaining a command shell to one of those end users who doesn't know what "double click" means. I'd say you'd have far greater luck letting them use Windows.

As a side note, I have used Linux almost extensively for the past 10 years. I've learned most of the ins and outs of using a Linux system. And yet I still admit that Windows is much easier to use. You could argue that I still haven't learned enough about Linux in the 10 years I've used it, but this only further proves my point. I know nothing about Windows, and it is quite usable for me. And easier than Linux.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[cmay]

This was modded up as Funny...

But isn't this the response that a lot of people on /. would give??

Isn't that part of the issue here?

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[deaddrunk]

Consider that especially in corporate desktops and really on a home user level that 99% of computer users have no business performing any task that could be labeled as "setup/configure exercises". This is a thorn in linux's side. Microsoft has spread a load of crap that these tasks can be acomplished by your average user. Sometimes they manage them using microsoft's wizard, 80% of the time they do they call me to come in and fix what they broke because they don't know how the machine works and how applications interact and in short, didn't know what the fucking consequences of their actions were.

You say that like it's the user's fault that they've been lulled into a false sense of security. If software is unusable by the least computer-literate person you know then you didn't design it properly. I'm sick and tired of trying to figure out any kind of method behind the madness of 'clever' coders. Perhaps if some of the high and mighty posers on this forum tried to put themselves in the position of the users occasionally instead of dissing them for not knowing what you know our jobs might not all be heading to India.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

Yes, but they didn't publish *all* of it....

Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[4of12]

Windows and Linux both use the same roads.

No, they don't.

Windows boxes use the deeply rutted cowpaths that are the many flavors of Office, Outlook, Access and IE and the various binary formats with undocumented behaviors.

Of course it galls the purists that a fine racing machine should have to be re-engineered to be able to run through all these crufty paths, but that's the reality. It's the reality that is facing Linux.

However, it's getting really close to the tipping point, where Linux will be a cheaper backwardly-compatible solution for Windows legacy houses than the newer versions of Windows, mainly because MS wants to push people onto upgrade treadmills.

Periodic reviews of the viability of desktop Linux may keep coming back with "good, but not yet".

The fact is that desktop Linux is constantly improving, getting better all the time, and perfectly acceptable in more and more situations.

The desktop war won't be won in a single day when all of Gartner and every Fortune 500 company redeploys overnight.

It will be won gradually, as first the fringe elements (academic institutions, charities, small cost-conscious technology-heavy businesses) adopt first. Then, single app and POS applications, then more mainstream use will come.

It's exactly how the commodity PC was originally established back in the 1980s as it won out over the mainframes and minicomputers. It will be the same way that Linux is established.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

1. That's not true, obviously you've never tried to install a modern desktop distribution, it's no more easy or difficult than installing windows... actually a bit easier since 99% of the time you don't have to install any sort of driver.

2. If your statement about least resistance were true than the pc wouldn't have won the war vs macintosh. MacOS was and is far easier to use than windows, and the gap between how easy they were was far far wider then. Cheap trumps easy in a world where most people are broke. Guess what, it's a recession, everybody is broke. Try again.

3. The Linux desktop market is growing, the mac desktop isn't shrinking.... I wonder where it's coming from.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

That's a pretty damn good analogy. One important addition though, microsoft not only uses special gas caps. But the gas caps they used were designed to be special and patented for only the purpose making the other cars spill gas, they don't benefit the car in any way, don't make fueling faster or more efficient, their one and only purpose is to make it so gas is spilled when fueling other cars.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

umm perhaps your a bit old? Nowdays everybody DOES admire the abnormal kids in school. You see the average intelligence has increased worldwide and continues to with each generation (evolution at work, I'll debate the start but we do evolve and faster than ever) kids are smart enough to realize those abnormal people are the ones who end up making all the money and the females are wising up to it.

Please note, "everybody" refers to the average joe, the average joe has an iq under 150 and true intelligence to match his low iq. Everybody is a fucking idiot. As stated above, it's improving, thank god.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

I think the parent meant in court, not being psyched out by microsoft. AFAIK the concept of a EULA that empowers the copyright owner above and beyond the rights given them by copyright law has not been validated in court. Especially click through EULA's like microsoft's.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

No that's something present in copyright law. Powers beyond what copyright law gives them, but are present as terms of the EULA have never been successfully enforced in a court of law with sufficient status to set real precedent AFAIK.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

They didn't publish the entire protocol. I'm sure they'd love for smb to become a standard.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[mgblst]

Yeah, well in Adelaide, not much stuff had changed...

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

Your first problem is that you've been using linux for 10yrs. This makes you think of things from the more advanced perspective and your not neccesarily as familiar with the new features. In redhat 9, actually 7.2 was the first redhat version I gave a whirl and it supported it as well, you simply double click on an rpm file to install it, no need to fire up a shell at all.

But the best answer is to install synaptic, just point apt-get at freshrpms, install apt-get and synaptic using their rpms. Out of the box you can download and double click their rpm for apt-get on redhat 9. After install it's preconfigured, now you can apt-get install synaptic, bam installs. Now your girlfriend can pick her apps out of lists and categories and when she finds something she likes, she just clicks install. If she doesn't need something she brings it up in the list and clicks uninstall. It's that easy.

In windows your program either has the libraries included (which for some odd reason alot of linux developers don't do?). Or has the same dependency hell, hence vb apps etc. Worse is version difficulty, if you have an old dll in windows and the new version doesn't come with the app, the windows installer doesn't exactly bitch and stop like rpm... or gracefully fetch it from the web like apt. No sir.

It installs, and you start getting an occasional bluescreen... that doesn't start popping up until a month later. Bah whats a bluescreen a week, you continue installing apps and playing with things... alas another of your apps updates the lib when you install it... but this one is too new... now you get a bluescreen a day... 3 months later, this process has continued, you now have 12 items loading on the bar by your clock, you call the tech, he comes out, msconfigs your box and runs ad-aware cleaning off your spyware and crap. Tells you to keep an eye on your bluescreen since he doesn't see and finds nothing apparently wrong.

Another month goes by, you find no pattern, you think it happens when your on yahoo games (of course that's all you do, so your always on yahoo games). He installs the real sun java on your system and checks safe mode and removes some ghost devices (of course they were really there upon the fresh install your friend performed of your pirated windows OS). You find your bluescreens are only once or twice a week again and your system only have to be rebooted twice a day now, this is the best you can remember this thing has ever run.

Another month goes by, your blue screens are daily again, your new camera doesn't work (you don't know to use it) and your system is so damn slow it makes you sick. The tech comes out, he sees your two gazillion memory resident apps and 50 installed programs, and the camera you plugged in before running the cd (big no no, now he'd have to delete a buried registry key if he knows where to find it, but like most he only knows to delete it in safe mode and is baffled when this fails) so explains that he is going to need to format and start over (after all he's costing $55 an hour and it will take an hour just to defrag your system, let alone fight the usb problem on the camera you spent $50 on at walmart and clean up your application hell, he's saving you money). Repeat cycle adjusting time frames to match time spans between 3-12months total, continue repeating until 2-5yrs has passed, at which time he upgrades you or recommends a new computer.

Have I missed anything?

Alternative, have the tech install linux and get it setup and locked down for you w/synaptic. 6months later, you plug your camera in, the cd doesn't work, you call the tech. He come out and installs your camera and shows you how to use it. 1yr later, you call the tech, he tells you that app you downloaded off the net won't work, he doesn't come out. 2-10yrs later, you call a computer store to purchase an upgrade... they quote you a system with windows... you go with it, 1 month into the above cycle you call the first tech and have him install linux for you, repeat

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

You'd hate working linux tech support, can you imagine phone tech for a system where right clicking on x icon always has a different result and x icon may or may not be there... remember how annoying it was when xp came out and you'd say "click the right button on my computer and then click on properties" and instead of "do I left click or right click on properties" or "what's my computer" they say "I don't have one that says my computer" then you have to sit and wonder whether or not they have xp or 10000 icons and can't find it.

Or they say they deleted a file (which of course means clicked a link and went to a different webpage) and can't find it. You try to have them open the recycle bin to look for it, they can't find the recycle bin, you have them check the start menu (after all you just got nailed by the xp my computer thing on the last call) and then it turns out that they have installed systemworks and the icon for the recycle bin has been changed and it was renamed to "Norton Protected", then you hit your mute button and bash your head against the cubicle which the guy next to you ignores since the cubicle is alway shaking from head bashing and foot thumping.

Now imagine that this is every call, and every icon, and that simply because the icon doesn't exist doesn't mean that function isn't enabled or isn't needed.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

Your father was wrong, there is typically 1 person with enough intelligence to be qualified to make a proper choice on what to eat for breakfast out of 10,000.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

Are you nuts? Until very very recently you couldn't even purchase a pc that didn't have windows installed. Most don't even know it's there.

When I ask what version of windows is installed on the pc literally the most common response I hear is "97 I think, yeah yeah, it's definately 97"

The reason OEMS put windows on their computers is that 1, microsoft gives them pricing if they don't install other OS that reduce the pull of free. And 2, they don't want to have to replace their tech support staff.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

Superior is not equivelent to "most popular" whatever you think. Superior is accomplishing a task in a more efficient manner. Linux is that.

Apple preinstalls MacOS, you'll find 95% of apple computer users run what's preinstalled, MacOS.

You sound much like a marketing or sales droid who believes in capitalism.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[NortWind]

Has anyone ever come under scrutiny,...

The EULA is just a legal backing for MS to do whatever they want on what should be your own machine. Today this may mean encrypting your MP3's for you so they won't play on your car's MP3 player. Tomorrow, who knows? They may remotely shut off operation of your MS Office for failure to pay an annual "service fee". Likely they will do whatever they feel will best enhance their revenue stream. You might like it, you might not. My guess is you won't.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

Not just that, but the DOJ settlement doesn't require microsoft to open up ALL of it's protocols, and the wording the settlement basically leaves the choice up to microsoft. They really have to throw a bone once in awhile to convince the judge they are being good and otherwise don't have to do chit.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

Ahh another windows user who thinks he's the great experimenter because he installed linux once and ran it for 3 days. Using terms like "sonny" he feels his vast experience in life means his view on things is obviously superior (although his view on something that's been out a year is not neccesarily any more insightful than a two years old).

I wonder, as you get older, is it a concious choice to close your mind and resist change? Or do you convince yourself that the things that matter aren't changing so much, or just that the changes aren't good ones? Or do you just get tired of learning new things? I'm curious because I'm wondering at what age this will happen to me... it's already happened to friends of mine. Did you know the the number of perfect SAT scores increases 10 fold with each generation. Generation X aren't teenagers anymore, the teenagers now are the generation after... do you resist that change as well? Generation X has gone on to college and been part of some of the most amazing advances in technology the world will ever face. It will be the generations that follow that utilize these advances though and do things with them.

In any case, linux offers a hell of alot more than behind the scenes benefits, it's easier to use (despite what the people below technician knowledge and above the average pc user knowledge listen to), vastly superior "under the hood" and offers plenty of benefits that video game generations like X will have no trouble taking advantage of in virtually every task they perform on a pc. Basic scripting is nothing for someone who can learn the new ui's and special move combinations for 5 new games in a week on his playstation 2... my generation is capped at about 1 a week.

The support for multimedia on linux is incredible, programmers do have to make a living, most do it with in house programming. As open source software gains popularity it will gain more programmers who will accelerate the improvements beyond what they were. Those who support linux are making leaps and bounds and the development keeps speeding up and not slowing down.

We heard about this company that wanted to defy the windows world a few months ago, saying that if they won't write the games for linux, then we'll make the games work on linux despite them... today virtually every major title can be played on linux via WineX and some companies are already starting to make linux versions of their games natively. Not to mention, many of those WINDOWS versions run FASTER on linux than windows as is, on SLOWER hardware. Don't tell me linux multimedia support sucks, the capability for vastly superior games is there along with everything else.

The linux community in general isn't aimming at joe consumer, it's aiming at business desktops, it's gaining more and more joe consumers each and every day as a side effect.

Remember alot of the people coding for open source projects are being paid to do so... they are being paid to write a new feature their company needs, this feature is being added because the app in question is open source, he finds a bug or two while at it, so they give it back, partially because it doesn't hurt to give back bug fixes whether or not they give the feature and partially because if they give it back then updating their software won't break the improvements and fixes they paid him to write. A handful of programmers at large work for big software houses, most programmers are in house programmers or programmers who write custom applications, these programmers won't lose a wink of sleep due to opensource. They will breath easier knowing there will be more jobs for them (since having the code and not reaching a dead end when x app can't do x thing but rather an option to have someone write in the feature often means taking that option).

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[wawadave]

i a gree with you on this.the microsucks lock in is just too much!

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

No, it doesn't make immediate economic sense. We can only guess at how much money said company lost in productivity long term because they didn't bite the bullet and pay for the upgrade. The cost of having a new app produced and archiving the old crap wouldn't have been any greater than the cost of having it produced in the first place. Any corporate manager who decided to spent enough money that they can't dump the solution in 5yrs was an idiot and should have been fired for making the call before it happened. But honestly, in the real world developing even MS-OFFICE size applications doesn't cost millions (except come tax time + corporate waste), it costs thousands and the smaller your business, the less thousands it will take to get an app that will suffice... it would be hard to spend enough money on a CRITICAL application that it can't be wiped in 5yrs.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

Implementing both linux and windows solutions for business and home desktops is what I do every day. The only ones who go back are those who don't use a linux solution for at least 3 months. We call it the 90 day mark. Fortunately the first business I convinced my boss to let me implement linux few, now we actually have notifications to let us know when businesses have. NOBODY switches after using the solution for 90 days (and no that's not our guaranteee period), or wants to.

Basically, the short of it is, if they give it a valid chance, then they end up wanting linux, even if they've used windows for the past 10yrs.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

Your right, the price of the OS is a small portion of the TCO in a windows network, it's paying the techs and downtime. None of these factors are significant on a linux network however. Your largest cost is hardware... oh sure it your tech might cost you more if he's really well paid and stays with you for 100yrs... but seeing as how you only need the one tech.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can purchase pc's (personal computers) without Windows. Macintosh for instance. Lindows for another.

If people are REALLY telling you that Windows 97 is installed, I suspect you might be in some place like Batswana. Just about every windows user was familiar with the year designation on consumer versions (97 was not one of them), so if anything, the layperson who was clueless might say Windows 2003. Microsoft does enough marketing to make people aware of the last 4 versions of Windows (98, ME, 2000, XP) and they would pull one of those out of their butt before saying '97'. Unless of course, they are a Mac user (there was an Office 97 on the Mac) in which case, you are asking Apples about umm..Windows.

The manufacturers are not FORCED to load windows on their computers. They have an option, to sell Windows, or not sell Windows. Let's say, in Microsofts world you must choose one or the other. The fact is, 95% of computers are sold with Windows, because that is what people want. Dell or HP could decide to ditch Windows all together, and watch their sales sink to zero. But, they understand what sells their computers- the de facto standard operating system, which is Windows.

Conspiracy theories aside, Joe User would be pissed if he bought a computer and brought it home, and it DIDN'T have Windows.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

Jobs heading to india is because labor there is cheap and plentiful. Keep on topic please.

Installing a piece of software or hardware into a computer system is a major operation. I'm not saying it's the user's fault for not knowing the consequences, I'm saying it's microsoft's fault for doing the lulling in the first place. Software should be easy to use... there is no reason it should sacrifice additional flexiblity and/or functionality for an easy install (in the same token if there is no gain there's no reason for the complexity).

It should only be installed by someone who DOES know the consequences of those actions. There is nothing wrong with a powerful and flexible installation tool geared toward users with that level of knowledge and no reason to dumb beyond that point. Broken means a tool doesn't function for those who know how to use it. A programmable calculator is a wonderful tool, in 99% of cases out there they are simple enough. But the average person floating around doesn't know how to use one, and would fail to learn with the documentation that comes with them... there is nothing wrong with that, the calculators are designed for those who have the mathmatical knowledge to take advantage of them.

The UI of the app should be designed for the user (assuming it's a user and not administrator level app) the installer should be designed for the admin/guru.

I'm not bashing users, I'm bashing microsoft, I am truely sorry if that's how I came across. I'm not saying users are doing anything wrong (well I am, but not intentionally). I'm saying their ignorant on the consequences of their actions... and thus the actions should not be dumbed down to users with a lower knowledge level than should be performing them.

If perscriptions were abolished (and this analogy sets aside physicians abusing this) then people would start taking drugs they shouldn't and hurt themselves. The right thing to do is of course to consult a physician, that's what a physician does, he studies the human body and medication, when you have a problem he diagnoses the systems and determines a solution. A computer technician does the same, he studies your computer, that's what he does... you perhaps are a lawyer, or a physician, I don't expect you to study computers and technology in that field any more than you expect me to study medicine or law. Just as I should consult my lawyer when taking on a significant legal task, or my doctor on a significant medical task, you should consult me before taking on a significant computer function. It's easy to pop a pill, that doesn't mean you shouldn't call your doctor before doing it.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

Actually my experience on the subject of the windows version answer comes from technical support for sony electronics at the call center in which all of thier US and Canada support is handled (ft meyers florida). My experience as an independent technician before and after that, and present experience as a computer technician. BTW office 97 was released on windows as well, it's still the most commonly used version of the office suite (although it's on it's way out). But since your an expert on these matters with field experience that involves dealing with 50+ users from varied home and business organizations daily for the past 10yrs you already know that.

Yes 95% of desktop computers have windows on them, or least came from the store with it. This is what is called a monopoly, so the choice for them isn't have windows or don't, it's have windows or die. Your pc's without Operating systems have come since the doj ruling... and you notice that vendors are starting to provide these now that they can. No operating system they are finding isn't a good choice because the computer doesn't work without one... obviously the right solution is to offer pc's with operating systems... and to offer them with DIFFERENT operating systems as well as windows.

ouch, but if you are still going to offer windows at all (and you have to since it's a monopoly and you want to stay in business) then microsoft STILL prejudices vendors who sell no OS or linux based pc's, offering discounts for those who only sell windows. You have to have the discount or you can't beat your competitors price on windows pc's, in a monopoly environment... so what does all this mean? YES THEY ARE FORCED TO PREINSTALL WINDOWS.

Joe user would be pissed if he bought a computer and brought it home and it didn't turn on to a pretty graphical screen that he could click stuff on and browse the web and view email and have some reasonably easy way to install stuff to play with. Not if the computer came without windows... linux can fill this spot every bit as easily as windows.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[sheldon]

NOBODY switches after using the solution for 90 days (and no that's not our guaranteee period), or wants to.

Really?

Everybody I switched over to Linux back in the mid 1990's has given up on it and moved to Windows XP.

I can't see any reasonably intelligent person wasting their time with Linux these days.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[sheldon]

Superior is not equivelent to "most popular" whatever you think. Superior is accomplishing a task in a more efficient manner. Linux is that.

Superior is ALWAYS equivalent to "most popular", whatever you think.

Your definition of efficient is not that of the consumer. The consumer doesn't care how much hardware resources is taken, they care about how much time they have to waste performing a task. That's efficiency, and it's something Linux does not have.

Apple preinstalls MacOS, you'll find 95% of apple computer users run what's preinstalled, MacOS.

My point was that people have a choice of buying an Apple or a Dell. They choose the Dell over the Apple about 95 to 1. There is a reason for that choice being made, and it has nothing to do with Windows being preinstalled.

You sound much like a marketing or sales droid who believes in capitalism.

I'm an Engineer who firmly believes in capitalism.

Do you have some sort of disdain for capitalism? I can't fathom why.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[sheldon]

Nowhere in that definition does it indicate that "superior" is a synonym of "popular"

Nobody claimed it would.

But the third definition says "Of great value or excellence" does it not? Isn't the most popular product the one of greatest value to the consumer?

Do you also believe that the Backstreet Boys are superior to all other music artists because more radio stations play them?

Is it necessary for myself to believe that? I don't know... 30 million other people who did buy Backstreet Boys CDs clearly believe it.

The fact is, I haven't tried to redefine "superior" pal, you have.

Basically you're selfish, you think only of yourself and ignore the needs/wants/desires of others. Your world is a market of one, and you claim that the rest of the market does not matter.

You need to look at the market as a whole to define superior. Look at the Beta v VHS historical argument as an example.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

With windows you don't need the "right tools". They're part of the system

Name the tools or features that come with Windows that do not come with most distributions of Linux.

Now, do the reverse.

You can buy some nifty programs for both Windows and Linux, though as an initial package there's really no comparison.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

That must have been rough on them without xp existing in the mid 90's. And linux was a whole different animal then.

Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes?

[shaitand]

"Do you have some sort of disdain for capitalism? I can't fathom why."

No, capitalism works extremely well at one thing... centralizing capital.

"and it has nothing to do with Windows being preinstalled."

Your right, but keeping windows on the machine has everything to do with it being preinstalled.

"Your definition of efficient is not that of the consumer. The consumer doesn't care how much hardware resources is taken, they care about how much time they have to waste performing a task. That's efficiency, and it's something Linux does not have."

The only task linux is less efficient in acomplishing (in terms of hardware/software or time to accomplish) is setup. Actually getting work done on linux when you have the same familiarity with it and the application your working with as you do on windows is as faster or faster in most every case.

Linux is missing integration, ironing out and...

[Anonymous Coward]

interoperability between its DEs. I think that says a lot here:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3064

Compatibility

[mrpuffypants]

Forgive me for being so terribly blunt here, but if there major problem is compatibility with Windows networks then get rid of windows networks!

Re:Compatibility

[Magic Thread]

That's what I thought at first too, but the review begins by saying:

Can you use a Linux system successfully in a Windows-dominated environment? That's what SuSE's Linux Desktop is designed to facilitate.

In other words, SLD is intended specifically for being compatible with Windows networks.

I do object to the "maybe Linux isn't quite ready for the desktop after all" comment in the /. summary. If you use it in an environment that isn't Windows-dominated, the most major problems the review mentions will be eliminated.

Re:Compatibility

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funnier watching the granparent commenter shoot his company in the foot.

Re:Compatibility

[mrpuffypants]

basically you either get the problems introduced by using a Linux box mixed in with Windows PC's or you get the headache that comes with changing everything on the desktop over to Linux.

Verdict: (0, Deadlock)

Re:Compatibility

[Photon Ghoul]

Exactly... it's at the very beginning of the article. Not that one should expect slashdot readers to even click on the link before reacting....

Not all that bad...

[26199]

The review is pretty positive, really. They admitted they were testing the most difficult situation -- non-technical people using Linux in a Windows environment -- and were impressed on many counts.

The fact is it's probably never going to be possible to switch operating systems without some minor glitches... switching will always cost money and time, so there's got to be a good reason to do so...

Re:Not all that bad...

[SpaceLifeForm]

Besides having a good reason to switch, it really helps if you have motivated users.

Re:Not all that bad...

[TheIzzy]

The only thing I found wrong with the article was that they assumed non-technical people would be system admins. Even in a Windows only environment, it's generally pretty tech-savy people acting as the admins. Sure, they're tech-savy in a windows sort of way, but they're not the average grandma trying to figure out wheere the power button is. The users would never see most of the problems they pointed out (except the mozilla cut n' paste), which is the real catch in any OS transition.

Re:Not all that bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tired of the music industry ripping you off? Try another way: emusic

...of getting ripped off.

Re:Not all that bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is not, was not, and will likely not be AS suitable for interaction with Windows machines as Windows simply because they are different!
Unless Linux is deployed in a heterogeneous environment (server farms, businesses that replace all Windows boxes, etc.) it is not better for non-geek end users than Windows because the primary use for desktop machines is interaction with Windows machines near and far.

Re:Not all that bad...

[Jardine]

You'd think so, but based on the number of network administrators I talk to that can't find the start menu and don't know what version of windows they're using, you'd be wrong.

Re:Not all that bad...

[uradu]

> The review is pretty positive, really

That was my thinking, too. A score of 7.6 isn't too shabby at all, many high-dollar commercial packages have fared worse in the past (when I used to read those mags). Especially when you take into consideration the criticisms, given the right environment or setup the effective score could be much higher.

Re:Not all that bad...

[mpe]

The only thing I found wrong with the article was that they assumed non-technical people would be system admins.

Possibly because Windows tends to blur the distinction between "users" and "admins".

Re:Not all that bad...

[lordDallan]

It sound's like what the poster wants is OS X. From the article:

It's worth noting that Apple, with its Unix-based Mac OS X, has already implemented a working solution to this problem -- OS X had no trouble browsing the office network and reading and writing files.

While it is a little sad that he doesn't realize that OS X provides this feature using...drum-roll...Samba!!

It is almost certainly a Samba configuration issue that is stopping the gentleman from connecting to his companies shared directories. But why should he care?

Personally, I think the loyal lovers o' linux need to resign themselves to the fact that a lot of company administrators do not have the skills and/or patience needed to deal with *nix configuration files, compiling apps, dealing with install inconsistencies because there's no package for the distro their using, etc.

Seriously. A lot of these people (especially in small and mid-sized businesses) are basically glorified power-users. They've never written an application. They never written a batch file or unix script. They've probably run some stuff on the command line, but only if it was really necessary, and probably typed everything in from a book/browser.

This isn't a dig at these people. Many of these environments don't need an expert sys-admin. If they had one he'd get bored off his skull and quit! If people really want to see *nix and open-source thrive, they need to get these chumps, er, folks using OS X.

Yes I know Apple is a evil closed-source company. But they use a lot of good open-source technology to make things happen. They just manage the process for the "typical end user". If you don't like how Samba is set up on OS X, change it! It isn't MS land where everything is locked away. But if your looking for a good basic setup that deals decently with most AD Networks, is pre-installed, is easily accessible through the GUI and functions reasonably with in said GUI's conventions. Wow! It's OS X.

And the above is true of a lot of *nix services. Apache, sendmail, etc.. Pre-installed, pre-configured, totally re-configurable if you want to. Just open up a nice window, maybe fill out some basic fields (what is you server name? what is your work group name? African or European?) and you're all set to go.

One other nicety of OS X is a real version of Office. Yeah, I know, horrible, evil, icky-poo. But another "great feature" of a lot of small to mid-sized business is the presence of a shrieking-harpy who has the ear of the person holding the pursestrings. Being able to shut them up by telling them they'll have a real, 100% sanctioned by MS version of Office is a great treat.

So my assignment for all you loyal lovers o' Linux is to go out and preach OS X to mid-sized companies. Doing so only helps Linux (just like helping Linux is great for OS X!) because it gets a linux friendly, open-sourced technology-laden OS in place, and is really easy for "power user" type admins to install and manage (making them look good).

Hugs & Kisses,
Lord Dallan

Re:Not all that bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, if you think about 0.5 cents per track is getting ripped off... sure.

Other boxen

[inertia187]

So, does it work well with OS X better than Windows on the network? I should hope so. It's kinda funny. If there's zero Windows boxen on the network, the OS X and Linux users would probably still have to use Samba. Bummer.

Re:Other boxen

[Scorpion265]

Actualy, Linux supports Appletalk, and OS X supports NFS. There really isn't a need for samba in a non windows environment. I also believe there will be support for Rendevous in *nix soon too.

Re:Other boxen

[curtlewis]

Apple doesnt' even really use AppleTalk anymore. It uses AFP over TPC, which is the AppleTalk Filing Protocol over TCP.

There is minimal support for this on *nix, but good luck getting it configured and working well.

*nix really needs some kind of GUI client for AFP/TCP much like the Go To Server window in OS X. That is, something that scans the LAN for servers as well as allows direct IP entry of the server if you know it.

NFS sure is convenient but it's a security nightmare and no sysadmin worth his pay will let you set up and use NFS on a network.

I'm no Windows fan, but let's face it, getting rid of the Windows boxes/network is not an acceptable solution to the majority of the world. Windows is there, running, and working well enough for them to not seriously consider migration at this point or they WOULD be migrating.

So any OS needs to work WITH Windows. Of course, to play fair, Windows should work will WITH others, too. The general demeanor is that SMB networking isn't proprietary. It is, very much so. The only OS that uses it natively is Windows and the only reason someone would want to use it is to work WITH Windows boxes. SMB as a general networking technology sucks. With absolutely no physical changes what is shown in Network Neighborhood varies at the whim of the OS and ... Bill Gates? The box is there, the box is gone? It's online and can be reached by \\servername, but not in the neighborhood? What's up with that?

What we REALLY need is a platform agnostic networking solution that works well, is fast, is reliable and works the same everywhere.

Re:Other boxen

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the fact that SMB, despite its problems, is still a pantload better than either Appletalk or (urgh!) NFS...

Re:Other boxen

[dorward]

While Linux can communicate with a Mac over SMB, it can also speak Appletalk.

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Net-HOWTO/x2202.html

Re:Other boxen

[treat]

NFS sure is convenient but it's a security nightmare and no sysadmin worth his pay will let you set up and use NFS on a network.

In the real world, security is not a high priority as long as the environment is secure against a random unmotivated attacker (at least 99.99% of all intrusions). There is no decent (reliable, fast, secure) replacement for NFS. There is no choice but to use it if you need some sort of network file system! What should the sysadmin do, quit in protest?

Re:Other boxen

[Anonymous Coward]

Post that in the next Microsoft fileserver bug du jour conversation.

FWIW, the security consultant tagline of late is "most intrusions are internal".

Re:Other boxen

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I have to agree. One thing I think the OS community needs is something like SMB, but sane and secure.

Re:Other boxen

[Sir Joltalot]

There is minimal support for this on *nix, but good luck getting it configured and working well.

It's not that hard, not really much harder than Samba. I've set it up in the past. It's not as hard as, say, OpenLDAP to set up. You do have to (gasp!) edit a config file.

nix really needs some kind of GUI client for AFP/TCP much like the Go To Server window in OS X. That is, something that scans the LAN for servers as well as allows direct IP entry of the server if you know it.

Sure, that'd be cool, but I'd remind you that the "Go To Server" window in OS X sucks monkey brains through a straw. The "browser" thingy that lets you see the network doesn't see very much, for some reason (Nautilus SMB browser sees more in my experience) and if anything at all goes wrong, all you get is some inscrutible error number (at least with most of the Linux Samba implementations, you'll get messages like "Invalid username/password," or "Permission denied," or "Host not found.")

NFS sure is convenient but it's a security nightmare and no sysadmin worth his pay will let you set up and use NFS on a network.

NFS on its own definitely has security problems. But NFS along with something like NIS or LDAP authentication can be pretty decent.

What we REALLY need is a platform agnostic networking solution that works well, is fast, is reliable and works the same everywhere.

Yep.

Re:Other boxen

[jstockdale]

Ok well for some reason the parent got moderated "Insightful" so I guess I have to go ahead in anti-troll mode.

Why not go ahead and try the core unix filesharing methods? NFS, AFS, SFTP, SCP; all supported on both UNIX and OS X. In fact, if theres another method that works on *nix and is portable then why not just bring it along! The BSD subsystem of OS X isn't just there for show you know.

Re:Other boxen

[scrod]

NFS would work pretty darn well.

Re:Other boxen

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully Coda will provide that in the future.

Re:Other boxen

[Spellbinder]

why not just write a free opensource replacement for the things not working correctly on windows???
maybe it has not to be a replacement
i could think of a windows server which is acting as a proxy between the windows and the linux network
something like the ximian connector does for exchange

Re:Other boxen

[Johnny Mnemonic]

What we REALLY need is a platform agnostic networking solution that works well, is fast, is reliable and works the same everywhere.

Sure. But the problem is that Gates knows that too, so every time we get close he'll flip a bit and break it all, so we'll be back to 70% functionality. Either he's forced to play fair by law, which we already tried and failed to accomplish, or he's forced to play fair by market demand. Since he owns the market, it's (obviously) a chicken-egg issue, which Gates well knows.

I don't know what the solution is. Massive acceptance by geeks, I guess; maybe from a killer app that's available only on Linux (or Mac OS X). But we'll have to be pretty damned crafty to find a killer app that his $40 Billions can't see first, or co-opt later.

Currently, fwiw, I have some faith in the Anglophobia across the pond--think France (or China) is keen to depend on software that they can't audit for security? One backdoor and their State Secrets are 0wn3d by the NSA. So maybe we'll find in 10 years that enough of the rest of the world uses Linux for security, and global telco will have become so interdependant, that M$ will have to play fair. But that's a long time off, brother.

Re:Other boxen

[inertia187]

Yes, well keep in mind that the *average* user can barely point and click. That *is* what the article was talking about. I don't mind being called a troll at all, but try reading the article.

I just think it's ironic that OS X and Linux have been brought together *by* Windows. It's like that movie where the foreigners went to a country where they didn't speak the native language, but they found natives who spoke french, and they were able to communicate.

Re:Other boxen

[Anonymous Coward]

*nix really needs some kind of GUI client for AFP/TCP much like the Go To Server window in OS X. That is, something that scans the LAN for servers as well as allows direct IP entry of the server if you know it.

First, quit saying "*nix." It isn't cute or funny. If you mean UNIX, say it.

That out of the way, the Go To Server function doesn't scan anything. It uses Rendezvous (aka ZeroConf) to find AFP servers on the local network segment. Any similar UI built for another operating system should use Rendezvous.

Basically any network service that doesn't use Rendezvous is still stuck in the stone age.

Re:Other boxen

[GlobalEcho]

What I would really like to see is for AFS to get easy to implement. By easy to implement, I mean, shall we say, "worth the effort for my 5-machine home network runninn W2K, OSX and Linux".

Re:Other boxen

[curtlewis]

First, quit saying "*nix." It isn't cute or funny. If you mean UNIX, say it.

Well, technically the term UNIX doesn't include Linux. The * is used to include that, since for most purposes, you can lump them all together. It's not meant to be cute or funny, it's meant to be inclusive and accurate.

The Go To Server function has been able to find local servers since before Apple implemented Rendezvous.

Re:Other boxen

[oohp]

And both support OpenAFS. Now shut up already.

Re:Other boxen

[shaitand]

Yes but the reality is that alot of companies are starting to linux at the backend first, ie using samba as the domain controller and such, when it comes time for desktops, they won't change what's in place, they'll set the desktops up for smb as well. Sad but true, I forsee a world with all linux boxen running smb networks!!

Re:Linux is Dying

[Scorpion265]

I don't know about dying, but desktop oriented people are loosing interest. I also think that media isn't helping at all either, with the hype of DCM and such. Also another problem is that linux is being imaged as the 'hackers' operating system.

Hmmmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

A key problem area was interacting with the corporate Windows network.

No shit! and who's fault is that? If it's a major concern then MSFT customers must insist that Microsoft stick to open standards. What was that key problem area again?

Re:Hmmmmmm

[Ruds]

Yes, I can see that meeting now:

CUSTOMER: Well, we're having trouble making our new Linux boxes talk to our large installed base of Windows boxes.

MICROSOFT: You don't say.

C: No, really. We'd really like it if you were to make Windows boxes easier to talk to by publishing your heretofore closed standard.

M: So let me get this straight. You want us to make it easier for our competitors to replace us? If we do this, then our market share goes down because the barrier to switching lowers. But if we don't, you'll keep buying Windows because it's cheaper than doing a complete rollover. Let me consider that.

C: Thanks, we'd really appreciate it!

Matt

Re:Hmmmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

C: Hi I need to be able to use this product you sold me to be able to connect to our server.

M: Not you again. Look if you pay for a windows license then it will work.

C: Do you want me to read out some of the terms of the US DOJ Antitrust settlement?

M: Go ahead, We'll ignore it like we have been doing. You see our desktop monopoly is the only thing preventing you changing platforms, we will therefore GIVE you a windows server license because your custom is valuable to us.

C: So Microsofts message to customers who want to use competeing products is "FUCK-OFF"?

M: Exactly, feel free to quote us on that.

A.C.

Re:Hmmmmmm

[Branman361]

What happens when the conversation starts out like this? CUSTOMER: "We're having trouble having our brand new Windows box talk to our network of Linux boxes."

Re:Hmmmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens when the conversation starts out like this? CUSTOMER: "We're having trouble having our brand new Windows box talk to our network of Linux boxes."

You call will be forwarded to the first salesman available which will convince you to put Windows on your network.

When will NDS be supported?

[Billly Gates]

The problem with things like browsing is that MS changes Active directory and the smb protocal quite frequently.

Novell is certainly not dead and has greatly fallen to the fud of NT. NDS and Novell provide the best NOS administration environment period! No lpdad is not an answer because its just a protocal and not a solution.

I use to be a fan of Caldera now SCO because of the promissed Novell integration.

Now lets wait for the next release of netware which is rumoured to have a linux kernel.

Relying on active directory is writing MFC programs and expect to port them to Unix.

Re:When will NDS be supported?

[Jonah Hex]

Personally I've always admired the structure of Novell's various user/share schemes but really hated the tools used to interface with them. Of course I'm a bit dated on the issue (Netware 3.x, 4.x, haven't had to really admin a version since then) so I'd hope it's much improved. :) I just did a bit of snooping around on Novell's site but couldn't find any screentshots of their interfaces anywhere, oh well.

Jonah Hex

Re:When will NDS be supported?

[dannannan]

"The problem with things like browsing is that MS changes Active directory and the smb protocal quite frequently."

Please.

If the code keeps changing so much, explain to me how my Active Directory client from May 2001 still works with Active Directory? Explain to me how my 8 year old Win95 box can still communicate with my XP box using SMB?

Microsoft can't just change the core of a protocol without alienating old versions of its code. This is obvious.

Re:When will NDS be supported?

[Hoser McMoose]

Uhh, how often have you actually tried getting different versions of Windows to talk to each other over SMB networks? It works... sometimes, sort of, as long as you don't do anything too tricky, or even some not-so-tricky things.

It's especially bad if you try to get older versions of Win9x to talk to WinNT/2K/XP systems and vice versa. Some things works, but a lot of things are either broken or require a bit of massaging to work.

Interestingly the original article mentioned problems with getting the Windows computers to see their Samba server in a network. I used to have horrible problems getting Windows computers to see other Windows computers in an SMB network when I was back at school (gotta love the residence networks!). Put simply, different versions of Windows often do not play nice with one another because the way that SMB works is constantly changing.

Re:When will NDS be supported?

[Malcontent]

We were having all kinds of problems getting windows95 boxes to talk to AD. After a couple of days of trying we gave up and installed a winnt server just for them. Too bad we could not upgrade me machines but the some of the software on them did not run on windows 2000.

Windows is more fragmented then linux is.

Re:When will NDS be supported?

[javatips]

That would be expected as AD was non-existent when Win95 was released!

Re:When will NDS be supported?

[Malcontent]

You'd think MS would be smart enough to distribute a patch or something. Or would that be too much to ask?

Re:When will NDS be supported?

[javatips]

I'd think that Microsoft would expect you to upgrade!

Re:When will NDS be supported?

[Malcontent]

In this case I could not. You see versions of windows are not always backward compatible.

Re:When will NDS be supported?

[shaitand]

interesting, nt4 existed when 2000 was released, yet somehow a 2000 pro box will not speak correctly to an nt4 server (yes I do know the problem and how to fix it.. the best way of course is to set dynamic dns up on a nice linux box). Odd that they didn't make 2000 entirely compatible with the nt4 boxen would it would have been easy to do so... odd could it be that they wanted to force the upgrade down the throats of their users? could be.

From the article...

[DaBj]

This was the only stumbling block that prevented us from getting work done, but it is a serious flaw. The quick-moving open source community may soon solve the problem
Considering the age of Samba, shouldn't this have been fixed ages ago?

Then again, it is trying to implement a
Microsoft Proprirety Protocol , and we
all know how well documented (and static) they are...

Re:From the article...

[Chordonblue]

The basics of Active Directory have been around now for almost 4 years. I contend that it's not that it can't be done, but that it hasn't been the focus of the Samba group.

Want proof? Xandros HAS done it. They have Domain support out of the box. Of course, it's closed source...

PPC Linux made me cry

[Anonymous Coward]

I have one of the most common recent macs made (an imac slot loader)

Not one installer has managed to get simple things like graphics, audio, mouse and keyboard drivers to work. first go.

After my last attempt installing Mandrake PPC I was able to fix most of those the same day I installed, but it still sucks.

Mod me down if you like, I just had to vent.

Re:PPC Linux made me cry

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod me down if you like

Done, sir. Thank you for your business.

Re:PPC Linux made me cry

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point is interesting when it comes to a certain set of users. Business desktop linux users wouldn't need to worry about installs from scratch or software updates and the like, thats why there are system administrators who have the experience to fix problems like this the instant they happen on no matter what hardware. A single geek by themselves too, is no problem, their very nature makes them able to fix the problem and if they don't know how immediately, how to persevere until a fix is found.

I think some people in the middle really need a good amount of handholding to build linux desktop mass. A person who owns a PC who has a lot of Windows or MacOS using friends, but who has "heard a bit about linux" and wants to try it is going to be very put off. Of course I don't know how good x86 installers for Linux are compared to PPC or other distros when it comes to hardware. You still make a good point that it should be constantly worked on to keep up to date

Re:PPC Linux made me cry

[aseidl]

Any chance that you have tried Yellow Dog Linux 3? Everything worked out great on the first install, without tinkering on my PowerMac 7600. The same holds true for YDL 2.2 and 2.3 (at least from my experience).

Re:PPC Linux made me cry

[xenocytekron]

You can't mod and post in the same discussion. you feel crunchy now don't ya?

Re:PPC Linux made me cry

[Anonymous Coward]

I can as I have multiple IPs and browsers.

Silly question, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

How does it work the other way round? Is it really a case of Linux not interoperating with Windows networks because of the way Windows is designed, or would it be just as hard to get a single Windows box onto a Linux network?

What I'm saying is: surely the single, lesser box on a network is always at a disadvantage, Macs on Windows, Windows on Macs, Linux on Macs, etc. etc...

Opinions?

Re:Silly question, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Opinions?

Of my own? Hell no, I'm just a Slashbot.

Re:Silly question, but...

[Ruds]

I think a single Windows box on a Linux network wouldn't do so badly. There is no Linux-specific filesharing protocol (or Unix-specific, for that matter) that is comparable to SMB. There's no IM protocol in wide use that doesn't have a Windows client (that I know of). There is a version of OpenOffice for Windows. The interop problems that were mentioned in the review wouldn't present themselves here.

Matt

Re:Silly question, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly running Linux (Debian) boxes on a mainly MacOS network doesn't cause too many problems. TCP/IP and Appletalk protocols are well supported. On the other hand Windows as a minority flavour on a Mac network... no END of problems. Unless you buy DAVE or similar.

Windows sucks. (flamebait?)

Re:Silly question, but...

[Yohahn]

NFS

This is one that isn't done on a default windows box.

It is especially annoying.

Re:Silly question, but...

[TheIzzy]

As far as I know, the Windows box only uses SMB, and therefore all of the Linux boxes would be forced to go samba as well. Windows's proprietary nature let's it win when it's in the majority AND the minority.

Re:Silly question, but...

[TheIzzy]

But it will never have to work the other way around. If you had a Linux network would you want to migrate to Windows? That's what I thought.

Re:Silly question, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

DAVE has solved a lot of problems of a coexistent Mac/PC network I set up. It's a reasonable solution when you couple it with the MACFS functions on Windows 2000 Server. Actually, for the record the network has the following, and it all talks to each other with no problems:

4 PCs
2 Macs
4 Linux boxes
4 Amiga PVRs
2 SGI Octanes
2 HP Lasers - 4000N's

Is it just a question of knowing what you're doing?

There's an Atari ST sat around for MIDI work, but no-one ever figured out where you get a network card for it, let alone actually network it.

Opinion? Um... ST's suck for networking?

Re:Silly question, but...

[Ruds]

The point is, what else would Linux use? I guess you could use NFS, but if you want a browsable network, samba is better. If there were a high-quality Samba replacement, that'd be one thing, but I haven't seen one.

Matt

Re:Silly question, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

>> would it be just as hard to get a single Windows box onto a Linux network?

We have this, more or less (in fact, its another kind of Unix).

It works quite well, but then we have lots of professionals (admins, dbas etc.)

We dont use Samba (though we probably will once the need arises), but AD just follows LDAP. Works like a charm!

Re:Silly question, but...

[Jadrano]

Not necessarily migrating, but there can be reasons for wanting to have one computer with Windows in a Linux network (e.g. special software available only for Windows, special hardware; even if Linux became much more widespread than Windows, some special cases in which Windows is needed or preferred would probably remain). If something is needed by many, it may be worth developing a Linux version, but not if only few need it. Actually, I think the fact that Windows computers can be well integrated in Linux networks could be quite an important factor for choosing Linux, both when migrating or creating a new network.

Re:Silly question, but...

[univgeek]

Why browsable? Simply have the various drives mounted using NFS. Use the same file browser you always use. What does SAMBA do that NFS does not? This is not a troll, I have to use SAMBA only rarely when I login to some Windows boxen which mount my (NFS) home directory.

Re:Silly question, but...

[Ruds]

I suppose NFS would work if you use a central fileserver(s). But say a coworker shares files locally on her machine. It would be nice to open up network neighborhood (or the equivalent), double-click on her computer, and see the shares available. With NFS, you have to know what to mount before getting at the files; with Samba, you can browse through a hierarchical network of computers.

Matt

Re:Silly question, but...

[kyz]

showmount --all remoteservername

It's just a case of one being graphical and one being a command program. Hire your favourite 14 year old nephew to program a Network Neighbourhood GUI that uses nmap, rpcinfo and showmount. Or teach the GUI users to use nmap, rpcinfo and showmount.

Re:Silly question, but...

[univgeek]

wouldn't mounting everyones directory, through a remote directory work just as well? Let's say all the localdisks are mounted at one of the server's directories, then this directory is mounted onto all the users systems. This would take away all the variables, and you could use anyone's hdd the same way you would use yours. We might be doing something like this in our lab. Haven't gotten around to it though, and haven't really invested in thinking it out.

Re:Silly question, but...

[Ruds]

What about laptops? You'd have to remount every time it comes back on the network, and now you're trying to make the Wrong Tool fit the job.

I'm not trying to say that SMB is the right tool for Linux, but it's better than NFS. It would be nice to specify and implement an open protocol for network file sharing.

Matt

Re:Silly question, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not too bad the other way around......

I replaced SBS 4.5 with Samba for a network of 50 win2k computers (imagine buying all new versions of windoze server software just to get to 51 users--50 is the limit of SBS). The transition took some work, but that was just handling transitioning accounts to the samba server. Win2k "remembers" its old domain accounts, so users could still log in without the old domain server being live. I could take my time moving everyone to the "new" domain over a period of weeks--whenever there was downtime.

Since the switch, everything works sooo much better. The time I invested (and thousands of dollars saved) was well worth it. Virtually no reboots needed--can't say that about windoze--virtually no downtime on my domain server.

Now, I'm not ready yet to push the whole company to all open source products, but for your basic email/word processor employee, I'm getting ready to put them on linux. The bosses will always get their windoze for their applications that don't run on linux. Plus the lower functioning employees won't know how to install cr@p on their computers. Starting with linux on the server first will make things much easier to get linux desktops into the business network--especially the mid size market.

Re:Silly question, but...

[WWE-TicK]

> What about laptops? You'd have to remount > every time it comes back on the network, Use an automounter like BSD amd or autofs. Export the map file via NIS, and all the client needs to do is join the NIS domain, start the automounter, and then be able to access the network filesystems on-demand. Almost like magic! Also, you can play some neat tricks with how the automounter figures out what network filesystems to mount. For example, you can do a "cd /usr/local/programs" on the client and have the automounter mount "/export/programs/ia32-linux" if you're on a x86 Linux box or "/export/programs/mips-irix" if you're on a IRIX box. You can also start incoporating things like load balancing and redundancy while all being totally transparent to the user. So in short, all the tools you need to do what you describe exist in the UNIX world and have been around for more than 10 years. All it takes is a competent administrator to bring it all together.

Re:Silly question, but...

[shaitand]

ummm try nfs, that's the most popular, it can work on windows but requires you to purchase services for unix.

When will this stuff finally be ironed out?

[Anonymous Coward]

When will this stuff finally be ironed out?

Exactly that moment when we see a rapid deployment of Linux in corporate desktops. When large companies start using it, it doesn't matter what software is missing. That 'missing link' software will be developed very quickly.

Re:When will this stuff finally be ironed out?

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition to the point made above, 'this stuff' will start to be ironed out faster if the people asking the questions decided to help out. It is easy enough to complain, sit back, and do nothing. But on the other hand, if it does not serve you any purpose, there is no need to complain. Unless someone is interested (either personally or financially), I do not see Linux developing as a desktop platform as an important goal.

Re:When will this stuff finally be ironed out?

[DancingSword]

'when Bovines achieve lunar orbit' happened YEARS ago, so-long ago we now only have the reports:

'when the cow jumped over the moon'

Already Been Done.[tm]

============

Of course, the target's being dead ( no longer moving ) doesn't mean it isn't still changing/transforming/metamorphose-ing...
( external vs internal moving: see Institutional CEO for an example of such things, also 'fossilization'... )

Re:When will this stuff finally be ironed out?

[IchBinEinPenguin]

Well, I guess you're at the right place if you believe in fairy tales ;-)

The little NT server that thought it could
Snow white and the 7 EULAs
Goldy-locks and the 3 IT salesmen
3 blind MCSEs
....

Not so strange

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, I'm a Slashbot. Linux isn't the problem, Windows is. So fuck Microsoft, but only when I'm not on my Windows partition playing games. And fuck the MPAA, only when I'm not buying the LOTR DVD. And don't forget to fuck the RIAA, but that's only if I'm not buying music in the stores or online.

Re:Not so strange

[gearheadsmp]

So fuck Microsoft, but only when I'm not on my Windows partition playing games.

I say fuck Microosft, and play yer first person shooters in Linux (of which all the award-winning ones are available for or can be run in winex). As fer other genres, play them on a console.

And fuck the MPAA, only when I'm not buying the LOTR DVD.

Or buy the DVD and and tell Jackoff Valenti to erm, beat off. Simple as donating to the EFF.

And don't forget to fuck the RIAA, but that's only if I'm not buying music in the stores or online.

Perhaps if you focused on weaning the RIAA off declining retail sales and onto e-commerce, they wouldn't be so cranky about lossy sales because of a recession.

Re:Not so strange

[Requiem]

Are you unable to tell a troll from a legitimate post? Unbelievable.

Re:Not so strange

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue isn't "Linux vs. Windows," but rather "Open protocols vs. Proprietary protocols."

Re:Not so strange

[gearheadsmp]

If it qualifies as a troll to the point that you want to bitch about it, maybe you should look at that post's current moderation, at the time of this post:
40% Insightful
30% Funny
30% Overrated

Sounds like.....

[Nagatzhul]

It sounds like someone was trying to set up SAMBA without reading the documentation or they were lazy in matching the networks. Having used SAMBA in a mixed SUN and Microsoft environment, it was considered a godsend from both the Windows admins and the UN*X/SUN admins.

Re:Sounds like.....

[spectecjr]

It sounds like someone was trying to set up SAMBA without reading the documentation or they were lazy in matching the networks. Having used SAMBA in a mixed SUN and Microsoft environment, it was considered a godsend from both the Windows admins and the UN*X/SUN admins.

Why on earth should they read the documentation? It's not like you need to read the docs on the Mac or Windows to do exactly the same thing...

Re:Sounds like.....

[einhverfr]

Why on earth should they read the documentation? It's not like you need to read the docs on the Mac or Windows to do exactly the same thing...

Simple-- because they are paid to know the software. The comment was related to *admins* not *end-users.* Yes, this applied to Windows admins too.

I used to to phone-based tech support, and I had a senior network admin call for support. Their PDC had been acting strangely, so they reformatted it and wondered where thier user accounts went.... After 15 minutes (mostly of repeating myself) I convinced them to take down the PDC and promote a BDC. The hard part for the admin to fathom was that the PDC had to be taken down first. Immedaitely their user accounts were back up.

Face it, if you want an admin who doesn't read the docs, why don't you pay that person just above, say, minimum wage? No, an admin is paid to read the documentation and know his or her stuff. Otherwise, it is just a disaster waiting to happen.

Yes, the admin should have read the docs first. And in a corporate rollout, who is going to install the software?

Re:Sounds like.....

[Nagatzhul]

Because SAMBA is designed on the premise that admins actually know what they are doing, don't need hand holding to set up a secure network, and actually have an environment where user accounts have different levels of access. The problems they described pointed to them trying to use the default settings and then complaining that they didn't have full access to network resources.

Re:Sounds like.....

[kisielk]

Why should they read the documentation? So they know what the hell they are doing, obviously. I'd be impressed if you could show me anyone who with little or no prior experience, and without reading the documentation, was able to set up a decent reliable Windows network.

Re:Sounds like.....

[Milo77]

I don't think they were trying to setup a network, just get a linux box to coexist on an existing windows network. This should not require reading anything. I should be able to plug my linux machine into the network and mount a remote share by browsing the network, right-clicking and selecting "mount" (or something). Similarly, I should be able to right click on a local directory and select "share" (after which the appropriate dialog would appear). It has to be this easy...

Re:Sounds like.....

[antiMStroll]

SWAT provides a full, web-based GUI interface for configuring SAMBA, but that still doesn't remove the neccessity of reading documentation. Maybe the can't-be-bothered-reading 'sysadmin' attitude helps explain Window's stellar reputation (and before you hit that troll button, this is a sideways compliment to the OS, much though it pains me.)

Re:Sounds like.....

[spectecjr]

Face it, if you want an admin who doesn't read the docs, why don't you pay that person just above, say, minimum wage? No, an admin is paid to read the documentation and know his or her stuff. Otherwise, it is just a disaster waiting to happen.

Which gently misses the point.

Both the Mac and Windows can do exactly what they were trying to do without anyone having to read the manuals, or do anything special.

From the article:

The only major roadblock we came up against was transferring files to or from the office server over the LAN browser, which runs on a technology called Samba that communicates with Windows networks. Samba had difficulty navigating the way permissions were set up on the network, and was unable to authorise us to read or write files on the server, although we were able to browse the network. After much tinkering, it appeared that the solution would be to change the way the network's permissions were set up -- something many companies would find unacceptable.

This was the only stumbling block that prevented us from getting work done, but it is a serious flaw. The quick-moving open source community may soon solve the problem, but that will not be good enough for companies wishing to install Linux desktops today. It's worth noting that Apple, with its Unix-based Mac OS X, has already implemented a working solution to this problem -- OS X had no trouble browsing the office network and reading and writing files.

Sure... turn off all network security, and it'll work. Or completely reconfigure SAMBA. Why doesn't it just do authentication automatically? If a user has privileges on the target machine, they should be able to access anything that they're allowed to. SAMBA's configuration should - by default - have absolutely squat to do with whether or not a user can access network resources.

Re:Sounds like.....

[ittanmomen]

I agree. Converted from NT4 Server to Samba. There are some imperfection with oplocks, but samba itself works reliable in an NT Domain or Workgroup - after all Mac OS/x also uses Samba, and the author said that it has no problem!

Suse often supplies RPMs that do not work properly are configured in a strange way. If you are an ordinary customer they will not tell you the little secret that makes it work.

Saying that though, it should still be possible to make Suse's samba work. I suppose a configuration wizard would help this kind of user.

But to be fair, they tested the office version, so you would expect the essentials business apps to work straight away without tinkering.

Re:Sounds like.....

[thanuk]

I'd be impressed if you could show me anyone who with little or no prior experience, and without reading the documentation, was able to set up a decent reliable Windows network Well, myself for one. It's quite easy to figure out by working out what options are available from the dialogs.

Re:Sounds like.....

[Lumpy]

Why on earth should they read the documentation? It's not like you need to read the docs on the Mac or Windows to do exactly the same thing...

really?

ok.. take any random sales person at your office and have them, without telling them how, to have that machine join the domain...

wow... why didn't they know how? Windows is so intuitive! they should have easily figured it out!

get a clue you knob.

Re:Sounds like.....

[spectecjr]

really?

ok.. take any random sales person at your office and have them, without telling them how, to have that machine join the domain...

wow... why didn't they know how? Windows is so intuitive! they should have easily figured it out!

get a clue you knob.

Yet another prat misses the point.

Read and learn:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=72750&cid=6556 005

Re:Sounds like.....

[shaitand]

ummm when your talking about setting up a corporate network. If you don't read the docs, WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU ADMINISTRATING A CORPORATE NETWORK. If you can't handle reading the docs then you better start considering admining the damn POS machines at your local drug store... wait, no, not quite qualified for that. Ghosting images? nope. tech support line? can't count on you for that. ok, go teach grandma how to send an email, that's the level of the tree your on, and you barely belong there. Sadly thanks to windows people have gotten the idea that inviduals on this technical level are qualified as administrators.

Re:Sounds like.....

[shaitand]

It's not that easy to get a windows machine working on a windows corporate network... why should it be that easy on a linux box? On my linux box all I have to do is add one line to a file and said share mounts... on a windows box I have to configure it with an appropriate ip address, tell it the domain, add it to the domain, pray the domain controller isn't nt 4 and I'm 2k or vice versa, or any other version of windows besides the one I'm using since it will require additional hacking and configuration... if ti's nt4 and I'm 2k then I need to setup a freaking dns server or my share will disconnect intermittantly with varying degrees of severity... shall I continue?

Re:Sounds like.....

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the point.

It should all have worked fine out of the box.

No config required, ergo no documentation required.

Other OSes do it fine - and those other OSes aren't all Windows...

So why isn't Linux able to do what other OSes can do fine with no user intervention?

Just sloppy programming, or is it really preternaturally difficult?

Re:Sounds like.....

[shaitand]

The only OS I've seen work straight out of the box is MacOS, and that's a rigged game. Windows certainly doesn't work straight out the box. You see, toned down programs just install and run.

Actually I don't think I've heard anyone use that expression the way I believe you mean it. Working straight out of the box means functioning correctly out of the box... just because a program doesn't assume you want anything a certain way and therefore needs to be told how you want it (by far a superior method of handling things) doesn't mean it's not working straight out of the box either. Or do you mean straight ouf the box in terms of the configuration being obvious? Well for the most part (there are some exceptions, after all ANYONE can write a linux app) I've found that these applications are obvious, the configuration is quite simple if that's what your used to. When I install a new app not only do I automatically look for a config file, I'm pissed if it's not there... a graphical config is generally nowhere near as flexible and when it comes to installs flexiblity always trumps simplicity, in use that's not always true, but in configuration it is. After all the admin is already supposed to know what he's doing.

The truth is though, even when you do know what your doing it takes longer to configure a linux system, simply because everything must be configured. But I'll trade an extra hour during the install and setup for zero messing with the machine after any day. When I deploy 50 linux stations I do so with the confidence that I won't have to fix a single software issue after initial configuration... if I have to intervene it will a hardware issue or to set something up (new user account etc). I've never been able to say that about any other OS. It would certainly be ludicrous to say it in the windows world where 90% of issues are software problems.

Linux readiness

[$calar]

Every day I say "when this comes out, Linux will be ready" and then that thing comes out and I find something else to do just that same thing with. The problem is that if we say that coming to the latest advancements of proprietary OSes is all we need, as we have been there many times, then they (proprietary companies) come out with something else. I say Linux will be ready for the desktop when it can outpace the development of its competition. With as many people working on Linux as there is, I think that this shows good promise. I have seen so much in the two years I have used Linux, it is amazing that we have come this far in only two years. In the short term, I think that Linux 2.6 is very important and if you want to know why, then just read some of the articles on 2.6 and that will explain a lot. I think that the freedesktop.org standards need to be fully implemented and now the the linux standard base seems to have eliminated a lot of the RPM incompatibilities, we are on the road to easy software use and installation.

Re:Linux readiness

[gl4ss]

latest advancements? what are those? multi user winxp? the 'start' button? windowing system?

i fail to see what these are, except that microsoft os's have become somewhat stable, but linux had this 'advancement' for years. or maybe directx is this advancement? but that's no real advancement either in the sense of being os advancement.

if it wasn't for games(GAMES! only these, even if they don't even play more than 4 hours per month, it's that GTA that's holding things at bay), switching to a totally free software environment would be just few clicks away for me AND for everyone who's computers i've ever needed to tweak. heck, if it wasn't for the games i could just burn them a knoppix and tell them to stick it in.

ok, that or some magical copyprotection that actually works, then people would care more about what they run at home, which would lead to them being able to see that there is choice, and maybe using that choice at work too.

Re:Linux readiness

[Anonymous Coward]

If the entire Linux community was focused on:

- X86
- Refining the OS and existing applications
- Quality
- Mutual support
- Creative new applications
- Fully documenting everything
- Making information easy to find

Microsoft would have a lot more to worry about.

Instead Linux:

- Keeps getting ported to every obscure platform you can find. (Xbox? Psion? Random obscure platform.)
- Keeps reinventing the wheel:
-- Yet another window manager
-- Yet another graphics toolkit
-- Yet another cdrom player
-- Yet another minesweeper game
-- etc etc etc
- Ignores existing standards (Full POSIX compliance?)
- Focuses more on grinding out new code instead of fixing existing code
- Bashes Microsoft instead studying them to exploit weaknesses
- Almost documents things
- Fails to make information easy to find.

Linux is far less formidable than it could be. Its strengths are also some of its weaknesses.

Should have used Lindows

[Anonymous Coward]

(Christ, I'm going to get flamed for this)
I just got my hands on a copy of LindowsOS 4.0 (Thanks eMule) and installed it on my laptop.
Wow.
Coupled with apt (I ain't paying for Click-n-run), it is one hell of an OS.
I mean, a Debian install that just *works*.

Re:Should have used Lindows

[Nagatzhul]

Except for the main account being the admin account, I can't argue it. Of course that whole admin issue simply leaves the system pretty vulnerable in the long run. I might recommend it for my mom cause it is easy, but I would never use it myself, except maybe the internet specific box for my kids.

Re:Should have used Lindows

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could get a Powerbook and skip steps 1--2! And you can still use apt! (fink).

Re:Should have used Lindows

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm using debian 2.2, and found that "apt-get" works fairly
well, but sometimes has a mind of it's own. Anyway, to set up
debian like I want, some amount of practice, experimentation,
experience with linux in general, etc. is necessary. I
understand that Lindows, although based on debian, works without
asking a lot of complicated questions like apt-get will do when
the downloaded items are configured. Also, I have to admit, being
cheap, I am charmed by the $167.00 "run Lindows off the CD" box
that Lindows and Tiger Direct have for sale. Loved looking at the
pictures of the box that Tiger provides, and wondering what
would happen if one added a HDD. Not much of that was explained,
so I guess I'll stick with debian for a while longer.

Re:Should have used Lindows

[Anonymous Coward]

LindowsOS allows you to set up regular user accounts after the initial reboot, the same time it allows you to set the time-of-day clock. Or are you incapable of reading simple English words? I am being sarcastic in that last question so chill....

Re:Should have used Lindows

[rmohr02]

Well, Gentoo doesn't prompt you to create a user account during installation either.

Re:Should have used Lindows

[rmohr02]

Libranet is another Debian that "just works".

Re:Should have used Lindows

[Jebediah21]

Try Knoppix too. It's Debian with a reasonable installer and you can boot off the CD to test it first.

Re:Should have used Lindows

[Jonner]

What does that have to do with Debian?

Re:Should have used Lindows

[rmohr02]

Nothing. The parent mentioned Lindows runs in root as default. I mentioned that is not unique to Lindows--a more geek-oriented Linux distro, Gentoo, also does that. To complain about Lindows being in root by default and not caring about Gentoo doing the same is hypocrisy.

And it has nothing to do with Debian.

Re:Should have used Lindows

[Jonner]

I use Gentoo and it doesn't bother me at all that there are no prompts to make user accounts and the like since it's expected that a user knows the issues. It's not like Gentoo has an installer anyway, so it's a moot point. However, Lindows is definitely targeted at GNU/Linux newbies and "computer novices," to quote their page, so it's in an entirely different category.

If Lindows expects users to run as root all the time, I consider that a serious problem. That's even worse than MS OSes, though they're not too good at emphasizing security either. On the other hand, I was extremely impressed when I saw that OSX gives ordinary user accounts no special privileges except the equivalent of being in sudoers.

Re:Should have used Lindows

[rmohr02]

I don't think Lindows the OS expects users to run as root all the time. Lindows the company may. Anyway I think Lindows should ask users if they want to create a non-root account, saying "using a non-root account for everyday use is more secure, but slightly less convenient for installing applications".

Re:Should have used Lindows

[Jonner]

I agree completely with your suggestion. I don't actually know anything about what the Lindows tools do; I was just responding to the post that mentioned always running as root. If I were to consider recommending Lindows to someone, I'd certainly check it out first to discover things like this.

Re:Should have used Lindows

[rmohr02]

I would fully recommend Lindows to anyone on the condition that I installed it to have them run as a non-root user, and then I'd explain the difference, and why it's needed, and then explain sudo.

Wha..?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a short-coming of Linux! That's a short-coming of Windows, you silly asshats!

As if things would be easier...

[Eudial]

Have anyone tried intracting with a Linux network using a Windoze box? Now THAT's a challenge.

Re:As if things would be easier...

[jafac]

. . . it's called Cygwin. . .

Re:As if things would be easier...

[Eudial]

well, that's cheating.

what "normal" office computer user would be able to install that?

Re:As if things would be easier...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Have anyone tried intracting with a Linux network using a Windoze box? Now THAT's a challenge.

? Our domain controller is a WinNT4 PDC. Our mailserver's CommuniGate Pro on Red Hat 7.3. Our file server's Samba on Red Hat 7.3. All our various Windows boxes connect to the fileserver and get their mail with either Netscape our Outlook (via IMAP, no less) without trouble.

What kinds of interaction troubles were you expecting?..

Re:As if things would be easier...

[croddy]

the "normal office computer user" doesn't install and configure the OS. at all the "normal office computer user" operates the machine using the configuration it arrives with.

data entry and clerical folk in the 1980's dealt with all kinds of bizarre, esoteric, even highly proprietary one-shot systems. everyone is capable of learning a new OS. it's mostly people's laziness that's demanding an exact windows work-alike.

Re:As if things would be easier...

[Anonymous Coward]

Must-haves for inter-operating with Unix on Windows: a good ssh/telnet client and an X server. Both of these are available, both free and commercial.

I think I've even seen NFS protocol drivers for Microsoft networking.

Re:As if things would be easier...

[jafac]

a "normal" office computer user with an IT department that has a clue, and wants to provide their users with decent tools for Unix interoperability.

Such a beast, of course, is pure fantasy, but what the hay?

Slashdot Trilogy

[borgdows]

Episode 1 : Microsoft is a failure
Episode 2 : Linux is a failure <-- YOU ARE HERE
Episode 3 : SCO is THE failure (soon on /.)

Re:Slashdot Trilogy

[ArsonSmith]

obligatory Episode 3 profit post.

Re:Slashdot Trilogy

[stefanlasiewski]

Episode 1 [slashdot.org] : Microsoft is a failure

This was a great episode. We even got Steve Balmer to pretend he was Jar Jar Binks!

Re:Slashdot Trilogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Prequel:
Episode 0: FreeBSD is dead

Re:Slashdot Trilogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Episode V:

Darth McBride: "I'm your father Linus"

Re:Slashdot Trilogy

[nathanh]

Episode 4: A GNU Hope
Episode 5: Microsoft Strikes Back
Episode 6: Return of the Linus

?!?

Re:Slashdot Trilogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Episode 4: ???
Episode 5: Profit !

Re:Slashdot Trilogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Eposide 8: Profit!

Well What Does?

[MojoReisen]

And just how well do Windows desktops "interact with the Corporate Windows network" ?

When will this stuff finally be ironed out?

[IchBinEinPenguin]

When the target stops moving.

Which will be roughly about the same time Bovines achieve lunar orbit.

When?

[Anonymous Coward]

In a word. Never.

Windows is constantly evolving and moving forward. Linux is not now nor has it ever been able to keep up. The gap is ever widening. When Longhorn is released, the gap will double in size over night.

A lot of sour-grapers claim that this is MS protecting their monopoly, but the fact is, MS is not going to be stifled because Linux does not have the workforce or the focus to keep pace.

If a large enough company with enough money and programmers could take all of Linux and transform it in to their own product, it might have hope. But the GPL almost prevents the possibility of that ever happeneing. Said company would need to make back the money it spend in development and if the next 2 man group down the road comes along and takes it all and sells for pennies (becayse THEY didn't DO anything and yet are under the GPL entitled to everything they didn't do) well end of that idea.

If IBM actually took over Linux in it's entirety it might have a chance, but unfortunately IBM has a history of dropping the ball on things like that.

So no, Linux will continue to struggle, until there is some REAL progress in controlling it's direction and development as an ENTIRE package at once.

(And, no, Red Hat is not even CLOSE to the magnitude of what I am proposing will be needed)

Re:When?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's funny is that people seem to think that MS is the ONLY person that can possibly make any software that makes a WIndows network interoperable with UNIX. In fact there are many MANY third party tools that allow this to happen, why does MS itself need to do /everything/?

Re:When?

[Anonymous Coward]

FULLY agreed. The Linux devs don't have the universal focus, neither they agree into things. Standards are good (e.g. freedesktop.org) but only when people are using them.

MS will continue to evolve fast, Gates said recently that some 5 billion will go into R&D. And Red Hat and linux DEs will continue the struggle to keep up.

Re:When?

[Anonymous Coward]

M$s R&D doesn't go into new standards or standards compliance. It goes into breaking them so as to become incompatible with everything else. Check the record. Kerberos was a nice example and by no means the only one.

Re:When?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? If I was MS or Apple I would do the same. Anything to keep off from the competition. The thing is, everyond does this stuff. The question is, how is Linux able to go around this given problem and bring itself to the masses?

Re:When?

[Xabraxas]

A lot of sour-grapers claim that this is MS protecting their monopoly, but the fact is, MS is not going to be stifled because Linux does not have the workforce or the focus to keep pace.

Are you that naive? Tell me how the .doc format has improved so greatly by its constant changing? Office isn't even interoperable with itself. It only is if you buy the newest one. That certainly sounds like a money-making scam to me.

the real problem is...

[73939133]

and found it wanting. A key problem area was interacting with the corporate Windows network.

Well, actually the real problem is that Windows server software is wanting: it fails to conform to standard protocols and formats. If Windows server software was built from the ground up around IMAP, XML, HTML, HTTP, WebDAV, and other such protocols, then Linux desktops and Mac desktops would work well with it. While Windows currently nominally supports many of those protocols and formats, they are second class compared to Microsoft's proprietary protocols.

What's the solution? Get rid of the Windows servers. That also lowers licensing, administrative, and maintenance costs. And Windows clients can talk fairly well to Linux servers running open source software.

Re:the real problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the key technology for Microsoft's server software *is* an open standard -- DCE RPC.

However, there is no open source implementation, but that doesn't make it any less of a standard. (A greater question is if one even wants DCE RPC for anything other than interoperability.)

Re:the real problem is...

[Telastyn]

And which of those is a browsable file sharing protocol? WebDAV?!? you can't be serious...

The real problem was that the ZDnet people were actually using the correct tool for the job. Sounds like they actually needed [wanted anyways] a file server that gave them ACL based permissions. [stable ACLs too, unlike webDAV's that are currently still in a state of flux...] Sure, they could probably get something similar with samba, and I'd even go so far as to say they don't *really* need them, and what they do need could be constructed using unix-style permissions.

Re:the real problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

They willfully break the standard to prevent interoperability. Anyone trying to talk to windows servers is forced to reverse-engineer.

Re:the real problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you talking about an permissions issue with WebDAV itself, or with the Unix/Apache implementation?

Re:the real problem is...

[Telastyn]

both, though it is my understanding that the unix/apache implimentation is stable, but not applicable, and the actual WebDAV ACL document is not totally complete as of yet. [last change was last month from the changelogs...]

Re:the real problem is...

[chris098]

I think the real problem is that users are stupid. People feel very comfortable with windows. Although Linux has made *huge* strides in usability, Windows still takes the cake. When there's a problem with Windows, 99 times out of 100 there are easy fixes for it. Sometimes problems crop up under Linux that can take a long time to discover. For example, I was using a dual-processor MSI motherboard, and was having problems that whenever my RAM was totally used up, I got a core dump. Eventually I discovered the problem was a flawed BIOS chip. ...I discovered this by installing windows on a new HD and presto! First boot, it detected a problem and wouldn't start. After moving the RAM to a separate spot, my problems were solved :) As the article said, for the most part, people don't have any problems with Linux. ...but Windows has been dumbed down so much that it makes everything even enough for even the most computer illiterate person to somewhat understand.

Re:the real problem is...

[wasabii]

Sounds like they wanted Samba to server Windows, and NFS/AFS to serve Linux. I dont see why this is so hard.

Re:the real problem is...

[Chordonblue]

Yes, let's just do that. Let's throw out everything we've invested in MS. Get a grip man! I work in a small school. Even if I could afford to throw it all out, I have to think about what I'd use to replace things like Blackbaud (school admin software - non-profits), MS ISA with Surfcontrol, or how to roll out public use Linux boxen with home directories.

Also, I have to reorganize rights to folders upon folders of information and services. What a nightmare. I'm only one guy here, and just keeping it all RUNNING is challenge enough!

Face it, MS is EASIER for this type of thing. Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, and use it for Manhattan and our firewall but until it can play nice with MS, it may never be more than that.

I realize that MS plays games with it's protocols, but this is why it's necessary for Linux to step up and be there anyway. It's not that it can't be done (Xandros does this on the desktop NOW), it's that it's not yet open source.

Re:the real problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I have linux going as a server for windows clients with a lot of my clients.

Even with this simple setup though there are problems. Case in point, tomorrow I have to go in and wipe out a samba server for someone else to load win2000 onto. Why? The client purchased new workstations with win2000 on them. Win2000 can't seem to join the domain (samba is acting as a PDC) with the version of samba I am running.

With better docs, or more time, I may have been able to avoid the switch.

It is my opinion that MS will break things every time and make our lives a real pain with their hijinks until people stop playing with them.

It is not linux that will not play well, it is windows that will not play well. Until the majority of the servers in the world (in MS client shops) are non-MS, your proposed solution is partial at best. Mind you, I say, let's start and see how far we get.

all the best,

drew

Re:the real problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as the Linux community continues the Windows blame game, instead of just making things work Linux is never going to get the desktop.

Nobody likes a wiener

Re:the real problem is...

[zatz]

So what you just told us is that Windows refused to boot even once on your misconfigured hardware, whereas when running Linux, the same problem took a long time to show up?

Re:the real problem is...

[Malcontent]

"I have to think about what I'd use to replace things like Blackbaud (school admin software - non-profits), MS ISA with Surfcontrol, or how to roll out public use Linux boxen with home directories."

He said servers.

Re:the real problem is...

[Chordonblue]

I agree... Some services and programs I have need MS servers and/or domains. And your point?

Re:the real problem is...

[Malcontent]

Really they need MS servers and domains? They can't use an LDAP server or have other authentication mechanisms?

Re:the real problem is...

[73939133]

Face it, MS is EASIER for this type of thing.

No, it's not. I have administered machines for organizations of that size, and trust me, UNIX-based systems are far less work. The fewer Windows servers and clients you have, the easier your workload will get.

Even if I could afford to throw it all out, I have to think about what I'd use to replace things like Blackbaud (school admin software - non-profits),

Why would you replace it? You could still run a few Windows boxes with oddball software like that.

MS ISA with Surfcontrol,

Surfcontrol runs on Linux.

how to roll out public use Linux boxen with home directories.

There's nothing to "roll out"--on a well-run network, you just plug them in, set them up to boot over the network, and you are done.

Of course, if you don't know anything about Linux, then all of that is hard. But the fact that you don't know Linux doesn't make Microsoft a better or cheaper solution; it's just that your organization pays a premium for their software and support in order to accomodate your limited skill set.

Re:the real problem is...

[73939133]

And which of those is a browsable file sharing protocol? WebDAV?!? you can't be serious... [...] Sounds like they actually needed [wanted anyways] a file server that gave them ACL based permissions.

Browsable file sharing and ACLs are misfeatures that come out of Microsoft's bottom-up invasion of the enterprise. They make managing large installations a headache: you really don't want people setting up little servers everywhere and setting up weird and unmanageable permissions for their files. It really is no accident that UNIX has been slow in getting support for either feature even though UNIX has been used at sites with thousands of machines since before Windows NT even existed.

Having said that, Linux supports both of them, and, by definition, the way Linux supports those features is open (i.e., open source and hence open protocol). So, you can replace Microsoft's proprietary servers with open Linux servers, and you can even support those misfeatures if you like (and even serve Windows clients for the occasional Windows client software that doesn't yet have good Linux equivalents).

Re:the real problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but your argument is illinformed.

Browsing and ACLs were popularized by Novell long before MS added them. And Unix was late to get these features because general fileserver applications were never a salespoint for Sun and the other Unix vendors.

Re:the real problem is...

[73939133]

Sorry, but your argument is illinformed.

No, you're just reading things too narrowly.

Browsing and ACLs were popularized by Novell long before MS added them.

Novell was part of the first wave of Microsoft's bottom-up invasion of business, so that is my point.

And Unix was late to get these features because general fileserver applications were never a salespoint for Sun and the other Unix vendors.

You've got to be kidding. "General file server applications" have been such a natural, integral, and unobtrusive part of UNIX systems for so long that people like you seem to miss the fact that they are even there. Since almost the day UNIX workstations got networking hardware, the general setup of a UNIX network is to have central file servers serve home directories, most system software, and shared data directories, in a single unified namespace. Most people don't even ever notice that there exists things like file servers, it just all works seamlessly. And adding a new machine requires little more than plugging it into the network.

What Microsoft offers today in terms of file systems is still cumbersome compared to the services UNIX workstations have had for nearly two decades.

Re:the real problem is...

[Derek S]

That only works if the workstations are tightly controlled, secured and integrated into the server environment. In a real-world organization with large numbers of loosely-coupled desktops and laptops, such a scheme is really painful to maintain. And probably very insecure. At least SMB doesn't put too much trust in the client.

Re:the real problem is...

[Badanov]

Linux does play nice with MS.

It's a shame it isn't reciprocated.

Samba is a nicely done Linux module. Helped introduce me to the world of Linux waaay back in 1999.

Transitions from MS to Linux are never easy

Re:the real problem is...

[Ashtead]

Actually, the key technology for Microsoft's server software *is* an open standard -- DCE RPC.

However, there is no open source implementation, but that doesn't make it any less of a standard. (A greater question is if one even wants DCE RPC for anything other than interoperability.)

What about FreeDCE ? It doesn't seem to cover all the various modes that the MS-DCE/RPC does, but it does at least make it possible for programs on one platform to talk to the other.

Re:the real problem is...

[73939133]

That only works if the workstations are tightly controlled, secured and integrated into the server environment

Yes, the way a well-run IT department should operate. Microsoft shops have been trying to achieve that sort of operation for years, largely unsuccessfully and at enormous cost.

In a real-world organization with large numbers of loosely-coupled desktops and laptops, such a scheme is really painful to maintain.

Yes, many real-world organizations are incompetently run. In fact, many real-world organizations are incompetently run because their IT managers simply don't know anything other than Microsoft. And your point is what? That because many people don't know how to run an efficient IT infrastructure, everybody else should screw up in the same way?

And probably very insecure. At least SMB doesn't put too much trust in the client.

NFS's traditional security model was justified on traditional hardware and network setups, and it still works well in many environments. However, current versions of NFS do, in fact, support other security models as well, so you get your pick.

Re:the real problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

it's just that your organization pays a premium for their software and support in order to accomodate your limited skill set.

Amen brother ....

Re:the real problem is...

[Derek S]

Yes, the way a well-run IT department should operate. Microsoft shops have been trying to achieve that sort of operation for years, largely unsuccessfully and at enormous cost.

Well, that's fine as a general ideal to work towards, but compromises will always have to be made in an organization that isn't entirely composed of IT people. Hell, just adding a few Linux developers to the mix is enough to screw up any tightly controlled management scheme.

And your point is what? That because many people don't know how to run an efficient IT infrastructure, everybody else should screw up in the same way?

You're certainly free to interpret my words that way.

Re:the real problem is...

[73939133]

Well, that's fine as a general ideal to work towards, but compromises will always have to be made in an organization that isn't entirely composed of IT people.

Quite to the contrary: organizations composed primarily of non-IT people are the ones that most appreciate machines that "just work". You run into problems when every workgroup gets its own little IT "expert". Of course, if you run Windows, every workgroup needs its own little IT "expert" because machines constantly screw up, lock up, freeze, and do other weird things.

Hell, just adding a few Linux developers to the mix is enough to screw up any tightly controlled management scheme.

Huh? Why would professional Linux developers screw up management? In fact, UNIX developers, just like other users, traditionally also appreciate not having to bother with system management, and on UNIX machines, they don't have to. Again, it's only on Windows where every developer needs to become a system manager to make sure their machines have just the right combinations of tools, patches, IDEs, libraries, etc., and get reinstalled every few weeks.

Re:the real problem is...

[Derek S]

Quite to the contrary: organizations composed primarily of non-IT people are the ones that most appreciate machines that "just work". You run into problems when every workgroup gets its own little IT "expert". Of course, if you run Windows, every workgroup needs its own little IT "expert" because machines constantly screw up, lock up, freeze, and do other weird things.

To a degree that's true. Non-IT people certainly don't want to be bothered with learning the details of the systems they work with. What they do want, however, is for IT to be very flexible in responding to requests. A tightly controlled environment is resistant to change, and that sometimes leads to conflict with the users.

Now, I think we agree that centralized management and rigorous change control can seriously reduce the workload on IT. But sometimes exceptions have to be made in order to support business needs. An IT department that clings too tightly to abstract principles tends to forget that its reason for existing is to enable other employees to get their work done.

Huh? Why would professional Linux developers screw up management? In fact, UNIX developers, just like other users, traditionally also appreciate not having to bother with system management, and on UNIX machines, they don't have to. Again, it's only on Windows where every developer needs to become a system manager to make sure their machines have just the right combinations of tools, patches, IDEs, libraries, etc., and get reinstalled every few weeks.

No user like to fix things when they break. But most of them want to be able change things to suit their preferences (thus leading them to break stuff). Most Linux developers are power users, and thus resistant to letting someone else control their workstations. They are, at least, fairly understanding about the need for strict management of the server environment.

It seems that we are in rough agreement as to how IT should control servers. And while I recognize the ideal of total workstation control that you endorse, I don't feel that it is practical (or even desirable) to force every employee of a company to work on the equivalent of a dumb terminal. The pure glass house model may make life easier and more lucrative for IT, but everyone else rebelled against it a long time ago.

Re:the real problem is...

[73939133]

But sometimes exceptions have to be made in order to support business needs. An IT department that clings too tightly to abstract principles tends to forget that its reason for existing is to enable other employees to get their work done. [...] I don't feel that it is practical (or even desirable) to force every employee of a company to work on the equivalent of a dumb terminal. The pure glass house model may make life easier and more lucrative for IT, but everyone else rebelled against it a long time ago.

Networks of UNIX workstations are anything but "dumb terminals". If you like and if company policy permits it, you can install software locally or do other things. But the point is that you and the cmopany have a choice, and that anything that you decide needs to be centrally managed can be centrally managed.

Most Linux developers are power users, and thus resistant to letting someone else control their workstations.

Well, that may or may not be the case, but it's completely unrelated to my central point: Microsoft's approach to building large networks of machines is broken. Browseable file servers, ACLs, and all that other ad-hoc stuff they have put in leads to messy and insecure infrastructures. UNIX vendors had this worked out long ago and their offerings are still, after all this time, a much better solution than Windows for enterprise networks.

Re:the real problem is...

[shaitand]

ummm nfs can be browsed... it's command line but there's no reason you couldn't gui wrapper it.

Re:the real problem is...

[Telastyn]

And NFS doesn't have ACL support. Hell, NFS doesn't have *any* functional support for permissions.

Well, duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux doesnt even have the "Stability" argument going for it anymore. The thing goes down more than a 2 dollar whore!

Re:Well, duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny because my Linux machine hasn't been down in six months. On the other hands my windows machine was down twice a day at least. You can't install and uninstall programs without crippling it. For crying out loud, the standard way to fix most Windows problems (or even just installing software) is to reboot. Linux has never given me an "out of memory" error message and this is the same computer that I had Windows on and it's the same amount of memory. It doesn't slow down and become unusable like Windows did at least twice a day. The only time it could even make a day or two was if I was away and didn't use a single program since reboot.

Re:Well, duh.

[ClosedSource]

It sounds like you using an obsolete version of Windows. Although it is true that you often have to reboot after installation, it's quite rare that you have to reboot for any other reason.

I recall a few years ago I was running NT while most of the rest of the company was still using Windows 95. When Lotus CCMail crashed (which it did very often) the others would have to reboot their machines because it crashed Windows 95 too. I just continued to work.

MOD PARENT DOWN. FLAMEBAIT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the subject says it all. Mod parent down.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did someone say gap!?

No kidding...

[donnz]

After a challenging start, the system generally performed so well that it was easy to forget the underlying technology being used.

Let's see, after 20 years rolling out IT solutions I can apply that statement to how many successful projects...oh, that's right 100%.

Haveing RTFA I can't see how they arrive at this conclusion...

However, the problems we did come across (particularly the apparent limitations of Samba), and the amount of tinkering required to solve them, raised serious doubts about recommending Linux for widespread office use just yet.

Quite bizarre.

knoppix still pretty good.

[Comsn]

i think knoppix has filled a hole where windows is missing... all of your settings and whatnot on a cd that can be used on any computer within a matter of minutes.

Using Slackware 9 ...

[LordKaT]

Well, Im not using what one would call "made for the desktop" Linux distro's, but I am using GNU tools, Linux Kernel 2.4.21, XFree86, and KDE as my desktop PC. And, my opinion is that we have a bit of a way to go before Linux is really ready for the desktop. There are certain quirks that continually bother me, like when programs are loading, the KDE bar will freeze until the application is totally loaded. This is a royal pain in the ass since it limits my ability to switch between applications, especially when loading OpenOffice.org.

On the bright side, I havn't paid Microsoft a cent, and programming a game under Linux has brought SDL to light (before then, I was just using DirectDraw). OpenOffice.org has been very helpful, although somewhat lacking in the UI department. WINE has come along nicley, although I would like to see more DirectX support in the main branch, not just in WineX.

--LordKaT

Re:Using Slackware 9 ...

[RiotXIX]

True, slackware can be a bitch sometimes (but it's still the fastest (full multemedia) desktop I've tried). Nonetheless, this seems to be distro specific (I have slack, but my Mandrake partition is sweeeet: way prettier than anything windows could ever be, and I'm pretty sure I don't get that problem, so it's not widespread). Also, the great thing is, if kde pisses you off, gnome, wm, etc. are all options (as well as systems like mandrake, which are fully setup, with all the packages optimized) - they call all run X11 apps.

It's going to take me ages to setup slack to be as user friendly as my mandrake partition is (it's the small things, like fonts, aliases, included app. base, etc.), and it's a hassle, frankly (but I'll get around to it sometime) - meanwhile, I have a still fully functioning linux partion from a different distro.

Re:Using Slackware 9 ...

[TheIzzy]

Actually, I find Slack to be quite user friendly myself if your willing to learn the simplest command line opperations. Simply pop in a disk and type "setup." When your done, you have everything you need, simply pop over to openoffice.org and sun.com for java and your set.

It's definitely not Mandrake, but I like how slack always looks clean, and I'd never use anything else for my desktop.

Re:Using Slackware 9 ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply pop in a disk and type "setup." When your done

Unless the part inbetween "setup" and "done" is me getting a cup of coffee while the distro is installing, not me answering a bunch of stupid questions that could perfectly well be autodetected, count me out. Really, I've run Slackware in the past, it was one of the first distros I ever used. But slackware is stuck in the 90's and my time is too valuable to be babysitting some install script these days.

Re:Using Slackware 9 ...

[Gleng]

Well, after telling it which partitions you want to use (which you have to do on other distros anyway), you can just tell it to do a full install and everything just installs by itself. So you *can* go and get a coffee at this point ;)

Investing in user training.

[argan0n]

When will this stuff finally be ironed out?

When companies get off of their butts and realize that they must invest in good IT admins and actually expect to have to train their employees to use computers correctly. To many firms that I've worked for somehow expect the software to magically solve all the problems and that somehow all the employees are (by this same magic) supposed to be proficient.

Computers and software are Tools fer gods sakes, not magic wands, and it takes a measure of skill to operate and maintain them.

Re:Investing in user training.

[echo]

Hell, even Harry Potter and his friends have to GO TO SCHOOL to learn to use thier magic wands. :)

Re:Investing in user training.

[IM6100]

So, you're saying 'Don't use Windows. Try this desktop OS instead. Oh, and by the way you'll also need to spend more money on training and administration, because this isn't an OS that any dummy can just use.'

Wow. That's quite a sales pitch.

Re:Investing in user training.

[Satan's Librarian]

that somehow all the employees are (by this same magic) supposed to be proficient

I see lots of computer techs say things like this. Stupid user, doesn't he know how to xxxxxxx....

That's one reason why Linux is not ready for the desktop, and most software on all platforms sucks. The user shouldn't need to be proficient. The software should be designed to make sense.

It's fine to have cryptic compilers and command lines for those of us who use them. I personally hated the Mac until OSX came out because of the lack of a command line. But I'm a developer - if you want a system to be useful to people with other professions, design them to make sense in the terms familiar with the user. Otherwise you're just catering to yourself - cool, but it doesn't make it ready for the masses.

I'd highly recommend reading Don Norman's works on useability and engineering for anyone designing anything for use by others. GUI Bloopers by Jeff Johnson is another favorite for making things make sense to others that aren't coders or techs.

The simple point is - there are professions other than computer programmer/administrator/tech. Software should, in most cases, be designed for those other professions. And you shouldn't have to drop a lot of money to train people to use good software past the "this is a mouse - it moves the pointer" stage.

Re:Investing in user training.

[Anonymous Coward]

You live in a cubicle farm, don't you....

Re:Linux is missing integration, ironing out and..

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully, freedesktop.org is working on this direction, but their work is not done yet, it is years before completion.

Linux is the Rolls!

[dokebi]

> if Windows desktop systems are cheaply-made, assembly-line automobiles, more or less well-built, all exactly alike aside from the odd optional leather seat or cup-holder, then Linux can feel more like a hand-built Rolls Royce, using more or less the same parts as another Rolls, but fundamentally an individually-crafted machine.

Since when is Linux Rolls Royce, and Microsoft a Ford? Maybe that means FreeBSD is a Ferrari!

Re:Linux is the Rolls!

[malfunct]

Thing is linux tends to be alot like a hand built Rolls Royce where the creator opted not to include the steering wheel because he felt it impared the cars use and limited people to a single driving paradigm. Instead he recommended you have people sitting by the wheel wells kick the tires left and right as the driver signaled them frantically.

It does however give the driver the option to create his own steering wheel if so desired, but most of the time the steering wheel looks different that anyone elses and works in a unique way so that a driver who gets into someone elses car will crash a few times before they get it right (if they don't give up after the first crash).

Re:Linux is the Rolls!

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, and MacOS X is like a Lamborghini...

Re:Linux is the Rolls!

[tupps]

Well Steve Jobs already claims that Mac's are the BMW of the computing world. he is probably refering to the price ;-)

Not exactly fair

[GigsVT]

Try sticking a Windows box in a totally Linux environment, and see how that goes.

No NFS support, broken kerberos support, no NIS support that I know of, no ssh client or server, no X server so no remote apps. Sure, some of these things can be purchased and installed, but most of the windows versions subpar when compared with the real thing.

This study is like putting Michael Jordan on a special olympics basketball team, and then wondering why it didn't make the NBA finals.

Re:Not exactly fair

[The Bungi]

[...] sticking a Windows box in a totally Linux environment [...]
[...] like putting Michael Jordan on a special olympics basketball team [...]

You might want to rethink your metaphor =)

Re:Not exactly fair

[sporty]

cygwin my friend... cygwin.

Re:Not exactly fair

[GigsVT]

The pitfalls of being quoted out of context. :)

Re:Not exactly fair

[GigsVT]

Cygwin is OK, but the last time I tried to use it in the real world, it fell pretty flat.

I just wanted to set up a simple SSH server on a Windows box that was joined at the hip with an expensive Xerox printer that we were considering purchasing. This would let me automatically drop files into hot folders on the Windows box, without bothering with SMB mess just for something so simple.

I sorta got SSH working as a service in 2000, but it left a black box running minimized all the time. It was a big hassle too. That wasn't the bad part though, the bad part is that I was getting something like 2 megs/sec over scp on a 100mbit switched network.

Thankfully, I convinced the higher ups to not buy the printer for other reasons. Good thing too, it had a million insecure ports open, and we were told not to turn anything off on it, or even update it to fix security holes, or they wouldn't support it (for X thousand per year we would pay for support even!!).

I can't believe anyone uses Windows for their commercial server-type products anymore, it just doesn't make sense.

Re:Not exactly fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Which reminds me...

Q: What's better than winning a Gold Medal in the special olympics?

A: Not being retarded.

Re:Not exactly fair

[purd]

Oh come on......

No NFS support
Ok, no good free clients that I know of, but plenty of commercial ones - or you could use samba

broken kerberos support
Non-windows clients and servers can communicate using the GSS-API (RFC 1964) protocol

no NIS support that I know of
If you don't know then don't say it

no ssh client or server
Ok, you really are clueless - ever heard of Cygwin?

no X server
See above

Ok, I feel better now.

Re:Not exactly fair

[ClosedSource]

You'd have a good point if MS claimed that Windows works well in a totally Linux environment. Perhaps the answer is to have Linux distributors be a bit more modest in their Windows interoperability claims.

Re:Not exactly fair

[MattCohn.com]

Which reminds me...

Arguing on the internet is much like running in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

Re:Not exactly fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Which reminds me...

Quoting tired cliches is much like running in the special olympics. You're retarded.

Re:Not exactly fair

[GigsVT]

I'm glad you feel better, but I did say that some of them could be purchased, but most of the windows versions are subpar. I've worked with Cygwin, with commercial Windows X servers, and such.

They all sucked to varying degrees, very much like running things Wine under Linux, though not quite that bad.

Re:Not exactly fair

[GigsVT]

That's a good idea. When distros like Lindows make such exaggerated claims, it really does make me cringe.

Distros (well, and everyone else too) need to be careful not to get the idea in people's heads that "Ready for the desktop" means "Can work perfectly with Windows closed protocols". Linux will never work 100% with closed protocols that change in undocumented ways each minor version or patch. Same with Wine.

Re:Not exactly fair

[Badanov]

No, MS doesn;t support NFS, but you can still mount an NFS share using Samba.

Re:Not exactly fair

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the rest of the Bulls weren't on the special olympics basketball team?

OMFG NOOOOOOOOOOO! IEEEEEEEE!

Re:Not exactly fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Try sticking a Windows box in a totally Linux environment, and see how that goes.

Worked fine for me. Have you ever tried it?

No NFS support, broken kerberos support, no NIS support that I know of,

Why would you need all that. Use samba to provide windows file sharing, authentication, etc. That's what it's for. Right tool for the right job, and all that.

no ssh client or server, no X server so no remote apps.

Yes, windows sucks in this regard, but that has nothing to do with interoperability or compatibility in the sense that the article is discussing it. The lack of such features makes windows suck just as much in an all-windows network.

This study is like putting Michael Jordan on a special olympics basketball team, and then wondering why it didn't make the NBA finals.

This 'analogy' doesn't seem to fit your above comments. You talk about shortcommings of Windows and then call a Linux network 'a special olympics basketball team'. You've certainly confused me.

Still not quite there...

[JayBlalock]

I've been watching Linux for ages, and about once a year or two, I'll get a copy of a distro and give it a shot. This year I actually tried two, which are supposed to be the more user-friendly ones: RedHat and SuSE. While for the first time I managed to quickly set up a Linux desktop environment which did everything I needed, I still found it a bear to work with. RedHat didn't like my soundcard, the forums weren't much help. It took me two weeks to get SuSE to accept nVidia's drivers (because ONE character in ONE source code was off), and then after a week, it decided to stop using the drivers again. Never got Quicktime and most other video formats working. Opera for Linux isn't as good, and I've never cared for Moz. After a couple months of fighting with it, I finally gave up and went back to Windows. It's CLOSE to being desktop-ready, but barely a day went by that I didn't discover something I couldn't automatically do in Linux, and would require a day's tinkering to get working. And this was, as I said, after trying to different distros. Maybe next year... (braces for flames telling him he's stupid and evil)

Re:Still not quite there...

[ctid]

This isn't a very meaningful comparison, because you're focusing on installation problems. Try to imagine a world where Linux is installed before you get your PC. That's more like the world of the business desktop where Linux is heading.

Having said that, my Suse 8.2 distro recognizes everything in my box, and I've got more software than I know what to do with. There always seems to be an alternative if I can't get what I want. I've recently had to do a lot of work in Windows, and day after day I find it a major struggle. This is because I've been using Linux at home since 1996 and I don't do very much in Windows. Believe me, Linux on the desktop is more a matter of your current experience. If you're not used to Windows' particular way of doing things, you wouldn't find Linux difficult. But you might if you were required to install it for yourself.

Re:Still not quite there...

[Anonymous Coward]

>This isn't a very meaningful comparison, because you're focusing on installation problems

Sorry, but the author said this too:
"but barely a day went by that I didn't discover something I couldn't automatically do in Linux, and would require a day's tinkering to get working."

And I agree with him. There are some things that are brain-dead-easy to do with Linux, but they are other stuff that SHOULD be easy to do, but they are not and they require stupid amounts of tinkering and internal's knowledge to set them up. The Linux platform has to fix these issues before it claims Windows' position on our desktops.

Re:Still not quite there...

[Anonymous Coward]

So instead of telling everyone that it's 'not ready', how about telling everyone WHAT DIDN'T WORK!!!

Jesus, I've been using slack 9 since the week it came out (my floppy drive was dead), and I have had issues with anything. What the hell are you people doing?

Re:Still not quite there...

[GigsVT]

I didn't discover something I couldn't automatically do in Linux, and would require a day's tinkering to get working.

Barely a day goes by that I don't do something in Linux that is impossible (or very much more difficult) to do in Windows. Especially automatic things. An example: I want to check every hour to see if a website has changed. No problem, three lines of shell script in a cron job.

Yes, getting hardware set up can be tough sometimes, especially if you have brand new hardware. Sometimes the community hasn't had time to write a driver, or in the case of video cards, the manufacturer has stonewalled requests for specifications.

Getting closed source apps working on Linux can be difficult too, since there isn't much you can do to debug or fix them.

Note that most of your complaints were with closed source software, quicktime, nvidia drivers, Opera. The reason you didn't get much help with those is because there's little the community can do to support such apps.

A sidenote though, mplayer RPMs from freshrpms.net, and a quick grab of the hacked up DLLs from mplayer's site and you are set with most video formats. You can blame that one on software patents, since distros would be all over mplayer and the codecs, making it as automatic as possible, if it wouldn't open them up to huge legal liabilities.

Anyway, I guess my point is, a lot of your troubles came from issues that Slashdotters are often railing against, software patents, and proprietary software.

It's not all ideological, as you have found out, we do have practical reasons for our views. IP laws are harming Free Software development in real, tangible ways.

Re:Still not quite there...

[ctid]

These are installation issues. They are not something the average user would/could do in a work environment. Remember, the average user doesn't install software (or at least doesn't have permission to do so). S/he doesn't use a sound card at work. S/he doesn't use 3D graphics at work. They use probably 2 or three applications all the time. Once IT management wake up to the idea that with a Linux desktop J Random User could never install anything new on their box, there will be a huge shift towards Linux. A huge proportion of Windows tech support is occasioned because of: (a)Non-approved software being installed. (b)Worms which are transferred by executing attachments on emails.

Re:Still not quite there...

[Arandir]

Speaking of installation problems, at work we have a bunch of Solaris boxes, and of course the obligatory Window units. Guess which one is easier for a trained sysadmin to install?

Solaris. Use Jumpstart, a master disk image for those times when the harddrive fails, and keep the home directories non-local, and you're set.

Re:Still not quite there...

[JayBlalock]

If you're not used to Windows' particular way of doing things, you wouldn't find Linux difficult. Ah, yes, of course. The fact that I've been working on Intel machines since 1984, knew DOS inside and out, kept from using Windows as long as possible, and was finally forced to switch in '95, all prevented me from understanding Linux. It all makes sense now. Come on, now. I'm not talking lack of intelligence or technical ability. If I wanted to spend a month digging through all the specs and documentation on kernal programming, I'm sure I could fix all my Linux problems easily. But I'd been hearing that Linux had finally gotten to the point of "plug and play," and I found it had not. You seem to be suggesting a hypothetical scenario where the boxes are customized by some Guru, set on my desk at work, and able to do everything required for a certain task in the workplace. That's not being "ready for the desktop." I wanted something I could install, work through a few startup quirks and "leaving curve" problems, and then be able to make Just Work. There were elements I loved. The Kernal stability. SuSE's Yast. The superior multitasking. But come on, I had to do a *kernel hack* and modify the Source just to get it to recognize video card drivers from the most popular manufacturer out there. That took me a week to work out, and NO user without my level of prior experience would have managed it. They would have taken one look, seen they had no 3D graphics, and 2D that looks like a slideshow, and run screaming back to Windows. And that's what I'm talking about. Maybe in another year or two.

Re:Still not quite there...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually..Mandrake linux is supposed to be a lot more user friendly than RedHat or SuSE, SuSE and RedHat are more oriented towards the corporate environment than Mandrake, though Mandrake is perfectly usable in a corporate setting as well.

Re:Still not quite there...

[Anonymous Coward]

went back to Windows. It's CLOSE to being desktop-ready, but barely a day went by that I didn't discover something I couldn't automatically do in Linux, and would require a day's tinkering to get working.

Preach on brother! Windows will be ready for the desktop someday, but until then, stick with Linux!

This post brought to you by the Read It Again, It Doesn't Parse The Way You Thought It Did society!

Re:Still not quite there...

[alpharoid]

Never got Quicktime and most other video formats working.

That's strange, especially if you tried Linux this year. Xine and mplayer are very good media players and do support every codec you will ever need. Once they're installed (there's the Win32 codec DLL pack) you never have to worry about codecs again.

Surprisingly, Windows usually gives you some headaches when dealing with obscure codecs. You have to find codec packs with flaky installers where if you flag every option, one codec inevitably breaks another. It takes practice to get everything right if you need lots of codecs in Windows. It could have been a lot easier with Media Player's automatic codec download, but MS won't facilitate downloading of standard codecs (divx 4 or 5? Nope. Vorbis? Nope!) in the hopes that everyone will ditch good codecs to adopt their DRM-dirty WMx formats.

I can understand your other troubles with Linux as they're being slowly ironed out, but codec problems in Linux nowadays seem strange to me. It's one of the areas where Linux is a lot easier to work with.

Re:Still not quite there...

[Beatlebum]

Let's take the nVidia example. They make great video cards and are slow to support Linux. This is because nVidia wants to get maximum bang for its buck. It may not be fair, but business is not fair. My position is similar to the guy that tries Linux once in a while to see if it's improved. I'm impressed with it, but it still requires tinkering for what should work out of the box. Life is too short to worry about availablity of drivers. I want to use the best hardware with well written drivers. I'm past the whole idealogical thing, I just want to use the most functional, stable O.S. Windows 2K is that O.S.

Re:Still not quite there...

[Aadain2001]

I think you are right. For most people it is very close. We are still at that stage where the more intelligent users, the ones who can switch to Linux and be happy, will figure out all the little tricks and quarks and help the distro people fix/roll-in those needed changes. Give it a year and even my mom will be able to use it at the pace Linux has been advancing.

Re:Still not quite there...

[Jadrano]

I had never worked much with video files, and then I suddenly had some videos in all possible formats I wanted to watch. I tried both with Windows XP and SuSE Linux. It wasn't so important, and I didn't invest too much time, but in the end, I could see more of the videos on Linux than on Windows. For Windows, I didn't find free programs that could be used for such a large variety of formats like xine and MPlayer, so I had to download quite a number of different Windows programs, and with some of them, there were problems (e.g. some Quicktime files worked well, but ohers didn't; while xine displayed them perfectly Quicktime for Windows displayed a strange error message).
Certainly, there can be problems with video formats on Linux, but there are similar problems with Windows, as well, and in my case, it worked better with Linux than with Windows.

Re:Still not quite there...

[MConlon]

Barely a day goes by that I don't do something in Linux that is impossible (or very much more difficult) to do in Windows. Especially automatic things. An example: I want to check every hour to see if a website has changed. No problem, three lines of shell script in a cron job.

Doesn't IE for Windows have "subscriptions"? IE for Mac does... it'll track your sites for you, and you can customize the check interval for each site if you want. Frankly, I'd rather that than a shell script in a cron job, even though I know how to do both.

MJC

Re:Still not quite there...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow it sounds like my experiance with windows. The other day I was at a friends house and tried to install a DLink TXS. No driver for XP. XP did not want to accept the driver. GOD it took forever. The only OS I seem to have trouble intergrating with others is windows. It even doesn't play well with itself. You have to keep on baby sitting it just to keep it working. sometimes it stops workiny without any reason. Same box with FreeBSD has been running now for 2 years. I'm still waiting for Microsoft to get it right. I'm told XP is there but that stupid driver shit proves to me it's just not ready......Get a real OS...anything beats windows

Re:Still not quite there...

[Jadrano]

As it has been pointed out elsewhere (I don't remember exactly where), the situation is probably more complicated.
For people who are really interested in IT and good at trying out things, using Linux for most tasks hasn't been a problem for quite some time, for many more difficult things Linux is better suited than Windows.
On the other hand, it seems that people who only use computers for a few basic tasks (writing e-mails and letters, browsing the web etc.) and use only a small part of the options Windows offers them can switch to Linux now, and they won't even notice a big difference.
Switching to Linux would be most difficult for the people in between who have downloaded Windows shareware, connected gadgets with Windows drivers and memorized a significant number of step-to-step procedures for a bit more complicated things in Windows.

Today, I suppose most Linux users belong to the category of people with a computer knowledge above average. The threshold can be lowered, but a good sign for Linux's success would be more and more users from the other end of the scale starting to use Linux. A significant part of those in the middle category probably won't be willing to switch to Linux, anyway.

Re:Still not quite there...

[GigsVT]

I remember that feature, I'm not sure if they took it out or not, I haven't really used IE much in the last several years, except to make sure my websites look at least OK in IE after I finish coding and validating.

In any case, it was just an example, one of countless I could have used.

Re:Still not quite there...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people who use PC's at work also have one at home and do, in fact, install software all the time and have been doing it for years. If the Linux distro companies are in denial about this, they are going to lose.

Re:Still not quite there...

[Tim C]

I want to check every hour to see if a website has changed. No problem, three lines of shell script in a cron job.

You do realise that Windows has scripting capabilities and a cron-like task scheduler, don't you?

I've used both Linux and Windows for a good few years, and I've not found anything that was impossible in one and not the other. If I've not known how to do something, it's been because of a lack of knowledge on my part, not a lack of functionality on the part of the OS.

True, I'm no sysadmin, and can't remember the last time I wrote a shell script, but I'm no clueless newbie either.

Re:Still not quite there...

[GigsVT]

You do realise that Windows has scripting capabilities and a cron-like task scheduler, don't you?

If it did, they did a very good job of hiding them. Last time I used Windows, I think I remember it has some sort of "at" command, and that's about it. I seem to remember you could download some sort of Windows Scripting Host or something, but I seem to remember going around to all the Windows boxes and deleting it due to some virus that required deleting that to be safe.

What were you saying again?

Re:Still not quite there...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, fuck off. If you cannot configure Windows Task Scheduler to run a simple batch file (.bat? what's this?) *JUST LIKE CRON* then you suck magically.

I am so sick of linux users spreading FUD about windows nt variants being 'toy' OSes.

Re:Still not quite there...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been watching Microsoft for ages, ever since clients started coming to me with MS-DOS system problems. This is not unexpected, since my area of expertise is operating systems of every kind from mainframes to embedded systems. Every couple of years, something new from Microsoft comes out, and I'll usually give it a shot. This year I actually tried two, which are supposed to be the more user-friendly ones: Windows ME and Windows XP. God, they were terrible. Can you imagine, an operating system with no protections? It took less than a month for my teenage son to corrupt the ME system so completely that it wouldn't even boot. Windows XP was even scarier. I'm supposed to let the people who designed a system like this manage it remotely? No thank you.

I must confess that apart from the cute cosmetics, it's always an unpleasant experience to work with Microsoft systems. It seems that every time you turn around, there is another interoperability issue, or lack of regard for standards, or prohibitive license agreements, or just plain corporate arrogance. It beats the worst that we ever experienced with IBM in its former days of mainframe dictatorship.

And the level of stupidity among Microsoft vendors and users is just unreal. It's like they're all in denial, that they can't even conceive of a world beyond that of their own narrow and immediate gratification. They don't seem to care how the system works, what makes it secure and reliable, or even whether it will still be around in a few years. They just want to press the buttons and go "whee!" Like infants really.

Re:Still not quite there...

[MrResistor]

But I'd been hearing that Linux had finally gotten to the point of "plug and play," and I found it had not.

Perhaps I'm reading you wrong here, but you seem to be suggesting that Windows is "plug and play", and I have to contest that claim. I've done plenty of installs of various Windows and Suse releases, and Suse, since at least 7.1, has been FAR more "plug and play" than any version of Windows I've encountered.

IMHO, the average luser will be equally lost installing either one. Linux will have far fewer issues that the user needs to deal with, but they'll be much more difficult to solve.

You seem to be suggesting a hypothetical scenario where the boxes are customized by some Guru, set on my desk at work, and able to do everything required for a certain task in the workplace.

That is precisely the scenario under which most computer users operate, so I'd say that's a considerable part of being ready for the desktop. Sometimes that guru is in the IT department, sometimes the guru is the guy who builds the master drive images for Dell, sometimes the guru is the pasty-faced kid next door. Makes no difference. The average desktop user is not capable of setting up a computer from scratch without help, or even with help in many cases, regardless of whether they're using Windows or Linux.

But come on, I had to do a *kernel hack* and modify the Source just to get it to recognize video card drivers from the most popular manufacturer out there. That took me a week to work out, and NO user without my level of prior experience would have managed it. They would have taken one look, seen they had no 3D graphics, and 2D that looks like a slideshow, and run screaming back to Windows.

I have to wonder what other circumstances there were that you aren't telling us. I've been using nvidia cards under Linux since before they were supported, and I've never had problems like the ones you describe. I've also never even heard of anyone having to muck about with source code to get an nvidia driver working (I've had to copy source files to other directories, but never actually open them up and edit them). And 2d that looks like a slideshow? Definately something else going on there.

Re:Still not quite there...

[MrResistor]

I've used both Linux and Windows for a good few years, and I've not found anything that was impossible in one and not the other. If I've not known how to do something, it's been because of a lack of knowledge on my part, not a lack of functionality on the part of the OS.

How do you print a directory listing in Windows?

I don't mean that as a troll or anything, it's a serious question about one of those things that's simple in *nix but quite inconvenient in Windows. No one I've talked to knows how to do it directly, the best solution I've heard is to take a screenshot of the explorer window and crop out what you don't want. Surely, there must be a better way.

Re:Still not quite there...

[shaitand]

We are talking about the corporate desktop, so yes, we are talking about a situation where some guru sets it up and puts it on your desk, not only does he do that but he locks you from so much as moving the icons on your desktop.

But that aside, if I understand you correctly. Since 1984 you've worked with microsoft products, you first became extremely familiar with ms-dos, then fought change and hated it to their gui... in 95, which most just called dos 7 because it was dos with a new gui wrapper that was claimed to be otherwise, but basically still the system you had already learned inside out. Slow that gui has evolved, and you've continued to resist change whether it was for the better or not. All your experience again has been with microsoft systems and you have no significant experience with anything else, you've just followed the microsoft road from 84.

None of this indicates you have the slightest bit of general technical knowledge. It shows you are entrenched in the microsoft way and absolutely abhore change (by your own admission). Exactly how is this a good argument about how your the kind of person who would find it easy to pick up something new and run with it? I suspect you may not like mac's either.

3d graphics are easy in linux now days, nvidia card? okay, download the driver (just like windows) although your card will work out of the box it won't have 3d hardware acceleration (much like a radeon 7000 on xp out of the box). If drivers weren't part of the kernel you'd lose most of that stability you liked.

Re:Still not quite there...

[GigsVT]

I hate to argue against myself, but DOS and cmd support redirection.

dir > file
open up file in notepad, print.

Yeah, it's not as easy as linux/unix, but not as hard as you are making it sound.

In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the corporate Windows machines have trouble interoperating with the GNU/Linux enviroment

Why fight for the desktop

[Scorpion265]

I've been an avid user of linux for a while now, almost 9 years, slackware 3 was my first distro I used. Why fight for the desktop? Linux will never become a desktop OS. Now if I were redhat/debian/slackware or any distro at all I would be fighting for the midserver range, light webservers, file servers, etc. You won't be able to take the desktop from microsoft, unless they do some major bungling with longhorn. (I personaly am dreading that day.. DCM, blech) Even though I am a Linux user, I am also a windows user, there are just some things that linux can't do.

Re: Easy software use and installation

[Anonymous Coward]

No!! Then I'll be out of a job you insensitive clod. ;^)

/.tted. I'M KARMA WHORING!

[Anonymous Coward]

ZDNet Review 28 July 2003

To investigate SuSE's Linux Desktop, which is based on the company's Linux Enterprise Server technology, we ran it alongside a number of Windows systems in a 'live' editorial production environment for around two weeks. The idea was to see how well this business-oriented operating system/application software bundle worked for a moderately technical user working in a Windows-dominated world.

We emerged from the process having had some pleasant surprises, but with some reservations too. After a challenging start, the system generally performed so well that it was easy to forget the underlying technology being used. But when problems did crop up, they tended to take some time to solve.

Installation & setup

The first troubles we ran into were in re-installing the software from scratch onto a dual-boot system with Windows XP running on a separate hard drive. This step was needed, according to SuSE, in order to install a feature that had been forgotten in an earlier installation -- the LAN browser. But several attempts to install SuSE Linux Desktop (SLD) failed to result in the appearance of the elusive feature, while other system components mysteriously disappeared, leading to much head-scratching and many further installation attempts. In the end, this seemed to be down to a combination of bad install CDs and a bad CD-ROM drive; the software installed without problems on two other systems.

Once SLD was successfully in place, we faced our next problem: finding a way to communicate on the Yahoo Messenger network used by ZDNet UK. Yahoo supplies a Unix client, but SuSE users must use a package designed for Red Hat's distribution. This does not get on at all well with SuSE's package installation tool, YaST2.

As is often the case in the Linux world, an open-source alternative to the proprietary software is available -- in this case Gaim, a chat client compatible with the messaging networks of AOL, Yahoo and others. Gaim was even included on the SLD setup CDs, allowing YaST2 to add it with a couple of mouse clicks. Unfortunately, the version on the CD was out of date, and a bug kept it from signing onto the Yahoo network.

This is where SuSE's online update feature comes into play. The online update is not designed to install new programs, but if you need a quick upgrade to an existing application, this feature will often be able to provide it, as well as the latest operating system bug fixes and security patches. Access is through a paid support deal with SuSE, which most organisations will have as a matter of course.

In our test, patches were downloaded and installed with a minimum of hassle, although we were instructed to restart a process by typing in a shell command -- something that would scare many users.

Automatic software installation

The online update tool is not guaranteed to have all the latest software, however, and does not completely solve what can still be a major headache for Linux users: installing software. Fortunately there are several alternatives available.

If Windows desktop systems are cheaply-made, assembly-line automobiles, more or less well-built, all exactly alike aside from the odd optional leather seat or cup-holder, then Linux can feel more like a hand-built Rolls Royce, using more or less the same parts as another Rolls, but fundamentally an individually-crafted machine. One of the side-effects of this situation is that an application packaged for one distribution won't necessarily install flawlessly on another, or even on another version of the same distribution -- as we discovered when poking around for a more recent Gaim package to install on SLD.

Applications can generally be found in the form of a package, using a format such as RPM (Red Hat Package Management), which includes all the components needed to make the application run on a particular distribution. However, if no package is available for your particular distribution and version, you may

Re:/.tted. I'M KARMA WHORING!

[middle]

man you just missed the 1st post !

Networking Aside

[borkus]

It was interesting that one of the problems was running Yahoo messenger. While it seems like a lot of trouble to find the right packages, people go through the same thing when they upgrade Windows - some apps require a different client and others require tweaking. The experience that the writer went through with his PC running SUSE would not be repeated in an organization with decent support staff. The staff would go through the discovery process of finding the best client, then distribute that client to all Linux desktops.

In short, software incompatibilities like that are an issue for one or two users, but less of an issue with a larger user base.

When will this stuff finally be ironed out?-Starch

[Anonymous Coward]

"Exactly that moment when we see a rapid deployment of Linux in corporate desktops. When large companies start using it, it doesn't matter what software is missing. That 'missing link' software will be developed very quickly."

I'm waiting for "Ironing Board 2000" to come out.

It's suppose to help smooth out any wrinkles one may have in deployment.

When will they learn....

[Usquebaugh]

companies that is.

You have this wonderful multi user OS and you use it on a single PC, arghhh.

Centralised computing is where most companies should be at, cheap disposable terminals on the desktop and a beast of a server under lock and key.

Linux will rule the enterprise desktop when companies grasp the mainfram had the right network architecture. Until then they're just wasting money.

Re:When will they learn....

[Anonymous Coward]

blah blah blah Centralised... blah blah blah enterprise... blah blah blah network architecture...

Re:When will they learn....

[Anonymous Coward]

blah blah blah Centralised... blah blah blah enterprise... blah blah blah network architecture...

blah blah blah poster unemployable blah blah blah

:-0

Re:When will they learn....

[Trurl's Machine]

cheap disposable terminals on the desktop

Didn't we hear this in 1997 from Larry Ellison? The mythos of "cheap disposable terminals" or "network computers" sounds very well from the technical point of view but it's still against the economics. Low-end yet fully equipped PC's are just too damn cheap to buy. Face it - the era of a mainframe machine surrounded by VT terminals was gone when Vanilla Ice was a big star.

Re:When will they learn....

[Usquebaugh]

Not the purchase price but the cost of support/maintneance. Although I am waiting for somebody to release a very cheap <$100 thin client.

Re:When will they learn....

[ameoba]

Shouldn't be too far off... the story about the diskless Lindows-on-a-CD systems had the single unit prices at $189. If there was a real demand for cheap thin-clients, I'm sure that Dell/Gateway/whoever could do one of those integrated-into-the LCD models for $50-75 over the cost of the monitro if there was any real demand for them.

Re:When will they learn....

[spectecjr]

You have this wonderful multi user OS and you use it on a single PC, arghhh.

Centralised computing is where most companies should be at, cheap disposable terminals on the desktop and a beast of a server under lock and key.

Linux will rule the enterprise desktop when companies grasp the mainfram had the right network architecture. Until then they're just wasting money.

That's all well and good if you've got a massive bank account... but if you're a startup, a small business or a mid-size company, you typically can't afford to build an air-conditioned, water cooled mainframe room with networking to every single room in your building. Especially if you have only 20 users talking to a $10,000,000 mainframe.

The centralized computing 'paradigm' is a bad one. It makes much more sense to go for a distributed model with a PC on every desk. Sure, you duplicate some physical hardware, but the system as a whole scales rather incredibly well.

Re:When will they learn....

[Usquebaugh]

A start up doesn't need a large server, or indeed wiring. A central server, wireless networing and some xterms.

A PC on every desk scales linear, so do the costs!

Neither paradigm is good or bad, the uses to which they are applied make the choice good or bad. A $10m server for 20 people is probably a bad choice. A network of 10,000 desktop pcs is probably a bad choice.

Re:When will they learn....

[Anonymous Coward]

I like a hybrid approach, where some things are centralized and some things are not. X makes this very easy.

Re:When will they learn....

[symbolset]

This just in: Terminalissimo VT-onehundred-o is still dead.

Thin clients use the server. The server provides the functionality to run the applications. The applications access the Internet. Single point of failure. 'nuff said.

Re:When will they learn....

[Dalcius]

These days, with the right admin tools, p2p essentially combines the mainframe with the client.

Keep one head server with a listing of all configs and some tools to pipe everything out to distributed clients.

The inane thing is that everything I just mentioned is friggin painless on *NIX. You can do it in a Windows GUI, but certainly not as effortlessly.

Automation rules.

Re:When will they learn....

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny thing is that if you go and look at those TCO studies MS does to prove that Linux is really much more expensive, the Linux environment they setup is a dumb nothing shared bunch of PCs while in the Windows environment apps are centralized in Terminal Server. Yeah, sure it is cheaper to maintain (hardware cost is a drop in a bucket anyway.)

While X11 sucks in many ways, the network transparency is an absolutely wonderful and powerful thing. It's built in, works and cheap, while in Windows you in reality need Citrix or something like that which is expensive, doesn't scale well, is somewhat hard to administer, has some limitations (sound only goes one way for example unlike in X...) Oh and it is increasngly popular too because it still lot better then running everything locally.

If you want to move a organization to Linux, you first do what MS tells you is the right way! Centralize the apps on server farms, use Citrix or even better Tarantella (both support pretty much every existing OS, but Tarantella is lot cheaper and has better architechture) to distribute them to users. After that you can chooce what makes sense in both client and server side, using not only Windows or Linux but also OSX, Solaris, FreeBSD, AIX, etc. and thin clients, PCs, mobile phones whatever is the right tool for the job.

Modem and internet connection in Linux

[civilengineer]

I can't do it! I want to use linux for my e-mail and web surfing at home but don't know how to configure my modem. I am sure there will be millions like me. Unless connecting to internet from linux is as easy as doing it from windows, linux won't grow. If linux has to grow on desktop, this is one area they need to make immediate progress on. Also, many ISPs dont support linux. (eg Netzero). Who would want to use an OS that can't get to www these days easily?

Re:Modem and internet connection in Linux

[SCHecklerX]

wvdial. There are also GUIs for this (most of them use wvdial as the back end ... wmppp, gppp-wvdial, gppp-wrap, etc). It just works (unless your idiot ISP or business uses a shiva with SPAP, then you are screwed no matter what you try to use if it is non-M$).

Re:Modem and internet connection in Linux

[bersl2]

I don't really want to turn this into a tech support forum, but...

Probably your modem is a winmodem: a crippled piece of hardware which requires Windows software in order to work. See this document (somewhat old) for some help.

In other words, this is the hardware manufacturers' fault, and not the OSS community's.

Re:Modem and internet connection in Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Back when I had to use a modem, I just fired up
ezppp and filled in the blanks, same way a windows
user would... just what is the problem??

Re:Modem and internet connection in Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

TROLL TROLL TROLL !!!!

FUD SPREADER!!!

Yes, Captain Lameness Filter, I am yelling.

Re:Modem and internet connection in Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Similar problem here. SuSE 8.1 won't see my Linksys WiFi card. Takes a kernal hack to get it to work... and that's more than I want to get involved with.

Re:Modem and internet connection in Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

What you say is all true, but you're missing the point that it doesn't matter WHO's fault it is. Joe Sixpack doesn't understand nor care. If his modem works in Windows, and not in Linux, then Linux is not an option he will consider.

Re:Modem and internet connection in Linux

[bersl2]

Then our beef is with the OEMs. It's not our fault, but it is our responsibility to inform and enlighten Joe Sixpack, that they put pressure on the whole industry.

It's still a pipe dream, but every person who learns is a small victory.

But enough with this missionary crap!

I POST IMG-TIMELINE AND AM A FURRY YIFFY FAGGOT

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

I can see how this is a problem

[Pinguu]

A key problem area was interacting with the corporate Windows network
Without the Windows source code I'd imagined it would be extremely difficult coding Linux to interact with the Windows network. I wonder if it's easier to get Lindows to interact with the Windows network than with other distros?

Linux Desktop switching

[Anonymous Coward]

Switching will always cost money and time, so there's got to be possible to switch operating systems. There's got to be fully implemented and now the the linux standard base seems to have eliminated a lot of the RPM incompatibilities,we are on the network? I should hope so. It's kinda funny. If there's zero Windows boxen on the network, the OS X and Linux users would probably still have to use Samba. Bummer. Isn't a need forsamba in a production environment for two weeks, and found it wanting. A key problem area again? The smb protocal does not fail quite frequently. Novellis certainly not dead and has greatly fallen to the fud of NT. NDS and Novell provide the best NOS administration environment period! No lpdad is not an answer because its just a protocal and not a solution. I use to be fully implemented and now use linux, we are on the road to easy software use and installation. on my laptop. Wow. Coupled with apt (I ain'tpaying for Click-n-run), it is "a failure -- YOU ARE HERE network" ? Which will be ready for the desktop after all. After an earlier, very positive evaluation of SuSE Linux Desktop, ZDNet UK has carried out a more in-depth review, running the system in a mixed SUN and Microsoftenvironment, it was considered a godsend from both the Windows admins and the UN*X/SUN admins. All I want is a sales and marketing type company with IT setting the standards. When your sales people have made me a happy. It's a difficult situation -- non-technical people using Linux in a Windows environment -- and were impressed on many counts.

Woh, this review was very positive

[ACK!!]

Not sure why the poster got so bunged up over two interoperability criticisms.

The yahoo messenger thing and the outdated version of gaim is a bit of pain in the ass for a newbie but not a sysadmin. Good points all the way around on that one.

The LAN integration thing was interesting. I always end of with minor annoying bits of trouble with Windows networks until I load up LinNeighborhood and set the permissions on smbmnt and smbumount correctly for that app to work. We do this on the developer's desktops. We have tried all the KDE and gnome browsing tools and all that stuff. No go. Only LinNeighborhood really fit the bill.

Ok, what Windows browsing tools do you use?

I am using the samba browsing tool with Nautilus on Ximian Desktop2 as a try-out but I am already feeling the itch to get LinNeighborhood back.

What about you?

Re:Woh, this review was very positive

[Keeper]

The yahoo messenger thing and the outdated version of gaim is a bit of pain in the ass for a newbie but not a sysadmin.

Your average desktop user is not a sysadmin. Nor should you have to be in order to figure out how to install something like that.

Re:Woh, this review was very positive

[plugger]

I use Gnomba, but then I also purchased 'Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours' a few months back, which dispelled many authentication and browsing mysteries. I'd recommend that book even if you just want to debug a Windows only network or learn what's happening when you connect to a Share-level vs. User level share. It even gives some pointers on patching your kernel to support Windows ACLs, but I didn't want or need to go so deep.

Biggest obstacles in my office:

[deano]

After much experimentation and testing over the years, I've found the following are always the hardest bits:

1) GUI Internationalization issues.

Sure, you can web browse multi-lingually in Linux, but just try* to set up a machine to support multiple input methods. More recent distros are very* close to getting it right, but I still experience the "if you want to input in Japanese and English, you have to have your menus/interface in Japanese" issue.

2) International file formats.

This is mostly related to MS Office... but, I haven't yet found a Mac/Linux Office product that could properly read/format/write to Japanese Excel documents.

3) Minute aspects of everyday app use.

Okay, great. I can open any Powerpoint doc in OpenOffice. But, nearly everything comes up as a 'flattened' slide, with the internal text/boxes/images wholly unmodifiable. How am I supposed to collaborate with a Windows user on a Powerpoint presentation when I can't go in and fix all their mistakes? ;)

Basically, from what I can tell, Desktop Linux has arrived in terms of ease of setup/use, communicating and filesharing over a network, printing, etc... But, there are still too many gotchas for it to go over in an established office environment.

I'd love to see out of the box, GUI-based remote client administration for desktop linux... Something along the lines of Apple Remote Desktop.

Re:Biggest obstacles in my office:

[Arandir]

Okay, great. I can open any Powerpoint doc in OpenOffice. But, nearly everything comes up as a 'flattened' slide, with the internal text/boxes/images wholly unmodifiable.

I don't have a problem with PowerPoint docs in OpenOffice at all! It just works. I use the corporate PowerPoint templates all the time. I edit other people's docs all the time. It just works.

I'd love to see out of the box, GUI-based remote client administration for desktop linux...

Does WebMin count?

Re:Biggest obstacles in my office:

[HalfFlat]

1) GUI Internationalization issues.

This is my biggest problem with desktop Linux! I'm really hoping the openi18n-im project will turn things around, but that's still very much under development if I understand correctly.

I would love to see something where I could easily switch input methods globally for my X session, which then talked to application which in turn interpreted the input characters appropriately for their own character sets as appropriate/possible.

Or possibly more realistic: input methods that all do the unicode thing, and applications that are all unicode aware, or can accept unicode-encoded input and transform it into the native character encoding.

On the application front, vim seems to have it down pat. xterm's unicode suppport seems pretty good too. If you can get past the input method problem, just about all the gnome apps seem to work well with unicode.

I'm really surprised that no linux distro seems to be going out of its way to address this issue. It really seems that this one is something Windows has had sorted for a few years now, and is one of the very few things I prefer about that environment.

...an environment not Windows-dominated?

[vidstudent]

I kinda wish that existed.

Microsoft, as much as I hate them, is everywhere. The agressive approach to converting people to Linux - forcing them onto Linux computers - isn't going to work all that well. People need to get over their fears of the alien OS, and, to do that, we need to co-exist, side-by-side, until that fateful moment when the M$ system crashes and we're the only one left running.

Seriously, Linux needs to be there in front of the common end-users' eyes for a while for them to start wanting to use it. That means Linux has to be able to work in Windows environments, and it will be graded based on how well it works with other Windows machines and server setups.

Re:...an environment not Windows-dominated?

[countvlad]

...and people aren't going to use linux if it confuses them. Most people don't care, let alone know how, their Windows computers work. They just care that they work and are compatible with the vast majority of their peers computers.

The fact of the matter is that damn near everyone know's how to use a Windows computer, even if they're clueless how it works. No vague command line programs. Very simliar user interface where ever you go. When your neighbour/friend/family member has a problem and asks you (because you're the local geek) how to fix it, you don't have to worry about wether they have KDE, Gnome, or some other desktop setup. Choice is great, but commonality is better - admining a mixed network can be a royal pain. Keeping unix/linux/windows/macs all working with all their perks for all their different versions *correctly* is a damn frustrating job. And just because you can tell your boss "hey look, we could move all our windows clients to this free operating system, with free software, and save xxxxx dollars!" doesn't make anyone understand how to use any of that software, it just confuses the hell out of them when they get home and can't figure out why their shiny new OpenOffice document doesn't open in Microsoft Word.

Re:...an environment not Windows-dominated?

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried forcing my family to use Linux desktop. They ran me out of town on a rail. Many pissed off kids forced me to 'put Windows back'. They were familiar with it and didn't want to relearn. Where's the sense of adventure?

Oh, right, I forgot

[Anonymous Coward]

I created a seperate user, I know better ;-)

As much as I like dicking around in Linux, sometimes I just want it to work. Mandrake is pretty good at this, but there's so much bloat.
I guess I could have done a HD Knoppix install, but I just had to check out Lindows. Maybe I'll wipe it in a few days and do a normal Debian install.

Wrong target!

[Montreal Geek]

Regardless of the relative merit of the various OSes from Microsoft, it's about time that reviewers stop equating "ready for desktop use" with "works like Windows".

Just imagine the result if, say, movies were judged on how close they are to the common denominator!

- Well, Gene, Schindler's List was tought provoking and great storytelling. Thumbs down.

- I agree, it's not worth seeing unless they edit it to add at least a gratuitous sex scenes that doesn't advance the plot. A few random car chases wouldn't have hurt either. Two thumbs down.

Feh!

If the only "problems" left with a Linux distribution are that "it doesn't do X like Windows" or "it doesn't interoperate with X of Windows" then it may be time to take a long, hard look at Windows.

-- MG

Windows is NOT ready for the desktop

[Rares Marian]

Doesn't play well with Linux boxes.

Ease of Use

[Anonymous Coward]

Put the default installation in front of your grandma. If she can't download and install software, it is too complex. This means no command line BS. Double-clicking an icon should run an installation wizard.

Even the CS majors at my university(who have always used windows) have trouble using Linux, what does that tell you about ease of use?

Re:Ease of Use

[TheShadow]

All that tell me is that just because someone is a CS major, it doesn't mean that they are smart.

Smart people figure things out. Dumb people just copy examples from a book.

Re:Ease of Use

[Trurl's Machine]

Put the default installation in front of your grandma. If she can't download and install software, it is too complex. This means no command line BS. Double-clicking an icon should run an installation wizard.

Your test could well end here. Explaining double-clicking to a complete layman can be a torture (especially the subtle difference between double clicking and twin clicking - if the delay between clicks is longer than the preset interval, you no longer "double" click, you just click twice; now please, explain it to your noble grandma; then start explaining why double-clicking on the right or middle button won't have the same result and acually why you say "click" when you should say "left click" etc.)

Re:Ease of Use

[Doppleganger]

Well, that's it, then.. MS Windows is too complex. About half of the adults in my immediate family who are over 40 can't get it to work right, and would be completely lost when it came to installing new software. Then again, half of that group thinks that an answering machine is a mysterious newfangled invention, and half of that group had to be taught that you don't need to pre-heat a microwave.

I know, computer interfaces should be no more complex than an etch-a-sketch, right? That way no one can possibly be left out...

MODERATORS???

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell is this 0, Troll, while pretty much the EXACT SAME THING above is 4, Funny?? Moderators are the worst thing to happen to /. since the internet was born.

Re:MODERATORS???

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be 0, Redundant. Like it makes any difference.

PDAJames ==~ bagdad bob

[WindBourne]

I have to laugh at the fact that PDAJames rips it in his comments on ZDNet's site and at slashdot, even though the reviewer themselves seem to like it.

Windows as a Moving Target

[tillemetry]

M$ needs windows to be a moving target.
Otherwise they can't charge for periodic upgrades.
Whether corporate America can be convinced they don't need Microsoft is a good question.

Whether some IT organizations can be convinced they don't need Microsoft to be a moving target is also an interesting question. Many IT people seem to believe a moving M$ means job security, and advise their bosses accordingly.

"When will this stuff finally be ironed out?"

[larry bagina]

Well, Mr PDAJames, maybe you could start by telling use what you've done to help iron it out.

What good is Open Source if you do is wait for others to fix things?

Failure?

[Arandir]

The title of this Slashdot article is "The Failures of Desktop Linux". Yet this is NOT a failure of desktop Linux, but rather a problem "interacting with the corporate Windows network".

Big difference!

I'm not using Linux in a corporate environment, but I am using FreeBSD, which has exactly the same "desktop" software. It interacts with the mandated corporate Windows network just fine. There are some problems, but nothing that couldn't be easily fixed on the IT side of things.

For example, I can't use Outlook Calendar, and sometimes I need to schedule meetings. I can't use Korganizer or Ximian Connector, because they require the Outlook servers to turn on WebDAV. But all it would take for it to work would be for IT to click one single checkbox in the server configuration screen. This is by far the biggest pain I have, but it's one trivially solved if IT wanted it solved.

There is some minor problems with MSWord documents, particularly those with tables and form elements. But in the two years I've used FreeBSD at work, I've never had to boot into Windows to open a Word document. In fact, the ONLY time I boot into Windows is to run Outlook Calendar, and play Quicktime LOTR trailers...

If there are problems interacting with the corporate Windows environment, then blame the environment, and not Linux, BSD, Apple, or anyone else. Saying Linux is a failure on the desktop because it isn't a Microsoft product is like saying the Dodge Neon is a failure as an automobile because it doesn't use Ford Taurus parts.

Re:Failure?

[quantum bit]

and play Quicktime LOTR trailers...

Dude, have you tried the newest version of mplayer? It plays Quicktime better than the Windows QT player does...

Re:Failure?

[Arandir]

It's always crashed with quicktime before. So I'm trying it again. Nope, still crashes... [MPlayer interrupted by signal 11 in module: init_audio_codec]

Re:Failure?

[quantum bit]

That's weird, it always worked fine for me (on about 5 different machines...). Only thing I can think of is to try building from the port with WITH_FAAD=YES (needed for newer quicktime trailers to have audio). I always use WITHOUT_RUNTIME_CPUDETECTION=YES, but that shouldn't make much of a difference. Oh, and if you're using 4.x you'll need "options CPU_ENABLE_SSE" in the kernel or it may crash on sse/mmx2 operations (not necessary for 5.0 or 5.1).

Re:Failure?

[quantum bit]

Oh, and if you're using 4.x you'll need "options CPU_ENABLE_SSE"

Oops, meant to say this is only for P3/P4 processors.

Re:Failure?

[plierhead]

Saying Linux is a failure on the desktop because it isn't a Microsoft product is like saying the Dodge Neon is a failure as an automobile because it doesn't use Ford Taurus parts.

No it ain't.

The Road DOES NOT equal any one brand of car.

The Desktop DOES equal one brand of software - Microsoft's.

To all the posts saying "get rid of the windows"

[t0qer]

I don't think you've ever had to support a corporate network in your life. When you get out of school and into the real world, you're going to find that end users and their superiors make most of the software/hardware purchase decisions based on their needs, and not the "bottom line"

My favorite example to cite is a sales department that uses Palm Pilots.

When you purchase a palm, it comes with software, written to interopolate with your outlook. All your contacts, notes, calendars are synchronized perfectly with outlook just by installing the software, connecting the palm cradle to the PC and putting your palm in the cradle.

Linux on the other hand has about 8 groupware solutions out there, so the first question would be what to pick? Then you have to figure what you need so the linux PC can see the palm pilot. Then you have to either push the installations out, or roll your own distro that has all of the components you need to use your palm perfectly with the linux box.

It's a lot more trouble than it's worth when you can just send the palm pilot retail box to the end user and he/she can install it themselves.

Cannot find the Linux box from Windoze. Oh boy.

[Anonymous Coward]

" However, this also presented some mysteries: for example, the shared Linux machine was not visible on the network, and could only be found by performing a search."

Well, had they ran rcnmb start or started it via the init scripts, it would've showed up quite fine. Oh, I'm sorry, rcsmb start only cries about not starting the nmb in cat sized letters. Can't expect the Zdnet guys to be able to read.. sigh.

Linux on the desktop - a great resource article

[Anonymous Coward]

These very issues are discussed in LinuxWorld Magazine by a self-proclaimed "Windows refugee" - its Desktop Technologies editor, Mark Hinkle. The article was previewed here. Hinkle really knows his stuff, he's a founding board member of the Linux Desktop Consortium and this is the most thoro article i've seen in a long while.

Re:Linux on the desktop - a great resource article

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, good article i agree

Markle explains the KDE and GNOME desktop environments, outlines the Samba project, and concentrates on the essential similarities and differences between the Windows and the Linux desktop. He recommends KNOPPIX as the first distro for newbies - installed via a fully bootable CD.

Re:Linux on the desktop - a great resource article

[softwareJoe]

Hmm, the Desktop Linux Consortium looks interesting, with members like ArkLinux, CodeWeavers, Debian, DesktopLinux.com, KDE, Linux Professional Institute (LPI), Lycoris, The Linux Terminal Server Project (LTSP), MandrakeSoft, NeTraverse, OpenOffice.org, Questnet (Support4Linux.com), Samba.org, theKompany, SuSE, TransGaming Technologies, TrustCommerce, Xandros, and Ximian.

Their site quotes Linus: "We already have all of the tools, in Open Source software, necessary for 80% of office workers in the world: an office suite including spreadsheet, word processor, and presentation program; a web browser, graphical desktop with file manager, and tools for communications, scheduling, and personal information management. The Linux desktop is inevitable!"

Has anyone managed to get Novel Client to run?

[Anonymous Coward]

On linux? I am on a corporate Novel network, and lack of ability to use printers etc is the major thing stopping me migrating.

Not so bad

[Angst Badger]

All things considered, this is actually a glowing review, and the complaints about the current state of affairs are minor (though real -- cutting and pasting with Mozilla is remarkably buggy considering what a simple piece of functionality is.)

I did want to remark that the way we solved our SMB issues at my company was by converting the file servers to Linux. This was easy to get management approval for because it was mostly transparent to the users -- largely because we were very, very careful and thorough in making sure it would be, which is key for any change of this sort. OTOH, ours is a small company, so there wasn't much bureaucracy to navigate. I doubt -- no, I'm absolutely certain -- that nothing like this would have happened while I was working for Intel.

Linux in the Office.

[955301]

My win2000 box augered into the ground last week. I'd love for it to stay crashed, but I need financial software.

In the mean time, I've been using Ximian Gnome, Evolution, and Open Office to get to all my stuff on my network shares. I've also purchased a new notebook from <plug> PC Torque</plug>, and plan to put a Debian woody on it, again, with Ximian. This time though, I'm hooking it up to my client's network - read Exchange, NT Domains, MS Office documents, you know the drill.

I know there are still issues in getting this to work easily enough for the average MBA, but I don't see any holes in the quilt. And with a little training and some pilot testing, getting the small businesses to turn over is looking more and more possible. Big business has always been stubborn - look at how long the old Wangs stuck around.

Whatever criticisms might be doled out, one thing is certain: the takeover is imminent. There's just too much energy being pumped into open source for it to fail.

Magic

[jazman_777]

When will this stuff finally be ironed out?

When it's really a need, some gifted and motivated developers (not me!) will arise from obscurity and will code the needed fixes for free. It's magical.

I think it has been.

[Population]

It depends upon the configuration of Samba and which options you choose.

Given the lack of detail and lack of specifics regarding how the problem was fixed, we are left to speculate as to what the cause was.

Perhaps it was the old encrypted/non-encrypted password issue? Perhaps it was AD security? Perhaps it was something else.

I wonder what the default configuration on OS X is. They said that OS X worked fine.

I wish they had included more info on that complaint. If nothing else, SUSE would have been able to change their configuration in the next release.

Copy/paste from WWW

[JonathanBrickman0000]

The worst problem reported, in my opinion, is one of the reasons I have not yet been able to install desktop Linux to a single one of my clients: I cannot reliably and repeatedly copy and paste from a good web browser to OpenOffice Writer and/or a worthwhile GUI email client.

Re:Copy/paste from WWW

[IM6100]

Well, if I can serve as a counter example, I cut and paste primarily from Mozilla's browser to Mozilla's composer to work with and manipulate web content. The Moz composer is very adequate for said purpose.

And I am talking about doing so on a Windows desktop. I have IE (of course) and Word available and could use that to save and manipulate HTML content. I used to make that mistake. Problem is, Windows/Word fucks with said web content to no end. I want it clean and I want it to remain about the same as it was on the original site. Not a Word-inflicted bastardization of the html.

Free Software chicken and egg

[ciaran_o_riordan]

We all know the problem. GNU/Linux is great but it's not yet great+win32-compatible. To fully replace windows requires more than just bettering them, our software must stand head and shoulders above them.

But how do we get there?

Free Software needs advocates. It's needs people that are willing to fire the first shot and defend their position. Being anti-something is easy, you only have to nit-pick one flaw but defending something takes real courage, you have to make yourself accountable for every aspect.

For something that will slash government and school software costs, it's astonishing how much resistance we face. People that understand the situation: YOU are elected. Get the word out. Email journalists when they call the OS "Linux" or neglect to point out it's free-as-in-speech benefits. Put some effort into it but don't be afraid to mess up, it's all practice.

Free Software will change the world for the better. It'll be ready when it's ready but it'll will get done faster if you help.

Ciaran O'Riordan

Re:Free Software chicken and egg

[Ilan Volow]

No. We need the Free Software people to take their heads out of their asses and actually make something resembling an honest attempt at making their software usable.

For something that will slash government and school software costs, it's astonishing how much resistance we face

First of all, Linux costs more than windows or mac. The true cost of software is the cost of stuff it prevents you from doing. Or perhaps a better way of putting it, the real value of a piece of software is the total value of the work you can do with it. Right now, someone will be able to get far more work done with a non-Free Software piece of software.

In regards to the resistance, you people have called end users stupid for 30 years. You have repeatedly told them to shut up and read the fine manual. And you have been utterly incredulous when they complain the software is to hard to use. And then you tell them to quit whining about that which they are getting for free. Gee, wonder why there's resistance?

Free Software people have never recognized the Freedom To Get Stuff Done With a Minimum of Fuss as a valid freedom, and no end user wants to be deprived of that freedom even more than they already have been by Microsoft.

I suggest taking all that advocacy that is directed towards the public sector and corporations and redirecting it squarely at the Free Software developers who have repeatedly shirked their duty to make usable products. It's time to turn your guns on your own developers, because those are the people who are holding you back.

Re:Free Software chicken and egg

[Badanov]

This is incredibly funny. Thanks for the laugh.

You remind me of this quote I saw in digdug.cx about someone who decides since they can chat with their friends on IM and can use Outlook Express, and IE, they can go to college and major in computer science.

I think the software that comes with Linux is incredibly good and easy to use. I think the Gnome desktop is ready in business for the enterprise with tons of applications, from database to groupware.

I have studied this for a long long long time, and I am ready to commit to using Linux on the desktop for it is the best, most stable, most flexible solution available.

I don't think I could in good conscience tell the good people (and there's gotta be hundreds of thousands of them) who have slaved their asses off to produce a rather decent product, to pull their heads out of their asses. I think the people who have worked on open source software/Linux deserve a good measure of praise (not to mention compensation), not only for their devotion to this concept that is Linux, but also to the end product that is out there; usable and configurable.

I think they deserve far better than they have gotten, certainly with this stupid SCO lawsuit that is all over IT news these days.

Re:Free Software chicken and egg

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest taking all that advocacy that is directed towards the public sector and corporations and redirecting it squarely at the Free Software developers who have repeatedly shirked their duty to make usable products. It's time to turn your guns on your own developers, because those are the people who are holding you back.

Speaking as a free software developer, I'd just like to state that WE DON'T OWE YOU A FUCKING THING. I am utterly stunned by the arrogance of this statement.

People write free software for many different reasons. Satisfying ungrateful fuckers like you isn't one of them.

*Disgusted*

I'm not impressed by the review

[theflea]

Organizations that went from all windows 95/98 straight to windows 2k had the same type of issues with things not working quite right, and users not understanding the changes.

That's why you keep rolling up new ghost images that have the latest patches, tweaks, and workarounds needed to get your desktops working properly in a complicated enterprise environment.

As for the Samba problems, most can be ironed out by reading the documentation and checking newsgroups. There are irritating things about linux, but samba isn't one of them.

fear the command prompt!

[Anonymous Coward]

In our test, patches were downloaded and installed with a minimum of hassle, although we were instructed to restart a process by typing in a shell command -- something that would scare many users

As opposed to having to restart a computer 3 times to install a printer driver? Save me Jeebus! I'm going to have to type maybe 10 letters instead of rebooting for 10 minutes!

Maybe MS-Windows needs a few things ironed out still.

Re:fear the command prompt!

[MattCohn.com]

Installing printer drivers does not require a re-start. When you shout such obviously incorrect things it really makes you look foolish, and reflects poorly on your cause.

Re:fear the command prompt!

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the need to restart the computer just to install a mouse? (something I always end up needing to do, since I rarely remember to hook up a mouse when I'm installing, but usually have the mouse connected during the first boot-up. System lets me log in, and then immediately says it's found new hardware and needs to reboot. It's just a mouse, for crying out loud!)

Re:fear the command prompt!

[databank]

Actually, the basic HP printer driver under 2000 or XP doesn't need a reboot.

But some printer drivers do require a reboot...we once had an old tektronix phaser vxi that we installed on a print server and sure nuff it needed the system to be rebooted before it woul allow you to even configure it properly. Also some fax/print drivers for fax servers definately need to reboot before they will function properly.

Re:fear the command prompt!

[MattCohn.com]

Mostly that's just pourly coded software that printer manufacturers make you install. You never have to restart to install basic drivers under XP/2K/2K3.

eugenia must die!

[Anonymous Coward]

without even clicking the link, i immediately knew this article was written by Eugenia Loli.

that stupid bitch is not exactly what i would consider a "knowledgeable" opinion in regards to anything involving computers. she was a blight on the beos community, and now she has dragged her odious self into the linux world.
you may safely ignore anything she has to say.

Re:eugenia must die!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry pal, but she is dead on on that article.

Re:eugenia must die!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all. Her bias is so abundatnly clear. She rips into KDE and Gnome in every section using workds like "terrible" and "awful" yet the other OS's don't have their bad points described like that. They are always to be "dealt" with and are not that bad. The only way you could think this is dead on is if you are as fanatical as her.

Re:eugenia must die!

[Anonymous Coward]

>> using words like "terrible" and "awful"
>> yet the other OS's don't have their bad
>> points described like that.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the other OSs are not as "terrible" and as "awful" as KDE and Gnome are in *some* respects. Actually, I don't think she hates Gnome: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3721
That article is analyzing a number of factors, and Gnome and KDE don't always fair well on all of them.

>> The only way you could think this is
>> dead on is if you are as fanatical as her.

Fanatical? How laughable! I think *you* are the fanatical with subjects like "eugenia must die!"

interacting w/ corporate Windows network

[CFrankBernard]

What about Xandros--the coporate version of Debian for MS shops? http://www.xandros.com/windowscompatibility2.html

Sales pitch? No just a reality regardless of OS

[argan0n]

I wasn't restricting my opinon to just gnu/linux. The same thing stands for windows. I constantly see the same misktakes made over and over again adding up to lost productivity because a firm is "too busy making money" to stop and train people.

Many times they expect the underpaid IT staff to fill in when the Marketing staff forgets how to use PowerPoint 20 min before an important meeting. I just believe the ROI would be there if they applied training correctly no matter what OS it is.

Re:Sales pitch? No just a reality regardless of OS

[Anonymous Coward]

And lets not forget the fact that the Marketing staff will proudly announce their "X years of IT experience" to anyone who will listen....

Xandros for Windows domain authentication

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really need proper windows domain authentication etc with minimal hassles, then you should consider Xandros.

For further information check out the following article.

http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT455976899 6. html

Xandros Server is due anytime soon, and Xandros Desktop 2.0 should be due out around November or thereabouts.

While its an excellent distro, not enough people know about its merits. It is the best distro for the corporate desktop where, integration into a windows environment is important.

Time to burn karma (support for MS)

[mhesseltine]

Ok, there's plenty of posts that say "just get rid of Windows" as a solution to the interoperability problem. However, if I'm generous and give Apple and Linux each 10% of the desktop market, that still leaves 80% to MS. You don't throw out a product with 80% of the market just because you can't get your minority system to work correctly with it.

When will Linux take over? When it interoperates with everything, so that people can get used to using it. Then, you can slowly migrate systems as needed, instead of going all out with one system, then having to re-train all your workers, and iron out all the bugs at once.

Re:Time to burn karma (support for MS)

[FLoWCTRL]

You don't throw out a product with 80% of the market just because you can't get your minority system to work correctly with it.

What is essential to realize with this evaluation is the reason the minority systems don't work correctly with it. It is not a shortcoming of the minorities, but the result of deliberate effort of the monopolist. One can only do so much when relying on reverse-engineered proprietary protocols that change at the whim of the monopolist.

Now the question should be, do you want 80% of your IT environment to depend on a product from a company that behaves this way?

Re:Time to burn karma (support for MS)

[mhesseltine]

Now the question should be, do you want 80% of your IT environment to depend on a product from a company that behaves this way?

My answer is, No. That's why we've been slowly moving things like purchasing, work orders, etc. to a web-based system running on Linux. The Windows machines can use it just fine, and once everything's running on the servers, it won't be a problem to migrate the desktops over to Linux and be free of Microsoft.

Re:Time to burn karma (support for MS)

[MConlon]

When will Linux take over? When it interoperates with everything, so that people can get used to using it. Then, you can slowly migrate systems as needed, instead of going all out with one system, then having to re-train all your workers, and iron out all the bugs at once.

And technically this is the GNU way of doing things, isn't it? Use the proprietary tool until your free-not-as-in-beer one works. I don't really see any other way to play the game. The truth of the matter is that Windows has a monstrous lead, and is well-practiced at stomping challengers.

MJC

Re:Time to burn karma (support for MS)

[Hatta]

The problem is a double standard. You are requiring that Linux play nice with Windows, while disregarding the fact that Windows will not play nice with Linux.

Re:Time to burn karma (support for MS)

[mhesseltine]

And when Linux holds the market share, and innovates new ideas and concepts, it will be up to Microsoft to play catch-up and maintain compatability. However, until that point comes, the Linux community will have to play catch-up, and there's really no way around that.

Re:Time to burn karma (support for MS)

[Dalcius]

Note that Windows didn't really play well with desktops or especially servers when it was introduced.

Remember kids, the vast majority of UNIX servers run on Linux. If Linux isn't Windows server friendly, Windows wasn't UNIX server (a very established market) friendly.

As for the client, if you have an admin doing 90% of the software configuration on a box (the way the vast majority of companies do things), Linux is a breeze. Setup is really the only area Linux is lacking in thus far.

Re:Time to burn karma (support for MS)

[Lone_Woulf]

I have a quick question, you say that M$ has 80% of the market, I ask, which market do you mean, desktop, yes, they probably have around that. what about server? 75% of webservers out there are still *nix added to the fact that how do you compare a market share of a company that sells it's software for $300 to one that lets you have it for FREE!!! kinda illogical if you ask me, but you didn't. . . o well

Re:Time to burn karma (support for MS)

[mhesseltine]

I have a quick question, you say that M$ has 80% of the market, I ask, which market do you mean, desktop, yes, they probably have around that.

Since the article was about desktop Linux, then yes, that's the market I'm guessing at.

what about server? 75% of webservers out there are still *nix

Which happens to be able to server Windows clients just fine.

added to the fact that how do you compare a market share of a company that sells it's software for $300 to one that lets you have it for FREE!!!

The only way I can think of is to rely on users informing people voluntarily about their Linux use, which will cause the numbers to be artificially low.

kinda illogical if you ask me, but you didn't. . . o well

Re:Time to burn karma (support for MS)

[Lone_Woulf]

yeah, I notice the market thing now that you mentioned it, what can I say, it was late at night :) anyway, I feel that the percentage of the market that is unix and linux is artificially low, considering there is no way of telling, as you mentioned, how much? who knows, I just wanted to re-iterate that point

Linux will never be "ironed out"

[FLoWCTRL]

Linux will never work perfectly in a Windows environment, because unlike Linux, Windows does not conform to open standards in a rigorous way. Sure Microsoft includes support for open network protocols, but it is their proprietary ones which define a Windows environment as such: SMB/NMB/CIFS, MAPI, etc.. Since the protocols are proprietary, and change every time the wind blows, open source platforms will constantly be playing catch-up, since they must reverse-engineer the secret protocols for interoperability.

Wouldn't it be nice if all of the platforms in your IT environment used only open protocols?

YOU'RE ALL SO FIRED

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously, guys, when will this stuff be ironed out?
i mean, we don't pay you linux engineers to sit around on your ass and masturbate to internet porn all day. now, get cracking and put some features in this operating system, or you're all fired!

Re:YOU'RE ALL SO FIRED

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that like Linux has been sitting on it's ass for years. Linux has improved rapidly. It's growing at a faster rate everyday. The bigger the user base, the faster it grows and the faster it grows, the bigger the user base.

Isn't this why we have Mac OS X?

[Killer Eye]

Frankly, if Mac OS X has the foundation and the Windows compatibility, why is it not filling in these gaps? Apple may finally have a strong reason to invest in x86, since people are obviously content with keeping their hardware. I wonder, where is Windows networking built in: to Darwin, or the proprietary part of OS X? Darwin/Linux anyone?

Re:Isn't this why we have Mac OS X?

[diamondc]

I have a lot of problems with Mac OS X and SMB. OS X likes to litter samba directories with .DS_Store files. The network browser could use some work, too. And don't even think about not unmounting your samba shares from work when you take your laptop home. You'll get a 10 minute hang of the whole GUI.

I'm sure Panther will fix all this, though.

Re:Isn't this why we have Mac OS X?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Ah...10mins? Handy to know. I've always thought it was terminal, and rebooted.

You'd think they'd have fix this by now. But no.
Panther had better fix it, or my iBook will be swapped for some cheap wintel laptop :(

Any yes, one would also have thought that they'd atleast have an option somewhere to stop crapping little files on non-mac systems by now.

Re:Isn't this why we have Mac OS X?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac OS X simply uses Samba. As the reviewer noted, OS X has already implemented a working solution to this problem, so SuSE just have to update to the same version OS X is using (or if they are already using the same version then just configure it better by default). Based on http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.2. 5/samba/WHATSNEW.txt it seems that OS X is using Samba 2.2.3a from Feb 2002)

OS X really is the best of both worlds :)

Re:Isn't this why we have Mac OS X?

[jo42]

Yeah, mon. Microsoft Office X is a really well done, native, Mac OS X application suite.

Entourage X just gave me a woody! Can't wait until they add Exchange Server support...

Transparent Kernel Recompilation

[simetra]

If/when changes can be made to the kernel through the gui without requiring a manual recompilation of the kernel, that would be a good start. Any Jackass MCSE can install a Novell client in Windows, which installs IPX/SPX at the same time. Try getting the same Jackass MCSE to configure and re-compile the kernel to support IPX, (or install a module). It's just a major pain in the ass. Sure, some of us can do this without much second thought, but really, for 99% of end users, this is like rocket science.

If such things were done behind-the-scenes, that would be a good start.

Stop Whining

[steve_stern]

Back before Microsoft was the dominant force in the OS market, do you think they whined about every little problem they encountered? Did they sit around and cry whenever Netscape put up a roadblock for IE?

Microsoft is successful because they try hard. The recent article about Microsoft's failures shows that. They try hard in difficult situations and don't always succeed (something to be proud of, yet the Slashdot community in that article holds that against them, which says an awful lot about the Slashdot community).

If you don't like the situation know, quit whining and do something about it.

Re:Linux is a server, Windows is a desktop

[wzzrd]

Could you elaborate on this? Saying 'linux isn't a good desktop OS because I think Windows is better', is a pretty crappy argument. And apart from that: how long did it take you to learn to work with windows? huh? three month? Fuck no, you probably started it off way in the beginning with DOS, just like zillions of other serfs. Fair comparisson? I GUESS NOT!

AbiWord

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does eveyone ignore AbiWord? With it, Gnumeric, and Mozilla, the average user has 99% of what he uses.

I've been saying this...

[Chordonblue]

For YEARS. Corporations and even schools like mine aren't going to be throwing away our Windows domains anytime soon.

A lot of Linuxheads point to Samba as some sort of Holy Grail. The problem that Samba doesn't yet solve is basic Windows Domain login support. You can't get share drives, rights, or home directories using this service. It merely creates localized Windows shares or lets you connect to them on an individualized basis.

The key for Linux to be accepted in these environments has more to do with network interoperability with MS, than app support. It sounds like an evil prospect, but you know something? I LIKE being able to organize my users on the network with ease. I like remote profiles. I like giving them things like shares and home directories in an organized way.

To my knowledge the only distro that addresses this is Xandros. The big problem here is that their Windows Domain support is closed source - to me, that kind of defeats the whole idea of using Linux in the first place.

When I first explored Linux options in 1999 I was shocked at the lack of this extremely important feature and continue to be. Let's hope the Samba project or something similar (and open source) will fill this in.

Re:I've been saying this...

[FLoWCTRL]

Samba has had domain login support for years, including roaming profiles and home directory "auto-mounts", which you can organize however you like. You can create any kind of shares you want, and the number of people that can connect to them is only limited by your hardware. Have you ever even tried samba before??

Re:I've been saying this...

[Chordonblue]

Yes, terrific stuff... Client side for ONE computer with ONE user. I have a lab full of 24 computers and 35 teacher machines. I have revolving students accounts - some coming in weeks after school starts, some at XMAS. And don't get me startedon creating some sort of standardized user profiles.

I can't sit down at each machine and configure scripts to reflect their accounts - I simply don't have time. I'm not disagreeing with you that it CAN'T be done. I'm saying that it's stupid to do this way for us.

Why else do you think Xandros gives you built-in Windows Domain support and keeps that closed source, hmmmmm?

Heres my opinions.

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE needs to get HIGifed for a start, because the GUI is CBARS (cluttered beyond all resonable standards). Konqueror has *16* tabs in its konfiguration dialog (compared to just four in gnome's epiphany epiphany tab).

There needs to be a standard on folder icons/emblems/backgrounds etc, so if I use the happy face emblem in nautlilus for example it will appear in konqueror as well.

There needs to be standardization on the keyboard shortcuts. In mozilla based browsers ctrl-t opens up a new tab, ctrl-t in konqueror opens up a xterm! (Why?)

Don't frighten your users. In Xscreensaver the password dialog contains a BURNING monitor icon (and people have actually thought my computer was warning me that it was going to catch on fire with that icon).

Strip out the bloated text editors vim/emacs. Just install nano by default and gedit for the gui. After all most people only want to EDIT FILES and NOT make coffee with their text editors. Provide rpms for the expert users but don't install it by default.

NEVER force the user to go into the termnial. It should be hidden out the way.

Don't expose the user to any of the in iternals of linux. Most linux users don't even know what /dev/hda means.

Most of my other complaints have been solved already this year thanks to the hard work of the OSS desktop community, keep on trying.

Why do you like Linux?

[globalar]

"the amount of tinkering required to solve [problems]..."

Honestly, I like the tinkering, configuring, and customization (I would do it anyway;). I almost feel cheated if I cannot change all the settings, disable anything, and generally do whatever I want.

When, Dear God? When?!? When??!?!!!

[dbretton]

When will this stuff finally be ironed out?

When you start DONATING money to these causes!!

Green is not purple

[xixax]

Reviewers found that green made an inferior purple, and that until green was purple, purple would be the superior purple.

We had similar problems integrating Windows 3.11 PCs onto our Sun and Mac network[1]. They were completely crap at NFS and Appletalk. WindowsPCs will never be ready for the work environment until they can properly handle those two protocols.

Xix.
[1] Killed via CEO edict

Re:Green is not purple

[Anonymous Coward]

Your Sun/Mac setup was probably killed for greater reasons than petty protocol differences. Such as hardware cost, ease of development (see VB), and so on.

FWIW, Windows 3.11 even sucked at SMB. The only protocol that worked decently was Novell IPX/SPX.

Re:Green is not purple

[shaitand]

If you use vb to code solutions for a production environment then you have bigger issues than what OS you use.

Internet Connectivity

[reporter]

The primary reason that Linux still has not penetrated the desktop market is the lack of dialup Internet connectivity. Please read "Can Google Save AOL?". AOL has 25.4 million subscribers, of whom most are dialup users. Unfortunately, there is no AOL client that runs on Linux. The AOL client runs only on Windows.

The killer application for desktops is e-mail, and it requires Internet connectivity.

We are talking "mainstream market", not the market for geeks and nerds. The mainstream market is mainly consumers who like the canned, confined, look-and-feel of an AOL client. It does not allow the typical geek to do much, if any, hacking. However, the AOL client is great for the clueless consumer who wants to check e-mail, get today's weather report, find a nice restaurant, etc. You know. Things for people who actually have a life.

Re:Internet Connectivity

[dreamchaser]

Insightful??? Gee...that's funny...I could have sworn I was using SLIP and PPP to dialin to my ISP from a Slackware box back in the early/mid-90's. I must have been hallucinating.

lack of AOL support != lack of dialup Internet connectivity.

Re:Internet Connectivity

[sanguine_shadow]

There is a simple workaround for the dialup problem. Since most distros already work very well directly through a network.... just give it one. I'm no Gnu/Linux expert(but I am a fan of the philosophy.) Yet, with the tinkering I've done, I've never had a problem with my dialup access. This is largely because the Linux box doesn't have to deal with your dialup settings and whatnot. It just has to know that it gets access from the router. Plug your external modem into the router and you're pretty much set.

Re:Internet Connectivity

[Yi Ding]

Unfortunately, there is no AOL client that runs on Linux. The AOL client runs only on Windows.

That's not strictly true. There is penggy, currently being developed that will enable AOL connectivity.

Re:Internet Connectivity

[NeoGeo64]

Actually, there is also AOL for OSX. And, hey, thats UNIX.

Don't take seriously

[gallir]

I just leave it (laughing) reading when I read "OpenOffice launched quickly". Did they realize that is not OOo "much faster", but possibly due to the OOO quickstarter included in SuSE.

In "Automatic software installation", they almost didn't mention yast2, which really good and fast (although I'm a Debian [Sid] user, we must recognize yast's quality).

Finally, their almost unique complain is Samba, but there is no any comment dedicated to this issue.

So, go through, nothing to see here.

You could always try.....

[Nagatzhul]

You can try Libranet. It is not a free download like the base Debian system, but I have enjoyed using it and it has done well on both desktops and laptops, in my experience. Almost too well as I haven't had to dig much.

Re:You could always try.....

[Jebediah21]

What advantages would this have over Knoppix?

Linux Desktop Complaints

[QuasiEvil]

First - I'm as much of a Linux fan as the next guy. However, after spending the better part of the day today in frustration with my new Linux desktop at work, I feel the need to vent.

My main bitches about Linux (not the kernel, the whole system - RMS's part, Linus's part, all the commonly-installed stuff...) as a desktop OS (and 99% of them are about X):

- X sucks hard in terms of responsiveness. Click a OS-level button (such as, say, the close button on a window) in Windows, that sucker responds. It may still be doing stuff in the background, but from the user's point of view, it's snappy and responsive. I'm running on a 2.4GHz P4 with a 10k RPM SCSI disk and 512Mbytes of memory for god's sake, there shouldn't be signficant UI lag! Win2k was about as snappy and responsive as you could get. I realize this is because MS built the GDI into the kernel, but come on, we're supposed to be better. As a modern business desktop user, I (typically) don't give a rat's ass about running applications on that server in the closet and having them display on my desktop. I want responsiveness...

- Bizarre-ass fonts. I realize this is mostly a configuration issue, but I've never found a distro that provided a decent font setup. Again, gotta hand it to MS, but Windows has a good, no-frills set of fonts that universally look good without taking up too much space. Those who configure X seem to have an unholy fascination with huge widgets and huge text.

- At least semi-standardized look and feel. Windows apps these days all sort of look and feel alike, but X apps are all over the road. This is the result of freedom, and that's not bad in and of itself. However, if we could agree on common places to put certain things, it would really help the user experience.

- And as a side bitch, why does GIMP not have an image browsing plugin? I know, I know, because nobody's contributed one yet. I'd help, but I'm an embedded guy - you really don't want me writing desktop software.

Okay, flame retardant suit on... Sorry, but those are my core complaints about trying to be a simple Linux desktop user today.

It sucks, but that's the way it is. :(

[Population]

Linux will be judged by how well it works in the situations it is placed in.

When deployed as a server (web, database, whatever) it works very well. That is because those protocols and connections are pretty much standardized and well documented.

When dropped into a practically 100% Microsoft environment, with lots of undocumented, non-standard and just plain secretive protocols in use, Linux will not perform tasks based upon those protocols as well as the latest Windows box.

And people will consider Linux "not yet ready" because of this.

Despite how well Linux handles documents and email and web browsing and whatever else is thrown at it.

That's the way it will always be. Until Linux has 50%+ of the desktop, Linux will have to be as good or better than Windows in all aspects.

The items I'm taking away from this article are:

#1. A configuration issue with Samba needs to be solved in SUSE. This review would have been great if that had not been a factor.

#2. apt-get functionality needs to be the default for whatever package manager is used by default.

#3. Outlook compatibility would be very, very, very nice to have. But please don't include the feature to spread viruses.

#4. Everything else is a minor bug or feature issue.

Linux is now ready for the desktop. But it takes a skilled administrator to deploy it.

Re:It sucks, but that's the way it is. :(

[GigsVT]

It won't take 50%, but it will take a slightly larger chunk of the market to break through in some areas.

I base this on the Mac, which excels at really only a couple very specific areas, and yet has pretty wide support.

It's getting there, it's not going to happen overnight. We will have to continue attempting to chase the moving target for a while still.

Re:It sucks, but that's the way it is. :(

[MrResistor]

#1. A configuration issue with Samba needs to be solved in SUSE. This review would have been great if that had not been a factor.

People have been saying this on the SuSE newsgroups for some time. Most seem to want a yast module to set up a samba server. It makes sense, since yast a NFS module, but it's pretty simple to do now if you just RTFM.

What's really needed is an easy to use smb client, and that seemed to be the actual sticking point in the article. I know there are some, but I think it needs to be a more visible part of the samba package itself.

#2. apt-get functionality needs to be the default for whatever package manager is used by default.

Not gonna happen. Suse's an rpm distro. It would be nice if yast were more package-agnostic, but I think that's as close as Suse will ever get to being apt based.

#3. Outlook compatibility would be very, very, very nice to have. But please don't include the feature to spread viruses.

The distro they were using includes Crossover Office. How much more Outlook compatability do you want?

Linux is now ready for the desktop. But it takes a skilled administrator to deploy it.

I agree that it it's ready for the desktop, but I don't think it takes a particularly skilled administrator. I've done it myself, and I don't consider myself skilled enough to be called an administrator at all. About the only real skill I have is the ability to make some sort of sense out of a man page.

The problem is with Windows.

[cenonce]

OK, I am not technically a large corporate environment, but I run Macs, Mandrake Linux PPC, Red Hat x86 and Win ME on various machines in my house and when I have problems, it is with the Windows machines. But I do mostly "desktop" tasks with Linux and I use Linux over Windows for those tasks.

Linux desktop isn't perfect, but it is essentially free (as in, I don't have to pay for the OS and things like an Office suite, a Photoshop-like graphics program, etc., etc.). Yeah, having a Mandrake version to configure everything that KDE and Gnome does is confusing (Red Hat has similar problems), but hey, I'm willing to slog through it to not have to deal with MS licensing and DRM on my computer. Having OpenOffice, KOffice, Gnumeric, etc, etc.... doubles and triples of common application is annoying and confusing to an average user, but it is pretty easy to ignore them in the "Start" menu. Pick the ones you like, and use'em!

I have very few problems opening up MS Office for Mac or Windows documents in OpenOffice. I have no problems mounting NFS shares from a Linux server on my Macs... no problems printer sharing either. Not with Windows and Samba (and it is not Samba, because even my friggin Macs can mount the Samba shares!).

FWIW, I think the past two or three renditions of RH rate a B. I'd give RH 9 an A- for desktop computing. I can't speak for Mandrake, because I only started using it with Version 9, but the PPC version rates at least a B+ for me. I have booted into OS X on my G3 PB maybe once since installing Mandrake.

Frankly, I don't know why anyone who uses an x86 box for e-mail, web surfing, Office applications and other common home/office tasks would NOT use a "big name" Linux distro (like RH, Mandrake, not Debian or Gentoo). My experience has been the Linux distro is easier to install, administer and is more plug-n-play than Win ME and 2000 (I don't have experience with XP so I can't speak to it).

Customers fault

[totro]

"A key problem area was interacting with the corporate Windows network. When will this stuff finally be ironed out?"


This problem cannot be solved in any permanent way by programmers, it has to be solved by customers volutarily educating themselves, which geeks can at best subtly influence. Ramming info down throats from soapboxes is far less effective.

Programmers can make a temporary fix, like Samba (much respect), but Microsoft will just do their best break that "threat" in the next version of the respective software (or in current versions by piggybacking these "fixes" in "security updates").

Only when people stop equating universality in the computer world with Microsoft, and start equating said universality with Open Standards, only then will people opt to stop buying MS. Sadly this collective ignorance seems to be growing, not shrinking.

It might help to start conversationally asking the people you know if they are a "sharecropper" or not:
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/ 07/12/ WebsThePlace

BTW, I think the "sharecropper" concept applies to all regular computer users, not just programmers.

No sig.

Re:Customers fault

[KoalaBear33]

That's never going to happen because the world doesn't revolve around open standards. If anything, users would consider Windows as the standard.

KoalaBear33

Re:Linux is a server, Windows is a desktop

[Arandir]

Perhaps you're problem was with Mandrake, and not Linux itself? After five years of using Linux and BSD systems as my primary OS, I've found that the most aggravating ones were those geared towards the desktop.

Another problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Computer: Libungif.so.012b conflicts with Libungif.so.013a, Unable to install software.

User: What? All I wanted was this cute screen saver with the Linux Mascot.

Linux is fast, Linux is stable, but Linux is far from user friendly.

Do you think any Windows user will understand that the have to use the "Make" command just to install a KDE theme? They just want to double click the installer and run the damn thing. And some of them don't even do that.

And a reply using the same analogy

[Kjella]

Did you know, that the early automobiles in London's cobbled streets, they were restricted to a speed of 4 MPH and were required to be preceded by a man carrying a red warning flag? All to not would not disrupt the horses and buggies on the road. That's not just an urban legend, and I'm sure you can see what that did to automobile performance.

How Linux and Linux software and formats interacts with for example Windows is not just a question of infrastructure and sunk cost. It's also about what you can do with Linux in a (desktop) world where 90%+ is Windows. A company can choose that they want to run a car and not a horse-and-buggy. But they can't make everybody else do the same, and if they have to proverbially run around with a red flag at 4MPH (lack of applications, incompatibilities, format lock-ins, suppliers or customers using Windows), what is then the advantage?

Kjella

Re:And a reply using the same analogy

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Well, my point was that, despite these early obstacles -- obstacles largely created by politics and resistance to change, not by technical limitations -- automobiles eventually did replace the horse and buggy. Imagine how much longer it would have taken for automobiles to take over if the manufacturers had concentrated on, say, designing better red warning flags (IMO the rough equivalent of trying to make Linux interoperate well with Windows) instead of improving performance and reliability. Eventually, despite all the politics, the technically superior system won out.

Re:And a reply using the same analogy

[sniggly]

I totally agree with your analogy. Funny you mention a red flag because red flag linux will probably be one of the largest forces in the commoditization of the operating system. Microsoft created the commodity (windows & office) and Linux makes it work almost exactly the same way but for zero money.

People want the OS to be invisible. People still consider Bill Gates a geek. Geeks are those that try to brand or otherwise are emotional about software. That's really the big difference between cars and software, in userland a car is defined by its brand. In software... stuff just has to work and hopefully the same but better/faster than a previous version. Outside the minds of developers developers developers and their lead tribal dancers software has no sex appeal.

Linux is very close to XP now, in many areas redhat, suse and mandrake have surpassed it. Whatever OS MS comes up with next will be surpassed by linux in a year. And from there on Linux will have the momentum on the desktop. It could easily take a decade or more for MS to go below 50% desktops but it's pretty much unavoidable.

Re:And a reply using the same analogy

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Sure, the automobile case is a completely natural reaction for integrating a 'subversive' technology into an existing culture.

A modern sci-fi/fantasy analogy might be, someone invented a new form of car, say it has some ability to pass through traffic jams when the conventional cars are stuck; it also has less pollution, better turning circle, and folds up to be much more compact. But, it also has the side-effect that at any speed greater than 20MPH it emits an electromagnetic pulse that causes the engines of conventional cars to stall.

It is a sad indictment on the world today that it would probably take longer for such an invention to take hold than it did for the car to eliminate the horse and buggy.

MS Monopoly is based on FILE FORMATS

[Anonymous Coward]

The cornerstone of MS's monopoly is in thier proprietary file formats. If it were software only, we would either be using something else by now, or MS Office would retail for $99 bucks.

If the US goverment would come out with a file format specification for standard documents such as word processing, spread sheets, etc and then mandate that the US Goverment use those standards, you would see the begining of the end for MS as we know it today.

Its time for the US goverment to begin building highways so that ANYONES car can drive on them.

Re:MS Monopoly is based on FILE FORMATS

[atlasheavy]

yes, let's ask the US government to design useful file formats. Riiiiiight. I have to say that I am taken aback that anyone would advocate that the US government do something efficiently or effectively. Besides, saying that the US Gov't should handle something that is clearly an international issue is a tremendously unilateral action to take. I sincerely doubt that the Pacific Rim countries or the EU would find this sort of idea particularly favorable. Really, what you need is a standard agreed upon by the industry. Entertainingly enough, it is arguable that there are only two (useful) real standards in this respect, PDF and Doc. PDF is owned by Adobe, and Doc, of course, is Microsoft Word's native format. There aren't any really good solutions here.

Re:MS Monopoly is based on FILE FORMATS

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a better idea. Why don't you take your negative bias for the US govt and shove it. God, I knew some Americans were arrogant fucks but you take the cake. I don't see how the US gov adopting a lowest-common-denominator file format for govt correspondence can be described as "unilateral" action. What the hell do you want, a coallition?? Like I give a flip about the EU...if they don't want to participate then they could continue to use the propriatary formats of MS Office .doc, .xls, .etc. It would be optional for software companies to add these formats which would be open to all and well documented.

Re:MS Monopoly is based on FILE FORMATS

[hplasm]

Er..would that be the same EU whose member state govt. departments are changing over to Linux on the desktop..?

Which version of Suse are they testing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't find any indication of the Suse version they tested, other than an ad at the bottom of one of the pages for Suse 8.1 -- a release that many in the Linux community consider sub-par.

I've been running 8.2 on a laptop for a few weeks in a Windows environment, and for the first time I'm happier with an RPM-based distribution than Debian (gasp!)...this is what makes me so curious about the version they tested. My copy of 8.2 is making me much happier than I expected.

Re:Which version of Suse are they testing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgot to mention -- I installed Linneighborhood to do Samba browsing, and had no problems whatsoever. In fact, I was startled by how quickly and easily it worked.

The solution is to address their concerns

[SuperBanana]

Well, the obvious solution is to get rid of all the Windows machines on the network. Presto, problem solved!

No. The obvious solution is to do what everyone else does- fix the problems, and re-present to the reviewiers. If you fixed 'em, the reviewers go "whoa!" Remember, this is the power of open source. Don't whine about the problems Zdnet found; help the samba team, or whoever might be working on a network browser for linux, etc...to make things right.

That also means that instead of developers of applications mentioned in the review going "phhbt, windbloze luzers didn't tweak the shwingding, any idiot knows to do that"...they should STOP, realize that these are USERS talking here, and like customers- users are (almost) always right.

If they're not doing what you expect them to do, then you need to either adjust to the way they ARE doing things, or make it clearer to them the path you want them to take. As a developer, you should NEVER just dismiss user observations. At one software company I worked at, the engineers collectively had a Marblehead Moment when they realized that they had been spending a lot of time working on features etc THEY thought was cool. They immediately reprioritized, spending a lot of time listening to the users- any feedback through sales channels, mailing lists, conferences, tradeshows- was snapped up. It was rather successful. Note the variety of sources, too- if you only listen to the 50 guys on your mailing list, you're not listening to your user base, I can virtually guarantee.

There's also one key difference between open-source developers and commercial companies- most commercial companies are constantly looking for ways to expand their userbase, because they have to. Open source developers are more interested in keeping current users happy...

Re:The solution is to address their concerns

[dbrutus]

The mac system that the reviewer lauded for speaking well to windows networks also uses Samba. I don't think the problem is Samba per se.

Re:The solution is to address their concerns

[Pieroxy]

What amazes me is how people take things for granted. Just submit it and the problem is solved. Then people comes angry at you because you didn't make it.

These things takes a lot of times. Where we are today with Linux just proves that the whole system is working. But don't try to rush anything or it'll suffer from being to young and immature.

Samba problems

[AntiOrganic]

The only major roadblock we came up against was transferring files to or from the office server over the LAN browser, which runs on a technology called Samba that communicates with Windows networks. Samba had difficulty navigating the way permissions were set up on the network, and was unable to authorise us to read or write files on the server, although we were able to browse the network. After much tinkering, it appeared that the solution would be to change the way the network's permissions were set up -- something many companies would find unacceptable.

Here, you have an a somewhat legitimate issue on the surface, but what it looks like this is boiling down to is that only already-authenticated users have permissions to access network resources on the Windows domain -- if you tried to do this on Windows, you'd have the same problems. It wouldn't prompt you for authentication, just give a big fat "Access denied" error.

Just mount the share using a username and password manually -- sure, mount -t smbfs isn't the most intuitive thing for new administrators, but on a Windows system you'd need to use net use anyway. What's the difference?

Rediculous...

[Tarivus]

As said above, if an OS was judged on its networking merit, they would all fall short. One could say Windows has problems networking with Linux because Microsoft is the one holding the keys to the networking door. If networking with a WinPC is an issue, someone could program a better module to do so into the next Linux kernel release. That is... if Microsoft would be a bit more open with their networking protocols.

Unix/Linux in a desktop environment would be ideal in most cases: software solutions rival that of Windows and is mostly free, Linux is more stable (in most cases) than Windows, and works better in a server environment. Not to mention that Linux is flexible, secure, and totally open source. The downside is that calls to IT in the workplace and calls to tech support at home would skyrocket because Linux is not for the casual user. Getting it set up and running correctly can be a pain and a damper on productivity but that work-time is won back in that Linux does not crash as often as windows (when run correctly neither crash but eh)

Of course the main brownie point for Linux is that it is not owned and maintained by a bunch of corporate pinheads. =)

Plan for desktop linux acceptance

[luekj]

How can you expect any linux distro to suddendly be an actually appealing alternative to Windows (XP especially)? XP has:

1) Money

2) Software Publishers

3) More Money

4) Employees that make sure UI is consistent and 'pretty'

5) Even More Money for Marketing

Honestly, Windows and Linux not the same product, it's not really an issue of Kellogs versus the cheap stuff.

The main hurdle in buying a new pc is the hardware cost anyways, OEM windows isn't as expensive (lindows isn't much less) and is much more appealing than 'confusing linuxdows thing', or that 'cat in the red hat thing'.

Unless (a) someone has some older computer just lying around with no legal licence and (b) they aren't the type to just pirate a copy of xp from thier friends are true, linux doesn't make too much sense for Joe E. Desktop.User.

Wrong comparison

[ShatteredDream]

companies did not depend on horses and carriages to keep their businesses working. If the company carriage broke it could be replaced easily. The switch also didn't require fundamental infrastructure changes. Switching a payroll management system from Windows to Linux requires redesigning much of the system. Your comparison does not hold.

Re:Wrong comparison

[IWannaBeAnAC]

companies did not depend on horses and carriages to keep their businesses working.

Really? There must have been quite a lot of infrastructure devoted to providing, eg, feed and shelter for horses, not to mention horse shoes, vets, saddles, etc etc. Replace that with service stations, petrol pumps, mechanics, etc etc. Quite a big change in skills!

Coming more on topic, the real question is, why does such a change, from Windows to Linux, require fundamental infrastructure changes?

OK, the answer is obvious, but that simply highlights the core issue here. The technical problems with such a change are relatively minor. Microsoft could probably port the Windows XP shell to run on top of X in a matter of months. But is anyone else in a position to do that? Imagine that you had just invested in a bunch of carriages and horses. Then, the car comes along. Some clever engineer in your company realizes that it would be not so difficult to modify the existing carriages and add petrol engines to them. (Not completely unrealistic; that is essentially what the early cars were, after all.) But, you can't, because the company you bought the carriages from owns all the 'intellectual property' of the carriages, and retrofitting them is a violation of the license agreement. Anyone from 19th century London would have laughed at you!

Today's economic enviroment is based around the idea that it is easier to pay someone else to build something for you, than it is for you to learn the required skills and build it yourself. It is this notion that allowed 'companies' (ie. cooperatives of specialist workers) to form in the beginning. In the past, there was never any laws to say that you could not build your own copy of something that you already own. It simply wasn't needed; for virtually all goods, the cost of building it yourself was (and still is) much greater than the cost of going out and buying another. But this has lost most of its meaning when applied to software. The cost of making another copy is essentially zero. Why should we try to force this new paradigm into the existing economic model? And more importantly, what is going to replace it?

Linux does not need to become Windows

[wasabii]

What the poster wants is a pipe dream. Linux is not Windows, and it has it's own set of rules and design guidelines. A Unix network is a totally different beast from a NTLM/Active Directory network. THe protocols used are standard, and do not come in a package.

What teams such have Samba have done is pretty amazing by all accounts. They have gone from NOTHING, to a product which can enable a Linux server to server a Windows network without loosing many abilities.

The otherway is different. Yes a Linux computer can access Windows networks, and of course, no it won't behave just like Windows. But it does a damned mean job of accessing NFS shares.

You have to keep in perspective what we fight against. Creating interoperbility with Windows is chasing a moving target. MS will keep adding new things, like differnet encryption in XP, different encryption in Server 2003, and we will keep playing catch up.

This is a never ending cycle. For Linux to "win" the desktop, we need a clear goal of our own set that has advangates over Windows.

Yes, we need interoperbility, and we have that. It's not hard to set up a Linux SMB server, move Windows shares to it, and map it out over Samba and NFS, but it isn't plug and play, and probably never will be.

What it gives us though is a stepping block in order to migrate other boxes. Once Windows is out of the picture (as it is at my company), 100% interoperbility ceases to matter, and it becomes WIndows that needs to interoperate with us.

My two cents.

Re:Linux does not need to become Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Great point. Accept linux for what it is or shut up already. Just because some GUI X apps follow GUI conventions that the majority of the world is used to doesn't mean Linux is some wanna-be Windows clone like sooo many /. visitors like to claim. Underneath they are completely different animals and that's always going to be the case as long as MS continues to break/make its own standards. Trust me if the right parts of Windows and AD were opensource Linux would make a better "windows" then MS does overnight.

But, I honestly don't see the current situation changing anytime soon where Linux becomes the majority player in the desktop OS market. At the same time that doesn't mean its a failure or that it isn't useful to the minority of groups or companies that actually do use it as a desktop.

This place can be a real broken record sometimes.

Read the summary carefully..

[cmacb]

"Can you use a Linux system successfully in a Windows-dominated environment? That's what SuSE's Linux Desktop is designed to facilitate. We find that you can, although there are plenty of glitches to iron out."

Thats the article summary. Linux doesn't inter-operate with Windows perfectly just like Windows didn't inter-operate with the TSO editor and job-streams written in IBM's JCL language. So what?

For Linux to succeed it doesn't have to be perfect, and it certainly doesn't have to inter-operate with Window perfectly. Anyone who EXPECTS it to do that has simply made up their minds to continue using Windows already and is doing the "test" to satisfy the requirement that they do some sort of comparison shopping.

Nobody in the Open Source movement will be satisfied with Linux being adopted for any other reason than that it is the best choice. It's hard to imagin how it can be both the best choice and 100 percent compatible with Windows at the same time.

If there were nothing wrong with Windows there would be no Linux in the first place.

I don't think the article is saying "don't switch" they are just saying "it will involve some work". But we all kinda know that. Small shops or small departments switching will be a lot easier. For now, the most important switchers are individuals. As the number of people using Linux at home grows the argument at the office will get easier. Thats the way it happened with Windows too.

Re:Read the summary carefully..

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux DOES have to interoperate perfectly with Windows for it to succeed. There is not going to be a sudden revolution by the pr0l33tariat. Any increase in Linux's desktop marketshare is going to be gradual -- and for gradual adoption to take place, interoperability is going to have to be there.

Complaining that Linux shouldn't have to work with Windows is pointless; it does, so we may as well deal with it. Your post seems to imply that supporting MS networking is tantamount to emulating Windows to gain marketshare -- essentially selling out the idea of Linux as a distinct alternative. But the people that Linux needs to court are not the ones that know how their IP stack works. They don't say "I really like the SMB protocol, I'll never switch". They probably don't even care all that much about the interface. They just want somthing simple that works.

These folks are not going to see Windows interoperability and say "Oh, it supports MS networking -- why bother switching, then?" They're going to say "Oh, the networking features aren't broken". Linux's small marketshare and homegrown pedigree makes it wrong by default on counts like these -- deliberate choices to not support inferior technologies will inevitably be viewed as failings by the less informed/more pragmatic users of the world. And those are the ones who make up the other 80%.

What Linux needs is for the casual user to never have to use the command prompt or edit a text file. I realize those are both wonderful things that you and I and everyone else here enjoys -- but as soon as the average nontechnical user sees they need to edit a conf file to get their pet application working, they're going to be canvassing the office for a Windows ME CDROM.

Re:Read the summary carefully..

[hacker]

"If there were nothing wrong with Windows there would be no Linux in the first place."

Excuse me, but what version of Windows must I purchase that allows me to run "Unix on x86 hardware"? I must have missed that version somewhere.

Do some more research and you'll find out that Linux does not exist to replace Microsoft products. In fact, that hasn't been the goal of a VERY large percentage of the Free Software/Open Source community. The purpose of Linux (and I'll wager to bet, BSD as well) is to provide a Free (and free) or near-free Unix for x86 hardware. Linus himself has repeatedly said this over and over.

That being said, Linux companies may be going directly for the throats of Microsoft's business model, but those Linux companies aren't contributing to the core codebase which comprises Linux itself.

If Microsoft was perfect, Linux would still exist, because Microsoft is not Free (or free), nor is it Unix.

No, it's not bad at all..

[Chordonblue]

Until you try to hook things up to an MS domain. That's where it always falls apart.

People forget, but there was a time when there were other word processors besides Word. In fact, many of them had bizarre and confusing interfaces (Wordperfect for DOS, anyone?) When people had to do the inevitable switch to something new, they may have been befuddled for a while, but eventually, they got the hang of it.

I really don't think the issue is user acceptance near as much as ADMINISTRATOR acceptance. To get that, you're going to have to play nice with the existing infrastructure (after all, it was there first).

People can adjust to OpenOffice - we've done it here. But to replace our domain system with Linux would be near impossible. Forget the investments we'd be throwing out the door - think about all the other things like mapped shares, home directories, etc. It would be a massive undertaking to recreate all of that for very little reward.

I know MS plays their little games of half-assed interoperablility ("Windows 2000 is now based on LDAP and Kerberos! Well... Except for these little changes...") But if Linux is going to want to compete it's going to have to try harder.

Xandros has done this, but it's closed source. Kinda defeats the purpose, no?

Re:No, it's not bad at all..

[einhverfr]

Until you try to hook things up to an MS domain. That's where it always falls apart.

Well, you may have to manually create the computer account if you are using Windows 2000 and not SAMBA... But Samba 3 is pretty good on all counts.


I really don't think the issue is user acceptance near as much as ADMINISTRATOR acceptance. To get that, you're going to have to play nice with the existing infrastructure (after all, it was there first).

To some extent I agree regarding interop. Note there are many ways of doing interop. For example, you can buy Services for UNIX 3.0 from Microsoft for about $100 and put it on your domain controller and walah-- you now have a NIS gateway to your ActiveDirectory infrastructure.... Not that this is the best solution but it does work.

However, I think that if you offer compelling benefits to the admin (LDAB-backend for gconf will be one of these, IMO), it will gain acceptance on its own merits.

But interop is only necessary to the extent that it helps to defray costs of migration, and spread those over a period of time. It is not the end-all-and-be-all but just a means to that end.

Re:No, it's not bad at all..

[thanuk]

I really don't think the issue is user acceptance near as much as ADMINISTRATOR acceptance I think you're partially right. Administrators tend to over-estimate how much control they have. If users can make a good case for some software management will insist it is installed whether administrators like it or not.

Re:No, it's not bad at all..

[buchanmilne]

Xandros has done this, but it's closed source. Kinda defeats the purpose, no?

I don't agree that Xandros can totally integrate into Active Directory domains. Mandrake since 9.0 can do all Xandros does. Choose "Windows Domain" as your authentication method during setup, and you should be able to log in with a domain account on first boot, assuming some settings on the Win2k DC.

9.2 may be able to do it without assuming some settings on the win2k DC (ie we may have full AD support on the client).

And I think having extensive "mapped shares" is a bad idea anyway, you should consolidate all mapped shares onto servers (where you control the backups). If this is already the case, samba3 should be able to migrate your whole domain (assuming it's not AD yet).

I believe you might be mistaken.

[Population]

The problems you encountered (sound card, nVidia) are 100% installation issues.

They have nothing to do with Linux being ready for the desktop. I can install brand new hardware in an XP box and Windows will not know how to handle it. That is, until I install the drivers from the manufacturer. But that doesn't mean XP isn't ready for the desktop, does it?

If you had purchased a computer with Linux pre-installed, you would not have had those problems. If you had only purchased components with good Linux support, you would not have had those problems.

Those driver issues will only be solved when Linux has 50%+ of the desktop market. That's plain economics. The vidoe card manufacturers don't all support Linux to the same degree.

And claiming something should work with Linux because it is "from the most popular manufacturer out there" shows your lack of understanding. It doesn't matter how popular a manufacturer is. It matters how well that manufacturer works with the Linux community.

Re:I believe you might be mistaken.

[Jadrano]

Those driver issues will only be solved when Linux has 50%+ of the desktop market. That's plain economics.

50% seems much to high. It depends on the amount needed for developing a Linux version of a particular driver, but even if Linux had just a market share of about 10%, for most hardware manufacturers it probably wouldn't make sense not to support Linux. I think there has already been some progress, for an ISDN adapter I used a few years ago there wasn't a driver for Linux first, I had to wait for years, until they provided one, but now the manufacturer provides Linux drivers for new product without such a big delay.

Re:I believe you might be mistaken.

[JayBlalock]

Just out of curiosity, do you get tired of playing the victim? "Oh, it's not Linux's fault! The OEMs won't work with them!" This may well be true, but objectively, IN THE REAL WORLD, it makes no difference. If I have an nVidia card, just like most of the world, I install Linux, and it refuses to use my nVidia, I don't *care* what the background reason is. I'm going back to something that gives me 3D graphics.

Or do you seriously expect users with the same hardware woes that I had to just say, "Oh well, I didn't like playing Quake that much anyway."

In other words, *you* are part of the problem. Shout down people who have legitmate issues, and keep playing the "not our fault" card, and Linux won't get the acceptance it needs. Certainly not that 50%. And you sure won't have your pretty fantasy world where everyone buys boxes with Linux preinstalled and working perfectly. Have fun.

Re:I believe you might be mistaken.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're still missing that most people don't give a shit. They're going to be fine with whatever's pre-installed. If you sell a pre-installed Linux box. then it's going to have a compatible video card. Your red herring is a bunch of crap.

Re:I believe you might be mistaken.

[ctid]

From my perspective, it looks like you are the one playing the victim. I think that the installation of new hardware and software is not part of what we mean by "Linux on the desktop". Most people in offices never install new hardware. Most people in offices are not permitted to install new software on their PCs (or, to be more precise, would be prevented from doing so if there were a way to do that). So why do you focus on those issues?

To me, "Linux on the desktop" means the day-to-day experience of using the system. As a long-term linux user, my day-to-day experience of using Linux is far better than my time using Windows. This is understandable, given that I'm far more familiar with Linux. I suspect that if I find using Windows awkward, the fact that other people find using Linux awkward is more to do with familiarity than with Linux not being ready for the desktop.

Re:I believe you might be mistaken.

[shaitand]

Perhaps, of course the whole problem is bullshit. You see what you really do is download a driver from nvidia, it's just a program you install. You press enter a few times (at most 4) and if all else fails it gets the source from nvidia and compiles a kernel module for you. It installs said kernel module also. The app does a kernel "hack" that is really just a driver installation. All you do is run it and follow the prompts which ask you nothing, just say "this is what i'm gonna do, can I do it? That didn't work, I need to make a peg that fits your hole, that cool with you?, there ya go, made the widget." And blamo, you boot up with a pretty nvidia logo.

Information is INFRASTRUCTURE

[raw-sewage]

Of course, the problem with Linux-Windows interoperability is Microsoft's closed standards. I'm convinced that if Microsot's products were built on open standards, we'd see the open source adoption of which we all dream. Microsoft knows this; when they're not spreading FUD, they're working hard at creating closed systems that don't work with anything non-Microsoft.

What we need to do is to market information as infrastructure . Electronic data these days is ubiquitous as roads and cars. Electronic information needs the same kind of standardization that the highway system has, or that electricity in your home has. By monopolizing on data formats and information exchange, Microsoft effectively owns the information infrastructure (at least in the US).

Unfortunately, companies like Microsoft are now lawsuit-happy with intellectual property issues. Unfortunately, Microsoft can market their closed systems as "security features" and "competetive advantage". Do the Word or Excel data formats really provide competetive advantage? Yes, only because no other software offers 100% compatibility. Look at the great security offered by the closed-ness of Outlook/Exchange, IE, XBox, Passport... Courts buy this crap!

Without more active consumer involvement or corporate backing, the web will slowly become owned by Microsoft. Our great open source browsers will be able to view a trite portion of the web; while the featureless and horrendously insecure IE will be required to see any interesting content.

Common data formats, documents, spreadsheets, web content, and even presentations drastically need to be standardized. I'm afraid to say it, but, again, without mass consumer awareness or corporate backing, we need the government to mandate standards for information exchange.

If there was at least one other dominant web browser, and at least one other dominant office suite, I'm sure we'd see standardization occur at a breakneck pace. The parties involved would tire of supporting each other's formats to maintain cross-compatibility (and go broke doing so), and would eventually agree on some standard format. The business could then focus on offering a better product.

Information systems are are becoming part of the world's infrastructure. That infrastructure should not be controlled by a single corporation.

We have seen the enemy and he is us.

[Ilan Volow]

I think too often the linux geeks equate "wanting basic, competant UI design where ideas are expressed in a consistant graphical manner and relatively free of weird command-line influences" with "wanting it to act like windows".

For example, a month or two ago I talked with a person who ran a windows-to-linux desktop migration business about the problem of KDE using the word "directory" instead of the word "folder".

As much as I tried to explain the need to match metaphor with terminology, as much as I tried to explain the need to avoid system-oriented jargon, this person still accused me of "wanting it to act like windows."

Really, one of the biggest problems with linux on the desktop is that it's full of traditionalist unix geeks who do not know the first thing about creating a usable and consistent graphical desktop, and then when non-geeks have trouble using it, the linux geeks try to pin the problems caused by their incompetance on the "Bill Gates Boogeyman".

Actually, I take back what I said about the consistency of Linux desktops; in the battle for the desktop, the linux geeks have been consistently been their own worst enemy.

You're probably right.

[Population]

I based my statement on statistics. When Linux has 50%+ of the market, then, more often than not, the reviewer will be putting the new Linux test box in an existing Linux network.

As it is right now, 90%+ of the time, the new Linux test box will be dropped into an existing Windows network and any differences will be reported as "problems".

We do this!

[Anonymous Coward]

Via web applets! You know, jsp etc.

Soon via Websphere...

Seriously: thousands of Windows desktops, and some Unix servers. No big deal, in fact.

So what

[Bruha]

Linux does not need to revolve around Windows. Windows is not the center of the universe. As long as a host of applications run under Linux that satisfy the requirements of the user then there's nothing to complain about.

Almost every function with the exception of DirectX /Direct3D can be done in Linux as far as office productivity goes.

Re:So what

[Anonymous Coward]

DirectX can be done (usually passably) in Linux, but doesn't relate to office productivity at all.

Re:So what

[westneat]

I think that the argument can be made that Windows is the center of the desktop market though. If Linux can't interact with Windows then it is not satisfying the requirements of the desktop user, and for many users this is a major requirement. That being said, Linux does fulfil most of the requirements for most desktop users. Still, there is no need to bury ones head in the sand. As the article said, OS X had few problems with Windows network interaction. From my own experiences with Samba, I would agree that it could be easier.

Re:So what

[Dalcius]

Almost every function with the exception of DirectX /Direct3D can be done in Linux as far as office productivity goes.

Hey man, if I can't play Jedi Knight II at work, it's a no-go...

Re:So what

[faaaz]

Play Enemy Territory instead, OpenGL Linux native binaries. Gratis! (as in beer)

Is windows ready?

[slugstone]

I would say that Windows desktop is not ready. I have been using Linux systems for over two years with little problems. My windows boxes have always been problems. Where is the ssh client? Even better where is the sshd server? Once those questions have been answered then it might be ready. Until then it is just a games machine.

Re:Is windows ready?

[AvengerXP]

Just a games machine? Blasphemy! All hail gaming!

seems fair

[wannasleep]

The assessment seems fair to me. I am one of the very few linux users in windows-oriented environment and I have plenty of experience.
Like it or not, if windows users have to migrate they have to do it seamlessy, at least at the beginning. Nobody will aceept to have his work disrupted.
However, here is something that the author overlooked and that would make that experience better:
1) installations need to be done once, provided that you mount the path you want to install. In other words, in linux you got to do the same job once, not once per machine (if you do it properly)
2) probably the original permissions of the network were too relaxed and, possibly, they initially set up the linux permissions too tight (for their internal needs). Example: redhat high security installation settings do not allow udp packets for DNS through the firewallb
3) the installation of "other stuff" is restricted (if you are not an experienced user), a feature that system administrators will love (in other words, it is harder to install the latest virus)

Things that are still too clumsy and the author is right about:
1) INSTALLATION: example: I tried to install thunderbird: I needed glibc 3.2. After some research on redhat, I found the rpm. I tried to install it and it needed something else. Now, I might be dumb, but the average windows user (linux knowledge speaking) is much dumber
2) Training: easy guidelines to .cshrc, and stuff like that
3) Mandatory shortcut to slashdot on the desktop
4) there is way too much on a CD: I end up installing things i will never use, but I can't easily come up with a short list of things i want there. Example: If a company decides to use, say mozilla, I don't care about galeon being installed. We must find a solution, so that I get exactly what I need. This is important especially for old machines that do not have huge disks and that, for whatever reason, can not mount everything off the network (e.g. laptops)
5) free outlook interface for the regular user (and by the way evolution changes a bunch of settings)

In other words, we are getting ready for prime time, and when we are it's gonna be fun

Re:Linux is missing integration, ironing out and..

[Axynter]

Totally off-topic, but who the heck wrote that article (the osnews one)? I found it hard to read given all the run-on sentences and other basic grammatical errors. I mean, it may be a bit of an ad hominem fallacy, but if this guy is not willing to proof read his own article, why should I even listen to what he has to say? Sorry, this is not meant to be a rant, but I think people should know their limits... I think it's irresponsible for a person to write an article like that!

Windows working with itself

[StarHeart]

Windows isn't good working with itself. Windows file sharing is the the first or second most common tech support call I have gotten with working for myself. I have spent hours fighting with it with users to make it work. Most of the time it can be made to work after plenty of hair pulling, and sometimes it just refuses to work for no obvious reason.

Re:Linux is missing integration, ironing out and..

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but when someone is not a native english speaker, doesn't mean that he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

Re:Linux is Dying

[dbrutus]

Well screw you too bub. The reviewer didn't note it but that Mac system that works fine talking to Windows uses Samba to talk to SMB/CIFS networks. So maybe the problem is the particular implementation of Samba on the SuSe system tested?

Apple's been known for really harping on the user experience with Linux users scoffing at the anal retentiveness required. In this case it cost Linux a thumbs up review. No doubt other times it will cost a significant amount more.

Well sure -- ultimately you are correct...

[argan0n]

...but software doesn't seem to be at the stage of ease of use for what I see daily. If things could be reduced to a small series of repeatable steps, like when driving a car, or using a microwave, that would be ideal. But it just seems like the simpler you make a program to use, the harder it is to make it do diverse things when you need it to, then the user gets intimidated very quickly and calls for the IT staff.

In '89, as a lowly IBM CSR, I clearly remember watching older secretaries breeze through custom, complex insurance applications on old 3270 terminals with confidence because they attended training. I just do not see that same confidence of use with the same type of employees with Word or Excel.

I admit, it's true that I fall prey to the "stupid user, bla bla" from time to time, it is hard not to in my environment sometime. I am presently the admin at an Architectural firm that uses a variety of fairly complex CAD, modeling, spec writing & the standard office software. It's painful watching a 55 year old, very skilled & educated Architect not be able to navigate a series of fairly simple drawings in AutoCAD. A two hour training session would greatly decrease his stress of having to call in the long-hair three times a week to do it for him.

I guess it just seems like everyone wants programs to be fast, cheap, feature-rich, intuitive AND uber powerful all at the same time.

BTW Thanks for the links, they look very interesting I will check them out and perhaps become less grizzled. :)

Re:Well sure -- ultimately you are correct...

[Xabraxas]

I totally agree with you. People are so lazy today that they can't take a class to learn how to use powerful software. Instead they implement a less sophisticated but easier to use program and expect everyone to use and be happy with that. Productivity is not increased with a dumbed down design and untrained employees. This is not a specifically Windows vs Linux argument. The path chosen is often for less powerful or even buggy software just because it is (or seems) easier to use.

For example, the college I went to used to use Hummingbird HostExplorer to pick classes for the upcoming semester and to view grades. It was very fast and efficient and it only took a couple of minutes to learn how to set it up and navigate with it. Then they switched to PeopleSoft and web based naviagtion. It was slow, unreliable, and generally hated by everyone, even the non-technical people. It was just more efficient to learn how to use HostExplorer.

BTW Hummingbird HostExplorer has a commandline interface.

The proof is in the pudding:

Hummingbird HostExplorer at Uconn

what i feel as problems with current desktop-linux

[sewagemaster]

personally, i'm still unhappy with the fonts. truetype still has slight jagged edges. yes, i've read all the docs, and did all i could to "deuglify" them. to add a new font, i still have to go through the mkfontdir bullshit in the fonts directory. if this is a computer i'm running at home, that's one thing, but if it's the computer running at work, i wouldnt have the "luxury" to wasting all the company hours configuring things like "fonts". yes, i agree that kde has made it simpler, but i still find it a little slow on my PIII, 450MHz, 384MB SDRAM.

the printer i got, lexmark Z45 had a linux logo on the box saying that it's compatible, but it turns out that it's not supported.

i want to configure my mouse acceleration speeds. i configure them in kde, but when i run fluxbox, the configurations arent applied.

these are just little BUT crucial things.

another thing is the browser pluggins... it takes forever to configure them. btw, why isnt mplayer in the official debiabn unstable tree?

anyway... not here to flaimbait, but just want to share a few things.

Yet another desktop article

[Xoid629]

I love the way every few months someone will announce that Linux is or is not Ready For The Desktop, everyone makes a big deal about it for a while, and then forgets again and everything progresses as normal. Just be cause it does or doesn't work for one person doesn't mean it will or won't be useful for someone else. I also get the feeling that if you were to compare a Windows system to Linux to decide if Windows was Ready For The Desktop, you would get more or less the same results, especially with the interoperability thing going both ways.

On the other hand, its also funny that everyone makes such a big deal about these articles. I admit that I only skimmed this one, but I didn't get the feeling that it ever tried to say much about the readiness of Linux as a whole, and it actually seemed quite positive in many ways.

LAN browser?

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

They just want to see their Windows network, right? It's as easy as smb:/// in Konqueror and it's in the start menu in Gnome. Maybe I'm missing something though... LinNeighbohood comes to mind as well.

Playing well with others?

[MadMagician]

A key problem area was interacting with the corporate Windows network.

How do you think Bill became the King of Office software? They required MS Office with each copy of Windows, and they broke everybody else's software at least a little. And little by little they took over the world.

And I don't think he's about to change that.

Nothing wrong with Linux on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Setting up Linux is different than setting up Windows but the methodology is the same...test before you deploy. Set a non-Windows admin on the task of deploying Windows desktops without testing and there will be problems, too.

Re:Linux is missing integration, ironing out and..

[Axynter]

True, very true... BUT! That has nothing to do with proof reading/editing! If you are going to publish an article and you know that English is not your thing, you should ask someone else to do the editing for you (well, you should do that anyway).

Not really

[metalhed77]

Firstly, AOL is on its way out. As broadband becomes more pervasive AOL is being cut out. Why pay for AOL on broadband (an extra cost) when broadband by itself is almost as easy to use now?

The remaining customer base of AOL is probably technically inept enough to not even know what an OS is, much less have any desire to install it. AOL is not a target group at the moment, that doesn't mean it won't ever be, but right now, it is not.

It will NEVER be completely worked out....

[KevinJoubert]

It won't be worked out because MS doesn't want it worked out. I have run into this myself many, many times over the past several years. Even when you get Samba and Wine doing what you need them to do... MS changes things and it all breaks again.

The answer is not in making Linux work like Windows, but in not using the proprietary protocols and document formats that Windows pushes. Take a Windows environment with no SMB, no MS Office, and no Active Directory.. and Linux will work with it perfectly... and it won't break with your next upgrade or service pack rollout.

They say "User" but....

[ggwood]

The article reads, in the beginning, "[T]he idea was to see how well this business-oriented operating system/application software bundle worked for a moderately technical user working in a Windows-dominated world" (emphasis mine). Yet they go on to find major failings because of difficulty getting things like Samba to work, multiple attempts at installs, etc. I would think this would be the system admin's problem.

The article gives us no background on those who are installing the system - so I guess it would be safest to assume they are "moderately technical users" - of Microsoft Windows. Given that, I'm pretty impressed they got as far as they did. All they needed was one real guru to come install all this stuff for them and they would be set. One good thing about Linux (in my humble experience) is that once set up it just flat works. The real question they asked is, what would happen then? And that question remains unanswered.

The only section in which they discuss what happens once the system is running is under "Ease of Use" which is pretty mild stuff. Sure, they had trouble cutting and pasting to and from Mozilla - but this begs the question (and I am no expert so I can't answer it) is this just because they have a bad driver? Is it really a user-level issue?

As a side note, they mention they do lots of copying and pasting between browser windows. I would imagine they would have kittens when they discover in Linux we have tabs in our browsers, but it didn't sound like they got that far. Further, if they are playing around with a few IE windows open at once, perhaps they experience the (more than occasional) MS Windows crash...if so perhaps Linux would be an improvement. (Not if they try out loads of new hardware...)

Windows, *Nix and the Real World

[Charles_Lamontagne]

I think we all seem to be forgetting that Windows didn't start off as the supergiant that it presently is. In fact, when it started, Microsoft was were many of the Linux developers are presently: Underfunded, making good software that goes unnoticed or marketed under different names, and building something that would make the world work a lot more efficiently, except that they can't get them out there!

To compare Linux and Windows to the horse-drawn buggie and carriage may at first seem like a great analogy, but when you consider it more in depth, we easily see that it does not work. The problems listed previously about cost and interoperability are valid, but they're useless.

We've already agreed that 90%+ of the world runs Windows-based systems, whether they be servers, desktop machines, portables or whatnot. To try to take on this market head to head will never work and I think that Linux developers everywhere are beginning to realize this. We can't sit back and say "Things ought to be this way or that things will never work because of Microsoft. To do so will only frustate us and get us no closer to our ultimate goal. Instead, we need to be smarter than that.

We know that Microsoft will do everything in its power to lockout competition by giving us bogus source-code, faulty applications (that we must depend on), etc. In order for Linux to take a stand in this arena, what must be done is Linux must be created as an adaptable, usable and useful operating system that will not only work with what we've got already (saving users and IT guys time and money) but which will also allow us to expand and integrate what will come from Hell's Minions in the future.

Anyway, the short of it is that in order for Linux to work on a desktop level, we (unfortunate) must adapt and accept the Windows environment in its entirety and build our systems in such a way that they can expand and adapt as quickly and easily as possible. We will not kill of Microsoft or Windows for those of you who made cost comments are right. Companies don't want to spend millions training their people or redoing their computers. Time and money aside though, if they could find free (or cheap), feasible solutions that would allow them to conduct business as they have every other day of the week, I'm relatively sure they'd go for it. Linux does not need to play nice. Instead... We need to play smart!

Re:Windows, *Nix and the Real World

[shaitand]

"I think we all seem to be forgetting that Windows didn't start off as the supergiant that it presently is. In fact, when it started, Microsoft was were many of the Linux developers are presently: Underfunded, making good software that goes unnoticed or marketed under different names, and building something that would make the world work a lot more efficiently, except that they can't get them out there!"

First of all, Microsoft started out well funded, William Gates III was hardly poor and struggling and was fully funded by his daddy. Second, it had hardly started operation when it bought DOS and sold IBM on it by feeding them loads of crap at a board meeting gained through William and daddy's connections.

They have yet to date made good software, from day one they bought or stole their ideas, they bought dos, they stole the gui, they bought nt, the stole javascript which they used to kill it's creator. Once on the IBM, they piggy backed on IBM's mistake of opening the standards for the technology (note IBM has been EXTREMELY proprietary since).

They were the only option for pc's at first, there were a few alternatives released by then they were already the status quo and IBM blessed on what where still known as IBM and compatible computers.

The pc beat out the macintosh because it was cheap, it certainly was by no means easier to use or for that matter technically superior in any way... The amiga was superior to both the pc and the mac, but was neither easy to use or cheap.

The pc's win was microsoft's win, the rich at birth William Gates III became even more rich, the IBM blessed dos that was already status quo on ibm compatible pc's, became status quo along with the ibm pc compat when the ibm pc compat became the status quo in general. Neither dos nor windows ever won on it's own merits, it was preinstalled on all the pc's from the start. Comparing dos to unix in those days was joke from a technical standpoint just as it is now. It's windows, not *nix that has played catchup, every touted major feature of windows is something that either already existed on *nix before windows, or is no feature at all. Right down to their last "significant improvement" active directory, which is ldap + and - just enough elements to be completely incompatible.

I agree we need to play smart, but part of playing smart is sticking to the facts. Not giving MS kudos they don't deserve and if your giving them any, they probably don't deserve them. Let's remember that microsoft didn't earn it's place, it stole, lied and cheated it's way there, right from the very start.

Re:Windows, *Nix and the Real World

[Charles_Lamontagne]

How can I put this without offending anyone? Microsoft deserves kudos for their business strategies and such. I agree that their software is poor (for the most part) and that the only really good products they came out with were Notepad and... Well that's about it. Seriously though, if my history is off, I apologize, but that was the way I learned it. I am definitely going to be hitting the history books about this one, but that's more for personal interest than anything else.

The point of my last post was this... In order for Linux to go anywhere, we have to adapt to the world around us as opposed to forcing them to adapt to us. No one likes doing more work than they have to, so who wants to switch to something new (and often frightening for most users)?

Re:Windows, *Nix and the Real World

[shaitand]

My rebuttal (just because I have an inner love of arguing, not really because I agree or disagree). Making the world adapt around them has worked well for microsoft... Notepad sucks in terms of text editor features, it has none. But I will say this about it, it's the only windows app I can't think of a crash experience with off the top of my head. Actually that's pretty impressive. Well frozen bubble but microsoft didn't write it and it's a port from linux.

But, if you truely believe what your saying, then start the project. Make a complete from the bottom up win98 clone using linux as the core and just making it a gui that autostarts... you don't have to do it all you know, get a decent start and then get it slashdotted. I'm sure you'll have no problem finding those who agree. The difference? You do what microsoft hasn't... have the solid linux core. Have bash installable. make it open source. Have a linux compatiblity layer... underneath the filesystem ext# and the gui simply shows it as C: etc. Hide all that different linux stuff underneath (where it can found by those who want it) and do a windows type OS X style port to open source. Alot of work is done for you, freeDOS has all the dos portions working you need, you don't need to come up with a kernel, someone did that already ;) You can get alot of info about the win32 api if you study winex and wine, take a look at samba, reverse engineer xandros etc. Most of it's already out there to be had from sources that would probably be easier to puzzle out than microsoft. and when all else fails you can reverse the ms stuff.

Be careful with anything ZdNet says.

[Anonymous Coward]

Be careful with anything ZdNet says. There have been plenty of indications that they are available for hire, and their evaluations are often paid for by someone who is advertising, but doesn't want the advertisement to be obvious.

Use a distribution designed to work with Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time, choose a distribution that was designed from the ground up to work in a Windows environment. For example, Xandros.

(1) Xandros comes with Yahoo's own client pre-installed. It also comes with AOL. MNS, ICQ and IRC clients.

(2) Xandros allows you to update software using apt, or if you prefer, "Xandros Networks", the still-free "easy-to-use" GUI version.

(3) The Xandros File Manager also serves as a web browser, a samba browser, an ftp browser, an nfs browser, and knows how to automount CDs and floppies. Want to share a directory with a Windows user? Right click on the folder and select 'Share'.

(4) You can configure your user account to login to a Windows domain, automatically using the Windows password and having access to the windows network.

(5) Xandros also comes with CrossOver office, so you can run your windows applications such as MS Office or Lotus Notes.

Games and roadmap to the Linux Desktop

[einhverfr]

Most people but computers at home not based on what software runs on it, but based on what they know. They get some training at work, and don't want to have to learn something new at home. This is understandable.

Games developers only write for platforms that the home-users run. This is simply due to economy of scale issues and too is understandable.

So where the corporate desktop goes, so too will go the games developers. Therefore, the corporate workstation is the cornerstone for moving into the home-user market.

So where we need to go from here is:
1: Get Linux onto the corporate desktop
2: Show that you can do more things with Linux than you can with Windows.

Then the following will happen:
1: Home users will start using Linux
2: Games will be released for Linux
3: More users will switch :-D

The preinstalled BS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it's "preinstalled" doesn't mean people haven't choosen it... as a matter of FACT, the attack of leaving it installed is a CHOICE!

People CHOOSES windoze over arguably better technical OSs... but it was choice and continues to be choice no matter how much people want to rewrite history.

Re:The preinstalled BS!

[Izago909]

Just because it was included in the price doesn't mean they didn't pay for it. Besides, as has been stated a million times before, most computer users are idiots. This is part of the reason windows is popular, because anyone can see that pretty picture and know what it means. Someday, as people get smarter, maybe they will begin to take the training wheels off....

Re:The preinstalled BS!

[phasm42]

"Besides, as has been stated a million times before, most computer users are idiots." That's really a poor attitude to have about the people you're trying to convert to Linux. Unfortunately, I think it's a prevalent attitude among a lot of people pushing Linux. Maybe if you didn't regard the people you're trying to convert as idiots, you'd have better luck. A view like yours only promotes defiance of your arrogance and makes the divide deeper.

Re:The preinstalled BS!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is where you are wrong. There are people in this world that don't give a flying fuck about computers. They will never take time to sit down and learn how they work in and out. Never. Just like you won't take the time to learn to fly, rock climb, play sports, etc.

So until Linux makes their interface and program installs dumbass proof like Windows it's never going to catch on. It's just that simple.

Re:The preinstalled BS!

[Izago909]

Sorry, I spent a couple years working tech support at my university. I keep hearing that my generation is supposed to be so well equipped to deal with technology, and I was still dealing with people who were deleting files to free RAM. Not to mention that only the journalism and art schools ever considered teaching their students on other hardware like Macs and SGIs. Business majors have to be the worst of all. They believe what they are told without question. One memorable personality, who couldn't tell the difference between his PS2 ports, tried telling me anything that is non-windows is garbage because his professor says so, and he can't use his precious access. A side note, Microsoft 'donates' over a million dollars annually to the business school on the condition that the teachers don't even let their students think of anything but windows PCs. As an informatics major, it was hard helping the same people I would have to answer to someday, because I knew their lack of knowledge and apathy towards learning would tie my hands in my future job. The idiots I'm referring to are the people who refuse to learn new tricks because holding onto corporate PR and preconceived notions is much easier.

Re:The preinstalled BS!

[shaitand]

umm I push linux and windows both, I find the average person is general is an idiot (so do iq tests). If you didn't accept the fact their idiots then you could never dumb things down enough to teach said idiots anything. With computers you start with the same idiots, and add ignorance on top of it. Just because their computer problems are largely due to ignorance doesn't change the fact that their idiots.

Re:The preinstalled BS!

[shaitand]

On a further note, an idiot is someone who can stand not to cure their own ignorance let alone someone elses. You rarely encounter someone who is ignorant about computers who isn't an idiot because anyone who is not an idiot start curing that ignorance immediately... of course there are those who are not idiots, but are just plain fucking stupid, and are still ignorant because they don't have the mental capacity to cure their ignorance.

The solution for those is simple, steal their female, mate and spread your genes (which must be better since your not with them) then pass her on to another (she can't be too much more bright since she was with them and women tend to choose men they can manipulate, even rich doesn't trump this since if they can't manipulate him they get no benefit from him being rich.)

Re:The preinstalled BS!

[shaitand]

It's not a choice if you don't know it's something that can be removed. Most people think it's part of the computer.

Much the way microsoft has been very successful saying apps are "part of the OS" and can't be separated.

bit off topic but..

[sniggly]

I know its off topic but still interesting!

horses were still used for some purposes in WWI

They were heavily in use in WW2, the polish cavalry charged the german cavalry .. on horseback (while german cavalry was tanks) and lateron in the game the Germans were extremely low on fuel so they used a huge number of horses for supply trains and lateron withdrawal.

Re:bit off topic but..

[stefanvt]

Exactly, the German army, albeit the most modern and surely the most mechanized army of it's day in Europe, relied heavily on horses.

But in 1940 their panzers were inferior to e.g. the French, unfortunately the French used them in a way that was outdated (only in support of infantry, WWI style) while the Germans used them in a superior way (as the spear point of their army).

Re:bit off topic but..

[tkg]

The French had a tank in 1940 that was superior to the panzer? Pray tell, what tank was this?

Re:bit off topic but..

[Weh]

Have a look at these links: 2 1

Bias

[gidds]

Would they mark down Windows because it didn't play well with Linux?

Didn't think so...

Re:Bias

[Stevyn]

No because no one is championing windows as the best operating system that everyone should use

Games...

[Yaa 101]

It's all about games really.
If people can play their games on GNU/Linux they are more into it.
This is also the still missing part and is mainly due to lack of uniformity of window managers and desktops, also because X isn't getting any younger and faster.
Some breakthroughs like a open GL windowserver might be nice.
At least something fast and uniform should be made for a solid gaming platform on GNU/Linux.
By the time that GNU/Linux and the several BSD's are really mature we are going to need them very hard to be able to run our free code (unsigned, non DRM).

I bet Muenchen is safe...

[bergeron76]

I bet the government of Munich won't experience this problem with their excellent approach to linux migration (VMware).

microsoft server nfs

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows Services for UNIX 3.0 includes the Server for NFS component that creates a full NFS version 3 server.

Not to hard to find... Number two on the google of "microsoft server nfs".

Re:microsoft server nfs

[mpe]

Windows Services for UNIX 3.0 includes the Server for NFS component that creates a full NFS version 3 server.

This is a set of servers which Microsoft describes as being for "UNIX-to-Windows migration". Can you easily have a WIndows machine use an NFS server or perform user authenication via NIS?

This article is correct, Linux is NOT READY!!!

[Stevyn]

I have a Dell laptop with windows xp. With the exception of it crashing or freezing up occasionally, it works fine. I'll clarify that: It installs and detects and sets up all the hardware. When I need to type a document and PRINT it I have no trouble. I can use my scanner and digital camera with no problem. When I installed my firewire hard drive, it was a matter of hooking up the cable. When I need working software, I can download it or buy it and NO TWEAKING IS NESSESARY! Since every slashdotter repeatedly regurgitates how good linux is in every discussion, I decided to try it out (once again). I downloaded Suse 8.2 and ran the installer. I did repartition my hard drive in Windows using partition magic because I knew ahead of time that the linux fdisks are a pain in the ass. It took weeks just to get the nvidia drivers working and the firewire in mounted in "sort of" read/write mode for a normal user. It is stupid that the end user has to edit configuration files to get this stuff to work. I can't find drivers for my printer, so I have no idea how to get that working. And I can't just write a driver for it as many people will immediately respond because I don't have a degree in Computer Science! Now I see linux as a free os and all I wanted to do was try it out. The fact that it is stable and open doesn't mean a whole lot to me, and the average user, when I can't get some stupid piece of hardware or software working that any idiot could do on windows. Trying to get software working usually means finding some cheap feeling clone of real software and hoping they have a suse rpm for it. Then I have to use the package program and I have to manually set up an icon on the desktop. This is no big deal for me at all, but how many normal people could do this, or even think of doing this. They'd just expect the installer to do it. I'm not pissed off at the people develping linux because I didn't pay anything for it and they have no responsibility to me to make me a free os, but will every slashdotter PLEASE consider the fact that linux is not ready for the average person who expects to do everything they can in windows in linux. It drives me nuts when I read posts to the effect that people are idiots if they can't use linux. I feel like an old lady shouting at her vcr when I say "You need to have a degree to use this," but it's true! I don't know how to compile source code to use a program, and I don't want to spend the time to learn it. Computers have become so popular with normal people because the average person can just figure it out because it has been designed to be easy to use. I'm frustrated that the linux community doesn't do much to help this. Most replies to a question of a frustrated user to get something to work are met with either arrogance of their knowledge of linux or "read the man pages." These were made for programmers and engineers, not for regular people. Linux has the ability to be a really good and complete operating system, but it's not there now and it is going to take real companies putting money into it, not garage geeks, to get it on the average users desktop. I've used dos and windows all my life and using linux is like pulling teeth. In case anyone is thinking of what their flame will be, remember that these problems are my experience. Others might not have the same problems, but I did!

Re:This article is correct, Linux is NOT READY!!!

[Gta-Klue]

I agree with the parent to a degree, but I really, trully think that MOST issues are distro specific. If you look at the list of distros available either at a store or online, there's not 1 perfect distro. They all have thier little quirks. But I have found that choosing a distro is alot like choosing a car. What options do you want, what are your requirements, (off road, economical, etc.) and pick the distro that fits your needs.

Now, having said that, no distro is idiot proof, or perfect. But compare today's versions to what we had just 5 years ago, Linux has come along way to being easier to install, setup and configure and no CL (which really doesn't scare me to use (:)

Just my .2c

Re:This article is correct, Linux is NOT READY!!!

[LadyAshnod]

Stevyn, thanks for your post. It is enlightening to see the *other side of the fence*. I assume that majority of slashdot users are linux users. I have to tell you that I was an XP user as well, and you are very right that windows is click away, and therefore, short term benifit, windows is a better option. I have use both of them, with my laptop and my desktop and the problems that you have encountered about mounting printers, digital camera bothers me a also, even I have computer science background. YOU are NOT ALONE! However, I have been using Linux before, then I switch back to Windows XP for about a year (cause my laptop has one year warranty software-hardware), and I do not want to tweak it or else I lost warranty. I say, I give windows a try to make it fair. i started with 3.11 anyways. Other than that, i have spend sometime with Linux and I have my share views of *time well spent*. I should say, let us reverse the statement :" The average users is not ready for Linux on Desktop". Installing Linux on your desktop needs lots of TLC, like a relationship that needs some twist and turns from time to time. It is an interaction of the OS and the user itself, and know it inside out. The more I spend time tweaking my system, the more exciting it is, the more interesting my computing work gets therefore saves me from boredom. Man, don't tell me I should marry my OS, its just also my observation. I just finish reading a book by Debian and it is a coincidence that it has one page with the title : Reasons to Choose or Not Choose Linux. And if you do not choose Linux, NO ONE can tell you that "you are an idiot". It is you, its just YOURSELF, your own comfort with windows. Linux has its own advantages and disadvantages as well, in relation to its Specific Users. I use Linux because I think I have all the time to tweak around and have fun with it.

Re:This article is correct, Linux is NOT READY!!!

[William Baric]

The problem is not that no distro is perfect but rather that no distro is good enough. Ok, I will honest : most problems I see do not come from distros directly but from KDE, X, drivers and other buggy softwares. Of course, having said that, I must admit I use Linux every day without too much problems... but that's because I'm a fucking computer consultant!

again!

[WhodoVoodoo]

this type of comment, 'Linux isnt ready for the desktop' comes up every so often, every time i think, 'good!' maybe its not 'ready' or blah blah blah. It's plenty ready, just nobody has come around and done it effectivly (complicated by the various quirks that we (by we, i mean linux users) all have come to love) until then, i don't particularly care. It does what I want, sure more games would be fantastic, but that will come in time. like a 'desktop linux os' until then, sit back and enjoy the worry free ride (once you get the bitch set up that is) Linux won't be going away, theres PLENTY of time to cram it onto grandma's PC.

It will get there ...

[SkoZombie]

When will this stuff finally be ironed out?

When people stop the whining and start the contributions. If you cant code, you can always work an extra hour flipping burgers, and send the extra $5 to tridge or one of the other members of the samba team.

At the VERY least, email one of them telling them how appreciative you are of the work they are doing and to keep up the great work.

Its like most OpenSource projects, so either stop the whining or ask for a refund.

And i would be impressesed...

[dark-br]

if ANYONE was ever able to setup a decent reliable Windows network! :)

Network neighborhood confusing for users

[aashenfe]

Most end users don't understand drive maps anyway. An NFS server and a bunch of Linux boxes with home mounted remote is a lot easier to manage.

No more "Well you should of saved your important files on the network drive!".

What a Corporate Linux desktop needs is a file sharing utility built into the file manager that is easy for end users to use.

User A right clicks on folder, and shares it. Folder in now called shared work area. Address book pops up and prompts users to select other users that are allowed to access files. Other users receive email with invitation to work area.

Users have a shared work area manager that list other shares they have access to + manage them like bookmarks. Shares are listed by the user in charge, and name. Machine is not important. Storage capacity is determined by quota's + resides on same drive as owners home directory

Good ldap support is important for all this to work correctly

Linux is nowhere near desktop ready

[SiliconJesus101]

Ok folks, I'll probably get flamed to hell and back for this one but here goes. Linux is not anywhere near ready for a desktop environment and I don't think it will be any time in the near future. The problem is that there are too many widgets, toolkits, window managers, etc etc to provide a consistent experience. The masses do NOT want to be able to fully tweak and customize their GUI right down to every last little pixel!! What people look for (myself included) is a nice simple painless interface to use. Notice I didn't say painless OS....since Windows definitely has its share of issues....but the interface is clean, uncluttered, and you can pretty much expect uniform appearance, intergration, and function of most applications. If it were up to me, and provided that I had a bazillion dollars to blow, I'd own a nice shiny new Mac with OSX.

For a desktop OS, Linux is just plain cumbersome and cluttered in its current state and XFree definitely needs to go the way of the dinosaurs. Yeah...it's pretty cool that I can launch remote X sessions from other machines....but hell...this is not a server we are talking about, it's a single person desktop PC for %!@#&^$ sake!!

I definitely think Linux will remain a server OS. My servers are all running on Gentoo Linux or Slackware and I think it's absolute suicide to run a server on Windows. As far as the software vendors and developers....hell...you go where the money is. Chances are that programming an application for Windows will be much more profitable than one for Linux, after all, most of you Linux zealots just expect that everything should be free....as in beer, at the very least.

Re:Linux is Dying

[Anonymous Coward]

mac is the only approved platform of the gnaa. figures.

Try this on for size

[Anonymous Coward]

For all the people complaining about how the "the doesn't play well with others" argument is wrong or whatever, imagine the following scenario:

MS says it has seen the light, Linux is a serious desktop OS, and they release Office for Linux. But it doesn't look and feel like a native Linux app, it does almost everything in its own weird way, document conversion is a pain in the butt, and Linux users really dislike it. Wouldn't you expect to see endless comments here about how stupid MS was to expect the installed base of Linux users to accept and convert to something that doesn't play well in a Linux environment? Well, that's exactly the situation the decisionmakers with hundreds or thousands of Windows desktops are in when they consider moving users to Linux. It sucks, but it's how the world works.

Wrong problem...

[John Whorfin]

No, the problem is Windows doesn't integrate with Linux.

This isn't Linux's problem, since Open Source projects often adher to open standards while Windows doesn't.

The solution is to fix Windows... oh wait, we can't.

Re:Wrong problem...

[ReNeGaDe75]

It's so nice to see an intelligent comment like this. Most people have succumbed to the Microsoft monopoly so much that they have become hypocrites.

"Linux needs to be more compatible with Windows networks".
"Linux needs to support Word documents"
"Linux can't even run .EXE files"

The fact is, Windows has crappy support for Linux networks, it doesn't support OpenOffice documents, nor can it run ELF files. Yet nobody complains about that.

I think if Microsoft converted their file sharing system to using NFS or FTP, we'd be in good shape.

If you're thinking "But what about documents? MS Office doesn't support OO files!". Well, there's a Windows version of OpenOffice. If a company wants full interopability with OpenOffice (it supports word documents anyway, so this isn't a big issue IMO, but others will disagree with me), then they can use Open Office instead of Microsoft Office. Then everything is guaranteed to be 100% compatible. If they insist on using Microsof Office only, then they have no right to complain! It's their decision to make. Don't blame Linux because you made the wrong decision, just accept it.

Never got Quicktime and most other video formats..

[pb]

mplayer--learn it, live it, love it.

As for other browsers, if you don't like Mozilla, then try Konqueror or something.

Personally, I use Linux because Windows isn't ready for the power user yet. It still tries to bug the hell out of me every chance it gets, and I'm not going to waste my time playing its stupid whack-a-registry-setting game.

Re:Linux is Dying

[Anonymous Coward]

desktop oriented people are loosing interest

Excuse me. I am just curious, how does a person loose interest?

Yawn

[LooseChanj]

Where's the NEWS???

Mac user for Linux success

[inkswamp]

I'm a Mac user, have been for years and will continue to be so, but I am always happy to hear Linux gaining ground whether it's on the desktop or server market. The success of any platform other than Windows is, IMO, something to feel good about. I hope Linux makes in-roads into the desktop market some way or another. I'm not sure if incompatibility with Windows networks is really a valid strike against Linux or not. Seems to me that anything not coming from Redmond has trouble working in a Windows environment.

Doesn't play well with ANYTHING.

[Inoshiro]

Did you read the review? They couldn't edit Palm notepade entries in the KDE PIM tool, nor was Mozilla and the rest of the system on speaking terms about cut/copy/paste most of the time.

These are serious kinks. I've used Linux on the desktop for 3 years. The only OS I have found that combines the nice stability of Linux with true usability is OS X, but I don't have a few grand for a G4 tower kicking around. I put up with a lot of shit with Linux because it's stable, but I'm a very different person from most people who just want something that works.

Re:Doesn't play well with ANYTHING.

[advocate_one]

Did you read the review? They couldn't edit Palm notepade entries in the KDE PIM tool, nor was Mozilla and the rest of the system on speaking terms about cut/copy/paste most of the time.

These are serious kinks.

Picky... f*cking picky... serious kinks my @rse..

anyone with any sense uses jpilot with palms, not the KDE stuff, and if you will mix GUI libraries then you will have problems cutting and pasting with the mouse. Ctrl C, Ctrl X and Ctrl V work consistently though now don't they... I notice that MS-Windows doesn't let you use the mouse as easily to cut and paste like you can in Linux now can you... you have to mess with the right click sub menu, nowhere near as convenient as highlighting the text and middle clicking at the target point now is it...

That's why I used the 50%+ point.

[Population]

At that point, it makes more economic sense for all manufacturers to come out with Linux support first.

When you can hit 50%+ of the market, you go with that.

Right now, the biggest market is 90%+ Windows. It makes more economic sense for the manufacturer to support Windows.

Fortunately, we are not restricted to simple statistics.

If you're buying new hardware, make sure the manufacturer supports Linux. Reward the manufacturers that support Linux and other manufacturers will start supporting Linux. Spend your money wisely.

This makes sense.

[crashnbur]

On one hand, this article highlights why I don't run Linux at home: I do all my productive work using Windows software. My employers use Microsoft Windows and Office products, and my school requires any electronic work to be done on Windows machines (unless you're one of the few who have a non-Windows machine that can generate Windows-compatible outputs -- good application software should do this without much problem).

On the other hand, I don't believe Linux needs to revolve around Windows. For a competitive market, Linux can and should stand on its own and effectively divide the market. Will productivity sag? Certainly, but only at first. The operating system software does not need to be compatible -- the networking and application software does.

I'm not anti-Linux, and I'm definitely not anti-Microsoft. Sure, some of the rules have been abused and others perhaps broken, but a large part of what Microsoft has accomplished is simply because it used the resources provided (fairly) to earn a superior position in the market. Make your arguments about browser bundling, insider deals, and so on, but I think disallowing those things is antithetical to the idea of free trade and a free economy. Microsoft earned its position naturally; inferior competitors are supposed to fall from the market until they can put up a competitive product.

Think about it: Microsoft has been accused of abusing market power by (1) artificially inflating prices when its prices have been set "too high" and (2) undercutting its competitors when its prices are "too low", and (3) Microsoft has been accused of price-fixing and collusion when its prices are on par with the market price. Antitrust laws are both good and bad, because while they break up bad abuses of market power, they also break up natural mono-/olipolies that may actually be better for the market.

My point is that Linux, Apple, Netscape, and some of Microsoft's other competitors may be pursuing some angles antithetical to their principles. Some accuse Microsoft of anti-competitive practices, when they themselves would prefer to restrict Microsoft's ability to compete with them. I wouldn't accuse Linux of this, but other corporate entities are in it for themselves, not the other competitors in the market, and they would love nothing more than to be the next ones on top. (I get the idea that Linux supporters are a bit more socialist in their approach, not wanting to hoard the benefits, but only wanting nominal credit for their contributions.)

Sorry if this message doesn't make too much sense. I tried to cram a lot of ideas into only a few paragraphs...

But windows plays well with linux...

[nurb432]

If you are running samba as a SERVER, windows clients do well..

Its when you run samba CLIENT things get a bit hairy.

And *nix MUST coopreate on both sides of the fence to make inroads into the business world. You dont replace what you paid for ( and for the most part works ) overnight.. its incremental.. both from paranoia and practical reasons.

Hell its taken us over a year just to roll out XP in a windows shop... ( 12,000 machines )....

It depends

[ducomputergeek]

For a general office, Linux is not yet ready. Sorry, but Linux still lacks a great Office Suite. Star/Open Office has made great progress, but they are both slow and most, including myself, find the interface to still be a little clunky. This week I started a new job as IT director at a small start-up. Before this I worked for an Arcitecture firm as the server admin. Before I left, we tested Maya on Linux. The artists loved it. We found that fact that Linux uses fewer resources, we could use that extra power to shave about 2%-5% off our rendering times compaired with XP pro. One of my biggest complaints about Linux has been its lack of focus and how its developers attempt to make it a do all from a server to a Desktop all in one package: it ends up not doing either one as well as it could. Here that feature works in our favor because we can use the 10 or so Linux box as its own render-farm for large projects on the same box as the program. Lots of $$$ saved.

Re:It depends

[statichead]

...its lack of focus and how its developers attempt to make it a do all from a server to a Desktop all in one package...

While I agree this phenomon exists, I think the modularness of linux make it a perfect environment for the future, desktop and server alike.

Being an IT director you are going to choose "product" based on merit and proven technologies. At a small start-up you probably will be pressed into cost savings. Linux can, at the very least, offset your software costs and provide some resiliency in your network as well as get some junior administrators a little ramped up on how linux works.

Linux is in a lot of places these days and shows no sign of slowing down.

I believe the facts contradict you.

[Population]

Wal-Mart has increased its line of Linux based PC's.

Originally they had Lindows.

They have added Lycoris desktops.

They have added SUSE desktops.

There is a rumor that they will also be introducing Mandrake systems.

When Linux comes pre-installed, it is just as easy for the average person to use as Windows is. Wal-Mart would not be selling them and expanding their line if they were not profitable.

You've got it all wrong...

[Hackie_Chan]

Why aren't we looking at it at the other way and asking why Windows isn't playing well with Linux?

It's really all about the software.... not the OS.

[King_TJ]

Though I've known this for a long time, it keeps hitting home every weekend as I travel to a small town flea market and sell used systems + offer cheap system repair and troubleshooting.

Most people out there simply want to buy a computer that runs "all the stuff I run across on the store shelves". I've tried selling perfectly good used PowerMac systems and run into this, just like I run into this if I have Linux pre-loaded on a PC that I put up for sale.

You find roughly 1 in 100 people who praise the fact that you're using Linux (or a Mac for that matter), and they typically spend the next 5 or 10 minutes chatting with you about the superiority of your choice, etc. Then they walk off without buying. (They've already got plenty of computer stuff at home.)

To the general public, Linux being "ready for the desktop" simply means it'll easily let them install and run all the "bargain bin" software on CD-ROM they picked up at Costco or WalMart, their copy of Microsoft Office they paid hundreds of dollars for a few years ago, and they really want to buy after they get their new computer.

This is, ultimately, why Linux won't ultimately be ready for "the desktop" for years and years, if ever. Apple still can't seem to pull off even a consistent 5% market share, and they have hundreds of commercially available software titles!

Slashdot is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true M$ actually pay people to mod the truth down. Redmond FUD that's that's spoken here now.

Re:Slashdot is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

LoL... fanboys killed the site if anything. So many posts are filled with disinformation and simply wrong statements about anything non-Linux that it should be called "News for Fanboys, stuff that matters only to Linux zealots". Let it go, it isn't a religion.

Re:Slashdot is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

fanboys? The only fanboys around here are the pro Gates faction that -1 flamebait every post that criticises Microsoft. They're blatently all employees, afraid of loosing their jobs, normal people just don't think that way, get out of your basement and ask some.

This article....

[Anonymous Coward]

This article over at GeniusEngineer also has some interesting points regarding mainstream use of Linux.

I can't wait...

[dtfinch]

...for the day to arrive when most users complain that Windows won't run all their favorite Linux software.

Re:I can't wait...

[crimsontiger6]

it will never happen, software sells computers and 99% of software ppl want runs on windoze.

Buy the right hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

That is what I do. Whenever I buy a piece of hardware I make sure first that it is FULLY linux compatible. This applies to absolutely EVERYTHING, from a cheapo pc card to an expensive laptop. Please dont expect that whatever you have should work under linux. Do your homework first and then buy.

It's the mascot

[KalvinB]

How about a mascot that doesn't look like it has down syndrome?

Ben

Re:It's the mascot

[statichead]

I think you got a point.

Emperor penguins look pretty cool, not so dufus like.

Emperor penguins on google images

I can see you're a man of rare caliber

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, fellow goon. Whatever you need is yours.

AOL for LINUX. Right here !

[zymano]

AOL for linux Download PengAol at Sourceforge.

No prob. Zymano knows.

Wanna know how Linux really rocks?

[LazloToth]

Well, here's a setup any geek would love. On our mostly-MS network, we have Citrix Metaframe XP on Win2K servers. The latest ICA client for Linux, though not as slick as I suspect it will one day be, is fully functional. I run RedHat 8.0 all day while running all my MS Office apps out of Citrix, as well as all the MS management utilities that run from the Microsoft Management Console. From the MMS, I use Systems Management Server remote control to manage servers and assist end users. The Citrix client even put all my ICA Program Neighborhood icons into my KDE start menu - - you really have to see it to believe it. My colleagues, though not enamored of Linux enough to learn it, are amazed to see me popping between 6 KDE desktops, each having assortments of native Linux apps and Citrix-launched Microsoft stuff. I know I'm spoiled, but, for me, this may be as good as it will ever get. Unless, of course, the Linux terminal services project progresses to the point were we can deploy MS apps from an open source OS platform with relative ease.

Re:Wanna know how Linux really rocks?

[statichead]

Right on dude.

Users do not even need to know they have a network drive, much less browse the network if you set it up and administer it properly. Seemless integration is the name of the game. Mount the users home directory over the network as they log on, shit chroot the machine to it to for extra security. The data is consolidated, redundant and backed up. share files via web tools as well as a net mount for user shared file areas.

This ZD net review is nonsense, the basis for the review is faulty to begin with. An enterprise deployment would include extensive testing before actually rolling it out to a test pool of users. You would then ghost your customized and tested image for easy retival and installation. Work out any bugs and ghost again.

Re:Wanna know how Linux really rocks?

[crimsontiger6]

so what your saying is your linux box is a terminal for your citrix environment so you can use MS apps on your linux box. sounds to me like you just reinvented the wheel. linux makes a great thin client everyone woohooo.

Re:Wanna know how Linux really rocks?

[LazloToth]

Friend, that is not far from what I'm saying, but it also isn't quite what I was trying to communicate. The idea is that I have access to my favorite Open Source apps while not needing a second PC in order to have access to necessary MS applications. Yes, I DO find that MS apps are necessary in the business world today, and I won't be so hypocritical as to say they aren't. And, yes, I could just as well accomplish something similar with costly VMWare plus the cost of hosted OSes. Or I could just do rdesktop to our terminal servers. But the Citrix solution, you see, is very handy, as well as economical. I get what I want without having to ask my boss for a few more bucks. And I prefer Citrix over Terminal Services, anyway. Let's not even talk about VNC.

The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[twitter]

Actually a better comparison would be evaluating a car and saying it doesn't fit on the existing roads.

A Microsoft road would only fit Microsoft vehicles. If we draw the compairison to other M$ bloaty things, such as a browser that has a 1G footprint or a text document that consumes 50kB to say "Hello World", a microsoft car would be powered by three horses in a squirl cage, have 6 steel wheels that only fit on M$ patented rails, gets 2 miles to the gallon. Yes it would consume M$ gasoline as well as M$ geneticaly altered hay. Of course only one person at a time could ride in it and they would have no control over where it goes. The driver would also have to prove their identity via tatoed barcode and RFID tags, though the thing is actually leased and owned by Microsoft. Windshields and a roof would be expensive extra purchases. The horse's diet would be so poor that their performance would fail in two years, requiring the purchase of a new car. There is no owner's manual. The rider would suffer daily crashes of horse dung and often the gasoline would ignite and kill both horse and driver. The express purpose of the vehicle would be to keep everyone where they belong and mindful of their property.

There is no compairing Microsoft's hideous software to any practical device. Any physical device that was so difficult to use, performed so poorly, costs so much and worked so poorly with all established hardware standards would never be made. Ford made the automobile cheap and rugged. It was made to run on the poor roads of the day, be easy to fix and purchase by the common man. His express desire was to make it possible for people to get to know their neighbors, city and country.

Nobody is going to design a new road just to be able to run Linux.

No one ever designed anything to run Windoze either, despite the cute little marketing stickers. Microsoft's hand in hardware "standards" has all been negative, Winmodems, the destruction of unified graphics standards, web cams that require NetMeeting or don't work, sound cards that don't work, scanners and other devices that must be bought again on OS "upgrade". Their new software does not run on older hardware and their older software does now work with new hardware.

In short, M$ blows and it has given everyone a terrible impression of home computing. People are afraid to install and use software much less write any to do useful things. Because Windoze is so touchy, ureliable and sensless, they imagine free software to be a thing of vast complexity impossible to set up, grasp and use. Idiots like these ZDNet people perpetuate these negative impressions when the reality is that free software is extensively documented, configured with text files, extreemly robust and far cheaper to run and use. Because of M$'s bad reputation, people continue to purchase $2,000 computers that are little more than $400 generic computers with Windoze installed and "configured".

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking raving fag boy ! Sounds like you're hoping your knowledge of weird computer arcania will make up for your tiny dick and you'll score with some mindless secretary....get a clue, she'll be more inclined to spread for you if you can help her with her spreadsheet.

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[Kurin]

Oh, for crying out loud. It's not THAT bad. Yes, the open source and Gnu/Linux communities have better intentions than a giant corporation, but that doesn't mean Windows is really all that bad.

I will admit, during the Windows9X days, using Microsoft products was a joke. But I can honestly say Windows XP is a good operating system. What more do you want it to do? It does everything I want it to. The only times it crashed were when I didn't have the right drivers installed for my hardware (old versions). I can get the same thing to happen in Linux (or any OS) if I screw up the drivers. The OS detects USB devices immediately after they're plugged in. It doesn't hog all my resources (maybe if you have a 300mhz CPU, 64mb of RAM and a 2gb hard drive, it doesn't work too well... but if you have a 300mhz CPU, 64mb of RAM and a 2gb hard drive, you shouldn't be complaining that you can't run the latest software on your 6+ year old machine) and I have no problems installing anything.

Microsoft supplies users with an after-distribution set of utilities called XP PowerToys, including a special calculator, web cam stuff, more system configuration (TweakUI), alt-tab replacement, "Open command window here" (like Ctrl-T in KDE). They make the OS easily more usable.

Bootvis.exe makes Windows boot faster. A lot faster, in my case. The only thing that sucks is that you have to reboot when you install some things. That was one of the nice things about Linux, being able to restart the X server instead of having to reboot. Sometimes in Linux you didn't have to reboot at all. Kernel patching amazes me.

I think the only thing that would make you zealots like Microsoft Windows was if you replace Microsoft with "Not Microsoft" and Windows with "Linux".

Windows XP
Pros:
You can actually play games(when they come out).
Cons:
Costs money, you have to activate it, which is a pain in the ass

Linux
Pros:
Free
Whatever that other guy said, secure, versatile, yeah, yeah
Cons:
Can't play games (right away).

All in all, I rest my case on the following: I can go to the store on the release date of any game and pick it up, bring it home, and find myself playing it within 10 minutes.

That is one thing I cannot say for Linux. (And I'd like to say that I love Linux, I use it for a server for all my game images, installers for both OSs, and I'm trying to master using Debian at the moment.)

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[stevey]

Microsoft's hand in hardware "standards" has all been negative

Not true - and I'm not just saying that because I'm typing this comment on a Microsoft "split" Natural keyboard!

If it wasn't for DOS's dominence on PC's in the 80s then cheap commodity PC Hardwar wouldn't be so commonplace now.

Think back a few years to when a PC cost the same as a car, and now because of the popularity of DOS, and Windows 3.1, etc. PC Hardware is commonplace, cheap, interoperable.

Microsoft didn't cause this, but they helped a hell of a lot.

And without commonplace cheap PC hardware where would Linux be today?

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[WampagingWabbits]

You're missing a crucial point. Your data is much more important than how your computer works, and it's being stored in purposefully obscure data formats. These data formats are being altered regularly to ensure you buy new Microsoft operating systems and software.

Would you really give yourself no independent way of accessing your data except by the good will of Microsoft?

The user interface of Linux may never be sufficiently better than Windows to warrant a change by itself, but the ability to own your own data is an order of magnitude improvement over Windows.

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[blibbleblobble]

" Windows XP
Pros:
You can actually play games(when they come out).
Cons:
Costs money, you have to activate it, which is a pain in the ass"

Go get a PlayStation: it costs less, and plays more games. There's no reason to cripple a perfectly good PC by installing WinXP.

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[frog51]

I think for your uses, Microsoft XP may well be the best OS. I am not a Linux zealot, but I can't think of anything worse for my uses -

XP fails to recognise any of my hardware

it never does anything the same way twice - so it knackers my network settings on a regular basis

Microsoft Office is still not WYSIWYG! Why??

the ports of applications I use have very bad bugs under MS

the boot time is just stupidly long - there is literally no need for it

changing network settings on the fly still doesn't work correctly

all the games I like are available under Linux or other Unixes

Installing and uninstalling is still hit and miss, requiring regular cruft clearance (or reinstalling the OS as we call it) I could go on for ages. Put it this way - the only reason MS still has the desktop market is not because it is inherently better than anything else, but because it has the desktop market. Linux really has to prove it is significantly better in a corporate environment, and can play nice with the MS hacked up standards (Kerberos, anyone???) before they will shift.

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[reallocate]

>> Your data is much more important than how your computer works, and it's being stored in purposefully obscure data formats.

True, but that's primarily due to Office. I'm an ASCII fanatic, but no one forces users to buy Office.

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[reallocate]

Not my experience.

XP recognizes my hardware.

Not usre what you mean by "never does anything the same way twice..."

I don't need an office suite. Still, I figure all this business of trying to imitate Office (i.e., OpenOffice) will be as successful as trying to replace steak with soyburgers.

Boot time for XP is faster than Linux on my hardware. But, both are fast enough.

Don't play computer games. They bore me and you get nothing when you win.

Installing is never difficults for me. I uninstall be deleting the partition. Uninstalling individual packages is easy, if the install routine played by the rules. You can't say that for Linux.

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[tHepAu1]

I like XP as well.
I help my coworkers all the time with their home computers in exchange for cases of beer. Since the release of XP, I have been drinking better.
Actually, I installed Mandrake on one coworkers computer because he was so fed up with XP. He has had a few problems, but overall, he is much happier with it than XP.

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[Jellybob]

Being able to play games is irrelavent to this discussion on using Linux in Windows based *office* though.

I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't be happy to hear people I'm paying money to do work for me complain that the new IT infrastructure doesn't let them play games on the day of release.

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[frog51]

Bit puzzled by your uninstall comments - any app that is "installed" on Windows will not be uninstalled by deleting it or the partition it is on. There will be registry entries, links and shortcuts. Over time (a very short period) these cause instability. Back in the 3.1 days it was athe case that a simple delete would work, but not within the last 7 years.

Under Linux (especially Debian) uninstall is very easy. Deleting the directory will work, but may leave links/PATH, but uninstallation clears out the entire app. Which would have been installed in easily predictable places, not everywhere!

I am intrigued that you haven't had issues with one of the main problems Windows has - uninstalling. Oh well, each to their own.

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[reallocate]

I've found the best way to uninstall Windows -- the entire OS -- is to delete the partition. Poof, it's gone.

You're correct about registry woes. That's what I meant by playing by the rules. If an uninstall routine backs out all the registry entries made during installation, plus the links, shortcuts and what-not, you should be fine. It's simply a matter of recording everything the install routine did and backing out of each of those actions.

The same principle applies in any OS. I've found that Linux install routines often don't track everything they do. And, certainly, the "Configure, Make, Install" mantra leaves it up to the user to remember what's where.

The profusion of different and incompatible packaging schemes in Linux, combined with manual compilation and installation, does have a down side.

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please install XP on a computer made this century okay? Then come back and try and make your arguments above.

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

It [windows] doesn't hog your resources.

Whenever I try to search for a file on my bosses computer, a little dog pops up and sniffs through the files. Whenever I try to open a word document, a little paperclip won't get out of my face. Even if I'm just sitting at the computer, a little updates box pops up at the lower right corner of the screen. These don't hog your resources if you aren't doing anything else, say operating one web browser window. But if you are doing anything processor intensive, they start to cut into your efficiency a little. Not to mention, they are annoying. You can't get work done, because the operating system is gettin gin your way.

Which gets to the worst part of Windows (any version) the Microsoft philosophy. You don't know what you want to do with your computer, so we will make it easier on you by not allowing you accesss to change any of your own stuff. And of the few things you can access, most of them will be hidden, cloaked, or in some way made very inconvenient to access. In short, we Microsoft, don't trust you with your own computer. That is the biggie for me.

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[Zepher66]

Which gets to the worst part of Windows (any version) the Microsoft philosophy. You don't know what you want to do with your computer, so we will make it easier on you by not allowing you accesss to change any of your own stuff. And of the few things you can access, most of them will be hidden, cloaked, or in some way made very inconvenient to access. In short, we Microsoft, don't trust you with your own computer. That is the biggie for me.

What you list there is actually a major reason why Windows (in all its glory - fault-ridden or not, depending on who you ask) has dominated the desktop market. Microsoft decided to make a computer an appliance, essentially. You cannot appeal to the massess of everyday non-techies unless you turn something that is effectively complex into an appliance that is easy to use.

As geeks, we like the ability to tinker with computers, since we enjoy it. Most people however, do not. We are often quite biased when it comes to how computers should be used an in what manner because we actually like them, whereas most people only need an e-mail client, file-sharing software, and some kind of media player and couldn't care less if they were able to manually configure system files.

I think a toaster is a good analogy. When I want to make toast, I just want to put some bread in the machine and have it toast it properly. Other than the "darkness" indicator for how crunchy to make it, I have no interest in other options. I don't want to have to adjust the distance the toast goes into the toaster, the exact temperature the coils reach, or even to indicate which coils should heat up and for how long. Now, there might be people who would like the option of changing these things, and that's fine. But I don't care about toasters that much, which is how most people feel about computers.

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[AstroDrabb]

What you list there is actually a major reason why Windows (in all its glory - fault-ridden or not, depending on who you ask) has dominated the desktop market. Microsoft decided to make a computer an appliance, essentially. You cannot appeal to the massess of everyday non-techies unless you turn something that is effectively complex into an appliance that is easy to use.

MS dominatest the desktop market because of the monopoly they built. The made proprietary standards that force one to use MS to work with those standards. They would not allow PC dealers to sell any other OS, etc, etc. When people first started with DOS, they had to learn how to use it. Then they had to learn Win-3.x, then how to use Win9X, win2k, WinXP. It is no different for Linux. Once you learn Linux, going from one version to the next is trivial. Also, the only things MS has made easy MS windows are web browsing and email. And it is just as easy to do that under Linux. When it comes to more complex tasks it takes the same amount of time/effort to learn to do it under MS windows as it does under Linux. I just had my brother-in-law switch his HP notebook from MS windows XP to Red Hat 9. He did the install without any problems with all hardware detected including his PCMCIA network card and smart media reader. I installed apt for RPM for him and he then installed MozillaFirebird, and is now doing the web, email gaim, and digital imaging with the same ease as under MS windows without costing a fortune and without having to support a monopoly or give up basic rights as a consumer.

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[westlake]

In short, M$ blows and it has given everyone a terrible impression of home computing. People are afraid to install and use software much less write any to do useful things.

255 million downloads of Kazaa, 232 million of ICQ pro through Download.com that shows a real fear of Windows

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[shaitand]

Please install xp on 100 identical computer systems. On all 100 systems install the same apps in the same order, better yet just ghost them. Now boot each one individually and watch the icons load in the system tray, watch the order they load in. Then you will see the most basic example of "never does anything the same way".

umm to install an application, i do one of two things.

Browse a ungodly huge list in synaptic that is very well organized and has good descriptions for each package. Or just read about it on the web and type apt-get install appname. Or if for some reason it's not found, download it off the website, double click on the installer... hey wait, that's my only option under windows and It's my last resort under linux!!!

App installs.

To uninstall, I can type a few different things (or again, just click in synaptic, much like windows, except all the apps are listed, and the uninstall always works). rpm -e appname, or apt-get remove appname.

Odd, only difference i see here is that I have more ways to acomplish the task on linux, not harder ways (actually every one of them is easier) just different.

As for uninstalling the system, whether you find it easy or difficult really doesn't matter. Under linux I don't have to do it. I don't have to defrag, I don't have to reinstall the OS at a regular interval due to "bitrot". And I don't have to upgrade.

A couple releases later when microsoft drops support for winXP like they did win95, do you really think they will keep the activation hotlines open for you? Another bit of news for you... if you change hardware and break your activation, they will only give you a reactivation code once... upgrade that pc twice, come on buddy try it.

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[shaitand]

You don't think I can configure linux to be an appliance??? I've done it already, we sell linux desktops that are basically appliances.

We give them a pretty locked down desktop, they can delete and move files around their desktop and home directory, they can browse the web etc, synaptic is setup suid so they can click through the lists and upgrade their software. They don't even know the root user exists. If they have a problem 60% of the time we can remote control the pc and fix it for them over the phone, the other 40% have to bring it in service or recieve onsite service. We don't lock them into any sort of agreement and they are free to have the root password, this does however void their warranty on labor, it does not void their hardware warranty of course.

With our windows systems, 90% of all problems are software issues, of these about 5% can be remote repaired. The other 85% require someone to come onsite or the system to be brought into the shop. The other 10% are hardware issues.

The linux systems are simpler to use, we get a stray windows user moving to linux who knows enough about windows he is annoyed at the change but it's suprisingly rare.

Software compatiblity problems are about equal, we get about as many who want to install windows software that doesn't work on their linux pc as we get windows users who can't get windows software to install on their windows pc, in terms of percentage, not number of course.

As far as ease of use. We always recommend linux to grandmother's and fresh egg users (who tend to be the same people), because it's nearly impossible for them to break.

60% of all windows pc's we sell require some kind of instore or onsite intervention from us while under warranty.

10% of all linux pc's we sell require some kind of instore or onsite intervention from us while under warranty.

Yes I believe linux is quite viable on the home desktop. For our business customers the question really isn't whether or not it's viable to use, but whether or not they are tied into any sort of application that will lock them to windows. And if all their software runs fine or easily replaceable, do they get software from a corporate office or third party (like gm car dealerships do) that makes it a possiblity they will need to run a windows app on their desktops in the future.

Of course it's viable in the office in and of itself. There is no actual type of productivity or task you can't accomplish with linux that you can with windows (though we've found the opposite is not true). And in an office environment they can't even move the icons on the desktop, have no start button, cases are physically locked, have no floppies, cd-roms, or harddrives. We've had no problems using a single pc to power 200 linux terminals (trimmed down commodity but QUALITY components). 200 pc terminals running ximian, openoffice, labeling software, and an internal custom application (thinking of the last linux terminal setup i performed) had no problem running off a p4 1.8ghz with 2gig of ram and an IDE raid. This is the same pc we normally sell as a windows workstation, 3 with 2 extra drives and a $100 promise controller. They also have iris scan units at their desktops.

If I subtract the promise controller and two extra drives, and the extra 512mb ram they saved... $17452 from what the hard drives for their workstations alone would have cost. Believe me, linux as a desktop solution is not dead, as a server solution is not dead, and terminal setups are certainly not obsolete or dead. They have the same benefits they always did.

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[reallocate]

>> Please install xp on 100 identical computer systems...

No thanks. You can't pay me enough to administer someone else's PC's.

>> type apt-get install appname...

Debian has a fine packaging system. So does RedHat. And, going the configure-make-install route is fine, too. Trouble is, each method is unaware of the other. Mixing packaging systems is a recipe for a very bad cake. Meanwhile, in my book, you get no extra points for running apt at the command line instead of clicking on an icon in Windows. Conceptually, it's the same thing.

>> ..much like windows, except all the apps are listed....

If a developer follows Microsoft's rules, your app will be listed in the install/deinstall panel. If you don't, it probably won't be. Ditto apt, which can't correctly uninstall something it didn't install.

>> As for uninstalling the system, whether you find it easy or difficult really doesn't matter. Under linux I don't have to do it.

Well, deleting a partition works pretty much the same for any OS. I'm happy you can upgrade in place. My point was simply that arguing about which OS is easier to uninstall is silly. They're all easy to uninstall if you delete their partitions.

A couple releases later when microsoft drops support for winXP like they did win95, do you really think they will keep the activation hotlines open for you? Another bit of news for you... if you change hardware and break your activation, they will only give you a reactivation code once... upgrade that pc twice, come on buddy try it

I'm not using XP, so I don't really care when MS stops supporting it. (By the way, how's RedHat's support for their 4.0 release these days?). As for that reactiviation nonsense, I do have am XP CD that I've installed and activated on 3 different machines. Maybe I'm doing something wrong.
And, while ere at it, why is "activating" XP any different than signing up for the "RedHat Network" so you can get updates, or signing up for whatever weird "club" Mandrake is running these days? I'll give you points for Debian not wanting to know your life history before you use apt, but they certainly know you IP.

I know this is Slashdot, but don't mistake my little criticisms of little pieces of Linux for slavish adoration of Microsoft. Dealing with the truth is a better policy than slavish adoration of anything, even Linux.

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[shaitand]

"Debian has a fine packaging system. So does RedHat. And, going the configure-make-install route is fine, too. Trouble is, each method is unaware of the other. Mixing packaging systems is a recipe for a very bad cake. Meanwhile, in my book, you get no extra points for running apt at the command line instead of clicking on an icon in Windows. Conceptually, it's the same thing."

Yes it is, it's something you shouldn't do. But you don't use multiple packaging systems, the average user certainly doesn't because they don't know they can. Someone in the know is aware of the problems that arise and therefore doesn't... someone in the know who does it anyway is aware of the problems that will arise if they don't use these systems the way they are intended. As for the uninstall, in your microsoft example you are installing it with one packaging system, and the uninstall breaks... to date I've never had this problem when I used one linux packaging system. And it's further worth noting, that on any windows system with 20+ apps listed in the add/remove at least 5 of them won't uninstall properly. And if they do they leave garbage on the system.

"I'm not using XP, so I don't really care when MS stops supporting it. (By the way, how's RedHat's support for their 4.0 release these days?)"

I'm happy your not using xp, my information about the 1 time reactivation came from Microsoft the last time I tried. Perhaps I'm misinformed (a ms phone weenie words aren't microsoft policy after all). Redhat support is a different story, you don't need their support for updates (or easy updates) or to allow you install your operating system on a different computer.

There are points where linux needs work, but those aren't really them. Apt coupled with synaptic makes for an extremely easy installation and uninstall that just plain works. It lets users perform a task they normally shouldn't be performing without consulting a technician. It eliminates the need for one by checking for all the bad things that can happen. Windows doesn't, it makes it possible for the user to perform the task, but doesn't do anything to prevent the consequences.

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[frog51]

Tried it on computers made this month - still blows horribly! If it wasn't my job to do stuff like this I would never touch it with a bargepole.

Re:The Microsoft Road and Vehicle.

[g4sy]

umm, buddy. XP ain't nearly as stable as people claim it to be. For many usages (par examle, when you're researching somthing online with a million browser pages open) linux will do the jub a million times better. You will note this quite clearly when all your windows dissapear and a little dialogue box asks you if you want to send a bug report to redmond. This is reffered to in informatique as a crash. it happens all the time on XP. therefore, XP is unstable

Interacting with Windows

[jonadab]

> A key problem area was interacting with the corporate Windows network.

Indeed. The problem is, which version of Windows do you want to interact with? Actually, I think Samba does a pretty decent job of faking it, provided the Windows network is all TCP/IP[1]. The problem with interoperating with Windows is, Windows is not designed for a heterogenous network. Linux will happily get along on a network with Solaris, Netware, and BeOS. The problem is Windows. At work, we've got about twelve different Windows systems, with various versions of Windows. Just about every time we add a new one, I have problems getting it to get along with at least one of the others. If it's hard for Linux to get along with some versions of Windows, it's little wonder. I've had considerable pains trying to get WinXP to play nicely on a Win98 network.

That said, there are areas where Samba and other *nix-based interoperability-with-Windows technologies could improve. At this point, the easiest way to configure Samba is still editing the conf file. That's fine for powerusers, but end users will need to have an admin do it for them. (Yes, I've seen graphical config utils for Samba, but the ones I've seen aren't up to usability standards IMO.) It's arguable that end users really ought to have admins set things up for them anyway, but still, I'd like to see a better GUI conf tool for Samba.

Also, smbmount doesn't deal as gracefully as I'd like when the Windows system crashes or is turned off or disconnected. At home, when I'm editing a file that's on the Windows box upstairs (that my family uses), I find myself glancing at the lights on the switch before saving. (Granted, Windows Explorer isn't perfect on this point either.) I'd like to see a configurable option to cache the write to disk locally (in a designated place like ~/.smbmount-cache or whatever) so the app can go about its business, and smbmount can retry silently in the background every (n*=1.5)||=10 seconds until the remote system is back up.

[1] Why Samba can't function over IPX/SPX is an interesting question, though... I do understand why they didn't implement NetBEUI, but IPX/SPX seems like it would be useful -- especially for stuff you want to keep on the local network, when TCP/IP is routed over the internet.

Who has to play well with whom?

[Skapare]

Making Windows and Linux play together has been way too one-sided. Of course, a business migrating to Linux will have to do that unless it wants to take the deep plunge and go to Linux all the way all at once. What this means is that Linux is being expected to do something even greater than what Windows is ever being expected to do, and that is to play well with its competition. Windows gets to trash the Linux partition, or screw up the partition table, or otherwise make Linux not work (in dual-boot scenarios). Similar issues exist in networking. Then business people expect Linux to deal with it and make it work, and place no expectations on Windows to do anything. Overcoming this imbalance of expectation is what will be hard for Linux. Either Linux will have to outperform Windows by a significant margin in some way, such as always working with Windows despite how bad Windows tries (not) to work with Linux, or some other benefit to using Linux will have to prevail so much as to overcome this limitation.

Just keep in mind that Linux is being expected to do what Windows is not being expected to do.

The Microsoft Radio.

[twitter]

I forgot to mention that all important part of American atuomotive engineering, the Radio. The Microsoft radio would be another expensive option, available by no cost free US Postal download. The lease holder for this radio would have to once again prove their identity, via M$ PickPocket, sign a 10 page confesion of theivery and promise eternal servitude to Bill Gates. It would come with earphones only and mostly play advertisments, much like ordinary comercial we know, but Microsoft would be able to change the advertisments and other playlists at will. Playing the headphones loud enough to be enjoyed by passing pedestrians or your horses would terminate your license to the radio and the vehicle which would be routed to Redmond for a thourogh examination of the thief. Yes, pedestrians would go faster than the Microsoft vehicle, especially near end of life is reached, but that is not a problem as sidewalks would be outlawed by the DMCA as a circumvention device. Still, runaway Microsoft vehicles would manage to kill many owners and innocent bystanders each year. Terrorists would take advantage of a buffer overflow in the radio's unused horse interface to cause massive property damage and much dung crashing. The same interface will be available year after year despite Microsoft claims that the problem was solved by secure hay and other user anoyances.

Re:The Microsoft Radio.

[bigman2003]

Actually, if you want to compare a cars radio to MS software- I think the obvious comparison is to Windows Media Player.

It's free.

Excellent quality.

No advertisements.

Does more than most of the competitors.

Exportable playlists.

Free Upgrades (Download from the fastest servers on the web.)

Built right into the dash.

Re:The Microsoft Radio.

[vrmlknight]

since when has xmms or any radio ever have a remote exploit that can allow an attacker to access files on your local hard drive?
kb819639

When it will work.

[ratfynk]

'When will this stuff finally be ironed out?'
When interoperabily with MS tools is no longer a concern. And MS format standards are no longer a moving target. With the lock they have on lobby groups on capitol hill- never.

Xandros and Windows domains

[Burz]

Seems obvious to me they were trying to get SuSE to cooperate with a Windows domain controller.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Xandros File Manager, which allows your Linux system to join a Windows domain and thus resolve the problems described in the article.

And it has great (context-sensitive) documentation.

That, combined with their affinity for APT, and they might have issued a score of 9 if the distro were Xandros.

very important - tech-savy don't go back.

[twitter]

... in a Windows only environment, it's generally pretty tech-savy people acting as the admins. Sure, they're tech-savy in a windows sort of way ...

This is a very important point. My experience is that Windoze, being all secret handshake based, was much more difficult to install and maintain than any Linux distro. For ordinary stuff, email, web browsing, modest image manipulation, free software is easier to aquire, lasts longer and needs much less attention than it's windows counterparts. Free software generally has everything you need right on the install disks with update via the web and more than comercial software companies can offer. People with enough savy to push Microsoft crap have more than enough to make free software work, they simply have to unlearn a few bad habits and get used to a few better practices. Younger people have by and large bypassed the M$ train wreck and have much better computer skills and ability to do things than those trapped in learning M$ tricks, like where in the GUI tangle disk managment sofware is. Despite the bad press about supposed difficulty, there's much more similarity and ease of modification to free software configuration files than there is in Microsoft's registry and the raft of other configuration files the M$ admin is force to remember. When these folks realize how easy to use and configure free software is, they realize that the pain of transition was trivial compaired to continuing down the M$ tunnel and they never look back. Most already have realized and there are only a few hard core M$ ludites and users flooded with M$ adverts left.

You lost me at M$ zealot boy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay!!! EN/TEE

Dumb Terminals are Dumb Ideas.

[PhxBlue]

Centralised computing is where most companies should be at, cheap disposable terminals on the desktop and a beast of a server under lock and key.

I considered the above a load of crap the first time I heard it about 8 years ago, and I think it's just as much a load of crap now. You're not going to spend any appreciable amount less buying some stovepiped dumb terminal than you'll spend on a low-level PC; and the PC will still be useable when your network takes a dive and the dumb terminal becomes a paperweight.

How is this a Linux problem?

[LRJ]

Since the SAMBA team has been trying to get M$ to release the specs to SMB for years, without success, I would say that the limited LAN support is a problem with the Windows network - not the Linux desktop.

a satisfied Suse user

[Chiisu]

i switched from Windows to Redhat 9, then to Suse 8.2. I'm never going back. So what is Suse isn't that great on Windows networks. Who the hell wants to be on/run a Windows network anyway? I'll take OS X along with Linux, but that's it. ;)

= chiisu

FUD non-review

[konmaskisin]

Could the reviewer get any more *non-specific*?

...
Samba had difficulty navigating the way permissions were set up on the network, and was unable to authorise us to read or write files on the server, although we were able to browse the network. After much tinkering, it appeared that the solution would be to change the way the network's permissions were set up -- something many companies would find unacceptable.

Right, wow insightful, like that new happens on Windows networks. After your description I'm sure that bug will get fixed right away. Are you sure it wasn't a problem between screen and chair? Or maybe the network was designed to not let you have access unless ... uhh ... you logged in?? Did you do that? What exactly happened?

Sheesh. What utter crud. Expect more and expect it often.

Re:FUD non-review

[Badanov]

I would like to get some details on this myself. It doesn;t sound right.

Running Samba and using Win9X is the only way those computers can use a permissions-type file system.

File permissions in Linux are a wonderful thing. A few months ago I had a problem with users wanting to change the interface screen to a database program. I simply set the shares where the executables are to read/execute only (555). Not more changing interfaces (A lot of bitching from users, though)

I find it hard to believe that systems administrators have such a hard time meshing Samba with Linux files permissions. Files permissions are a security enhancement not a hinderance.

The 90% Myth.

[twitter]

You don't throw out a product with 80% of the market just because you can't get your minority system to work correctly with it.

80%, 90% it does not matter because both are BullShit(RTM). You are forgetting that M$ crap is versioned an that the different versions don't play nice with each other. The most generous of M$ penetration studies from 2 years ago gave M$ a healthy 90% of web clients, but only 40% of those machines were running a single Microsoft OS, Windows2000. The rest had lower percentages. Making all that crap work together is extreemly laborious and not at all garunteed. In fact it's almost certian that many things won't work in a mixed Microsoft shop at any time. Printer methods vary, they have different fonts on each and clients for one don't work on all. This simple analysis does not take into account the pain and suffering of poor security, spyware, silly macro viruses and databases that periodically corrupt themselves and trash user information that require paranoid daily whole data "backups".

When will Linux take over? When it interoperates with everything, so that people can get used to using it. Then, you can slowly migrate systems as needed, instead of going all out with one system, then having to re-train all your workers, and iron out all the bugs at once.

Nonsense. Microsoft will never play nice and gradual migration is impossible. In order to move away from Microshaft, you have to freeze it on the client side, eliminate it from the server side and move on as fast as you can. The retraining issue exists everytime Microsoft "upgrades", though functionality has not greatly improved since winoze 3.1. If you dick around with M$, you will never see the end of "bugs". Blaming others for your bugs is a core M$ value. Places like Largo Florida have little to complain about. Neither do I, outside of outrageous FUD and the continued rape of 80% of computer users.

Re:The 90% Myth.

[mhesseltine]

While you do bring up some interesting points, I haven't changed my Windows machines since 98SE. They run pretty well. Most of the desktops get shutdown each night anyway, so trying to maintain an uptime measured in weeks, months, years isn't a priority. I'm not going to upgrade to 2000, XP, Longhorn, etc. The next time these machines get an update, they're going to Linux, and that's only when I know that things are going to work right. Also, I have the benefit of working for a smaller family-owned business which should be more flexible about switching.

Also, I was just pulling numbers for market share out of my ass. The point was, Linux isn't a major market share holder yet, and until it becomes one, the Linux community will have to play by the current rules, no matter how unfair they may seem. And those rules are, more people are running Windows in some variant than are running Macs or Linux systems.

Finally, and just being nitpicky, but I find it hard to take someone seriously who feels compelled to abbreviate Microsoft (M$)

Guess I'm an exception

[walterbyrd]

This linux box on my home network gets along with the windows boxes, better than the windows boxes get along with each other.

I find networking between windows and linux faster and easier. internet conection sharing is also easier.

I don't use linux as a desktop much, because it doesn't support my hardware (win-modem or dsl modem) and it run my applications (ms-project), and it doesn't work with my buzme service.

When will what get worked out?

[/dev/trash]

When will this stuff finally be ironed out?

Microsoft's lack of open standards with stuff it develops?

Re:When will what get worked out?

[Tim C]

That's informative?

Like it or not, if you want Linux on the desktop to start making inroads into the workplace, then it must interoperate correctly and completely with Windows, Office, etc. You can whine all you like about a lack of open standards, but that's not going to help.

You're not going to get a large organisation to change everyone to Linux overnight, so Windows and Linux are going to have to play nice together. That's especially true as pretty-much any business is going to conduct a small trial first - if that trial fails because of a lack of interoperability, then (to that business), Linux has failed.

If Novell were a car...

[BigBlockMopar]

Novell is certainly not dead and has greatly fallen to the fud of NT. NDS and Novell provide the best NOS administration environment period!

What Technicolor (TM) world are you living in?

My experience with Novell is 600 user environment at a large government organization.

I started collecting notes on the UI flaws that drive me nuts. Flaws in everything from GroupWise taking up half my screen to empty space in the Compose window (and if you change your UI preferences you stop getting e-mail because the recipient's view of your message is changed to match your own and your users can't find the Reply button!) to the stupidity of ConsoleOne. My notes are now in a three-ring binder that I wish to publish as a book before Novell's inevitable and too-long postponed death.

Another great problem with Novell is that it tries to simplify things too much, so you end up with people who don't know that you can telnet into a mail server (Oops, I'm sorry, GWIA) in order to see if it's responding properly. The whole idea of point-and-click administration is okay for small networks, but when you've got a mail admin at the helm of a 600 user network who thinks it's perfectly normal to be dealing in terms of proprietary binary mail spools that trap your information within their application like a Ph.D thesis written in Word, you've got a problem. Say "firewall". What's that? Oh... wait a minute, we have to remember that in this little patch of the world, it's called BorderManager.

Hell, they even think rebooting servers is a *normal* thing. (My boss, for example, is a Novell fan, and he flatly refuses to believe that the 115-or-so day current uptime of my webserver is possible.)

If Novell were a car, the hood ornament would be a 9-foot-tall big red N blocking your view through the windshield. Despite the road being clear to the horizon, you'd be unable to start the car until you cleared away a warning message on the dashboard saying, "Are you sure you wish to start your car? There's a tree 11 miles away and you might crash into it." When you finally manage to start your car, you need fear the tree less than the fact that all the passenger seats fall through the floor.

Unfortunately, they also have a rabid fan base, primarily composed (from what I can tell) of people who don't know any better. All the zeal of Apple fanatics but without the core of real superiority that Mac users can take comfort in. We're talking Novell golf shirts being worn proudly everywhere, Novell coffee mugs, etc. They keey on sending them to me, and I keep on sending them back to Utah. (All except the Novell golf shirt... I took that to an embroidery shop and had the big red N surrounded by a red circle with a line crossing it out.)

Novell and Corel are in the very rarefied position of being the only two companies in the world that I would thank Microsoft for running into the ground.

Re:If Novell were a car...

[Doctor Crocodile]

You are supposed to post humour with a few clues, like :) .... You were tottering along very nicely until you threw in the statement.. Hell, they even think rebooting servers is a *normal* thing. (My boss, for example, is a Novell fan, and he flatly refuses to believe that the 115-or-so day current uptime of my webserver is possible.) er, who does? At least one of our NW5.1 boxes had an uptime of 140+ days until we threw on SP6 and rebooted, and we only applied the SP because of third party software. I can't think of a server problem other than hardware that has ever caused us non-trivial loss of service. Yes Novell missed the boat on GUI, I bounce between consoleone and nwadmin too often. They also dicked around with too many other web environments before Apache. If they'd turned DRDOS into a lightweight Citrix-style client instead of slavishly following Bill into the DOS dead-end they'd still have had the substantial character-mode small network app market to themselves. .... and I still blame them for giving up on Wordperfect. If you want to thank Microsoft, next time you're at your embroidery class, sew a dot in front of the N and an 'et' afterwards......

Re:If Novell were a car...

[BigBlockMopar]

You are supposed to post humour with a few clues, like :)

Oh no. I'm far too angry with the tools they provide to be laughing.

.... You were tottering along very nicely until you threw in the statement.. Hell, they even think rebooting servers is a *normal* thing. (My boss, for example, is a Novell fan, and he flatly refuses to believe that the 115-or-so day current uptime of my webserver is possible.) er, who does? At least one of our NW5.1 boxes had an uptime of 140+ days until we threw on SP6 and rebooted, and we only applied the SP because of third party software.

Heh. Actually, I should have qualified that. I don't really feel that uptime problems are caused by the server software (though the client software is damned annoying and good at hanging a workstation, all the way down to the infuriating Novell-delivered Applications window).

The bigger problem with Novell server uptime is the sorts of people who administer them. Hiccup? Reboot. Need to make the server re-read its configuration? Reboot. Getting people used to point-and-click administration might be the problem, but I think it's that the Novell administrators generally come from the shallow (Windows) end of the admin pool.

How shallow? I needed to suppress the Novell-delivered Applications window in a workstation belonging to a blind person in a high-profile position. Of course, this individual has a custom Windows image with a screen reader and a few other things, and we don't really want to be taking risks by pushing crap at it. (Lots of the stuff that gets pushed doesn't get read by the screen reader, leaving my very intrepid and inspirational user literally blindly hitting the enter key until he can hear where he is). In the field, call the chief Novell zealot, and first off, it takes me half an hour to explain to him why we *can't* have the crap which he pushes on a whim getting onto this machine. So he *edits the login script* the clients run on boot to include the MAC address of this guy's Ethernet adapter. (Apparently, he can't figure out how to block the Novell-delivered Annoyances by username.)

The punchline is that my blind friend has a notebook computer and the office is *festooned* with docking stations, each with their own hardware addresses.

After he turned his back on the computer for a second and a secretary decided to "help him out" by docking it to recharge the batteries, I was inspired to go out to my garage and fabricate a 1/8" thick steel plate - including the word NO! stencilled in large letters of fluorescent red paint - which is now bolted over the docking port and provides him endless amusement and an excellent icebreaker at meetings.

Yes, I do believe that the poor uptime of our servers is because of the culture of Novell zealots, rather than the server software itself.

I can't think of a server problem other than hardware that has ever caused us non-trivial loss of service.

Ironically, as I write this, my own webserver has about a 2 hour uptime. We had a big storm today, and the power has been up and down. (Just scooped a dead UPS, must fix it!)

Re:If Novell were a car...

[Doctor Crocodile]

Good response.

Your tame zealot(tz) isn't the Zenworks guy then, I bet he can recite the Novell 3.11 monitor screen menu from memory....

imho the care and feeding of the server and client software is tactical and of Zenworks is strategic, different mindsets.

Zfd is superb at controlling desktops and the mix of applications. Your tz should've fiddled with policy settings for the username/group/etc. Subject to the vagaries of MS there's a lot you can do.

I admit we use login scripts to stuff information into the environment in order to associate physical boxes with 'virtual' things like department names; but only because we are trying to transition between IPX and IP, and have 98, 2k and XP to 'standardise'. Come the revolution...

For some reason I never get Novell mugs and golf-shirts, lots of caps, CD cases and keyrings.....

Re:Linux is Dying

[TapTapTheChisler]

*dons flame suit* Ahem, I wish

Re:It's really all about the software.... not the

[statichead]

I don't think the general public really knows that they can run all the cool software that they got from the bargain bin or even cares for that matter.

The general public doesn't even know what software really is. Many don't realize they are running windows let alone what an OS is. Most new computer users are in it to get online to do email and web. The web is an amazing tool, ten years ago you had to go to a library or a bookstore to get a fraction of the information available today.

When the software that comes on a linux box matches a users needs and provides them with an intuitive interface that allows for user customization, there will be no reason to run or develop for windows exclusively. This is when Balmer starts to have a real fit. Open Source Software will dominate the marketplace because it is better, people will make money by selling support and installation/integration/customization work.

Enterprises are ready for Linux

[symbolset]

An infrastructure is not ripped out and replaced in a day -- or even two.

Actually it takes about two weeks to image 1,000 boxes with a new image. Did that myself this last month.

I've been on a crew that rolled out to enterprise class installations seven times. Here's what I know:

It doesn't matter what you're setting up -- the image is everything. In the enterprise a gang of really smart people put together the image of one ideal operating "environment" for one PC over the course of a few months. That's their full time job, and they're good at it. It is not trivial putting together a Windows image that works with itself, let alone all of the enterprise's custom apps. Getting a proper Linux image is equally non-trivial. They add things and test them and make sure everything the people use gets tested with everything else. They figure out which service packs break their required components and omit them. They have meetings and brainstorming sessions and teams and "pilot" projects.

Then one day their image is ripe for installation. They hire a gang like ours to go around and put the image onto the hard drives of the day's scheduled customers, and manually set some settings according to a script. Usually hardware upgrades (if any) are installed at the same time. Our crew travels to all their sites and performs similar operations on a regular cycle. Someone on their side performs server-side migrations if necessary. Their helpdesk crew are prepped for issues and ready to roll.

Our gang's favorite upgrade is naturally software-only. No trekking flat panel displays up the stairs and monster CRTs down. As yet we haven't done any Linux migrations, and (gasp) I hope we don't.

I know Linux is better. It's more stable. It's more efficient. It's more compatible. I prefer it. I use it at home. But if our customers find out they can have all of their software for free, and push upgrades down from the server without our help I get these negatives: no more software only upgrades (less work), hardware only upgrades relegate me to delivery boy status rather than tech.

Fortunately for me, our salespeople are unlikely to push a solution that kills their future business (hence violating the goose rule).

Re:Enterprises are ready for Linux

[shaitand]

Nah, as great as linux is, it can't change the one undeniable fact. People in general are fucking idiots. It's why techs have jobs now, it's why techs will have jobs tomorrow. The particular job your doing now would be obsolete, but others would open up.

MPlayers plays stuff Windows XP won't play

[Anonymous Coward]

I had an AVI whose codec Intel made propriatery so only 2000 would play it (XP would send me to a page to purchase it) on Linux it playes great with MPlayer.

Re:MPlayers plays stuff Windows XP won't play

[Svartalf]

You DO realize that you're very probably using that codec in violation of it's licensing terms by using it with MPlayer?

MPlayer's nice, no doubt about it- but it's NOT an answer to the issues of Windows codecs, etc.

Those are installation issues.

[Population]

"Computers have become so popular with normal people because the average person can just figure it out because it has been designed to be easy to use."

No they have not. You believe they are easy to use because you have spent years using them. I've had to teach people who have never used a computer how to use one. There was one woman who needed two hands to work the mouse. One to hold it steady while she clicked with here other hand.

The reason your computer works so well with Windows is that you are installing hardware that the manufacturer wrote drivers for Windows for. Is this a difficult concept?

Now, try installing Windows on a PowerPC.

How about trying to put one of these old PCI video cards I have in a Windows XP machine? No luck. They don't have Windows2000 or XP drivers. But they were top-of-the-line when they came out. Too bad the manufacturer stopped supporting them back in 1998.

What was that you said? I shouldn't be using old cards? I should buy new stuff that works with XP?

Well now. It seems that your XP installation has the same problems your Linux installation had.

It doesn't work without supported hardware.

I am aware that such has been your experience. But don't blame Linux for your experience. You chose the hardware to use. If you had chosen supported hardware, your experience would have been completely different.

And don't complain that the hardware you chose worked with Windows so it should work with Linux. If you want to play that game, then why don't you get XP running on a PowerPC? The reason the hardware works with Windows is that you are specifically selecting hardware that works with Windows.

Buy a PC pre-loaded with Linux and you'll see 99% of your problems vanish.

you've missed something

[rebelcool]

there will be no reason to run or develop for windows exclusively.

Incorrect. It takes time to develop software for multiple platforms. And time is money.
Remember a few years ago when linux was a supported platform for many upcoming PC games? How many are there today? Next to none that will be both coming out on windows and linux, because linux has such a puny and unprofitable market share.

If I ran a business and was interested in mass marketing my software, why would I spend 50% of my time developing for a platform with .01% of the share? I wouldn't. Neither will any right thinking business. That is unless the linux community is willing to pay 10 times the price (yeah, right).

people will make money by selling support and installation/integration/customization work.

Do people still honestly believe this? How many linux companies who tried this approach have failed now? How many more need to fail before its well understood this does not work. And think about it: What home user whats to buy a damn support contract for their home computer? How user-shitty is your software if it requires an engineer to come out and fix it whenever it breaks?

The review was about corporate desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment is relevant for common users but the corporate desktop should be an easier target (and its where Windows started also).

Re:you've missed everything

[statichead]

yea right.

There is more to the world economy then a garage software company that sells shareware at the flea market.

you must be in some box or something.

Agreed, and I'll raise you.

[Civil_Disobedient]

I completely agree with you. But Linux is even worse than that, because so many things are simply not part of the "normal" installation -- I suppose that's because there is no normal installation with Linux. The apps you need for a firewall or a web server are different than those you'd need for doing graphics or video editing. And Linux users still don't think a GUI is necessary. What decade is this? GUI's aren't just a feature for the clueless -- they came about as an evolution from the command line. To dismiss the benefits of a GUI with offhand remarks like "RTFM and you'll be fine... Read the sundry forums and you'll be fine... Buy a tree's worth of manuals and you'll be fine... Learn to use and love the command line and you'll be fine" fly in the face of reason.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly, Linux applications are still just not there to justify huge companies replacing their entire architecture. If the OSS community keeps at it, as I'm sure they will, then perhaps in five or ten years enough alternatives will exist for companies to switch. But right now, there's no alternative to Photoshop, 3DSMax, Pagemaker/InDesign, and the hundreds of thousands of games that already exist in mature forms for Windows systems. If you want to convince a school or architecture firm or management consultancy to replace their proprietary software for Linux alternatives, you'll have to convince them that they won't also have to find replacements for all the other software they use on a daily basis (Outlook/Exchange, TrueType fonts by default, A cross-application clipboard, even Access - I mean, come on, can't the OSS community come up with a SINGLE good-looking graphical frontend for mySQL!?)

Re:Agreed, and I'll raise you.

[golgotha007]

I mean, come on, can't the OSS community come up with a SINGLE good-looking graphical frontend for mySQL!?

i have been using web-based phpMyAdmin for a few years now and it's an incredible tool.

it's easy to install, provides relationship views for multiple tables and is being actively developed.

i recommend you give it a look.

Re:Agreed, and I'll raise you.

[mpe]

The apps you need for a firewall or a web server are different than those you'd need for doing graphics or video editing. And Linux users still don't think a GUI is necessary. What decade is this? GUI's aren't just a feature for the clueless -- they came about as an evolution from the command line. To dismiss the benefits of a GUI with offhand remarks like "RTFM and you'll be fine...

There are plenty of "real world" computer situations where the real user interface is that of the only application that computer runs. You don't need a bitmapped WIMP GUI to operate a supermarket checkout or a stock control system. In these situations the fact that you cannot disable the Windows GUI is a shortcomming. In addition there are plenty of applications which use CLIs, character based GUIs or ANSI terminals.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly, Linux applications are still just not there to justify huge companies replacing their entire architecture. If the OSS community keeps at it, as I'm sure they will, then perhaps in five or ten years enough alternatives will exist for companies to switch. But right now, there's no alternative to Photoshop, 3DSMax, Pagemaker/InDesign, and the hundreds of thousands of games that already exist in mature forms for Windows systems.

Games (most of which fall into the catagory of "application UI) are a reason why "huge companies" must stick with Windows? If anything these "productivity killers" are a good reason to dump Windows, even if there is no alterative...

Re:Agreed, and I'll raise you.

[Civil_Disobedient]

phpMyAdmin is a wonderful little administration tool, don't get me wrong. I use it all the time, and have it installed on my WinBoxen along with mySQL, PHP and the rest. The problem is that it is NOT a front-end. I'm talking about a very, very simple graphical front end where I can change the widths of the columns by dragging the sides, where I can scroll down the entire list in a table without limiting my view to 30 items, where I can set up relationships between fields and SEE them... phpMyAdmin is nice because at least you can do some work on a database, but I almost always create my DB's in Access and export them to mySQL before installing on Linux web boxes. It's just so much easier.

Re:Woh, this review was sort-of positive

[Quickening]

I just had to say, after reading the article, that I don't know why they had a problem with those things. Gaim has always worked for me. Mozilla has always let me cut and paste. And, I have no problem using windows NT, 2K, XP shares/resources reading or writing or printing. Yes, I'm a unix sys admin, but once the system is set up, anyone could use it.
One thing I hope gets more attention and development is the "uri" plugins for konqueror. An uri like http:, ftp:, nfs: ,smb: , man:, info:, webdav:, and dozens more, where the protocol prefixs the location, is enough for konqueror to render anything.

Microsoft fans are in MS's reality

[Dalcius]

I'm a computer programmer (software analyst to be exact; I debug code all day). I currently work for a company that does hospital software. We use both Windows for desktops and servers and Linux for desktops and servers, we use Windows related apps on Linux and Linux related apps on Windows (just depends on which department you're in). I've been a hardcore computer geek for a number of years. I've got two dual boot systems (Windows & Linux) on my desk at home, a Linux server and a Linux laptop. My first OS was DOS 3.0, though I was pretty young then (I'm still young now, to be fair).

In my experience, what you've said is correct, but outdated, or current but a little over-the-top, however you want to look at it. Regardless, your basic ideas are sane and I think folks need to realize this.

In no other industry (that I can think of) does such cruft get passed of with such a pricetag and so little consumer control and even less corporate responsibility. The concept of a shrink-wrap EULA with such clauses as "you will not use Frontpage 2000 to write pages defamatory of Microsoft" is almost unheard of in the big picture.

Microsoft is certainly not the only big, bad, evil corporation out there, and they're certainly not all evil. But I'll agree with you: Microsoft has really spoofed a lot of people into believing that these things are normal and they're not.

Some of you folks need to take a step back for a sec, cast aside your creed and look at the issues. There are really a lot of pro-MS zealots here (contrary to all the whining [yes, whining -- see not informed discussion]).

Just something to think about folks.

Re:To all the posts saying "get rid of the windows

[nathanh]

When you purchase a palm, it comes with software, written to interopolate with your outlook. All your contacts, notes, calendars are synchronized perfectly with outlook just by installing the software, connecting the palm cradle to the PC and putting your palm in the cradle.

And what happens when you don't use Outlook?

Linux on the other hand has about 8 groupware solutions out there, so the first question would be what to pick?

And there's never more than 1 groupware option for Windows.

I don't think you've ever had to support a corporate network in your life. When you get out of school and into the real world, you're going to find that end users and their superiors make most of the software/hardware purchase decisions based on their needs, and not the "bottom line"

When you've supported a corporate network for a little longer than you have, you suddenly realise that the "bottom line" is the *only* thing that management considers. The needs of users rarely enter into the decision process.

Linux isn't ready, eh?

[Dalcius]

"An infrastructure is not ripped out and replaced in a day -- or even two. I doubt that we'll see Linux being used for wholesale replacements of corporate desktops in the near future. Until that day does come, Linux needs to play nice with the current prevailing technology."

Desktops:
For certain desktop aspects? Yes. Linux needs to play nicely, users aren't going to compromise.

That said, I think it's very fair to argue that with the same corporate setup (IT guys doing all software administration for 90% of employees), Linux does fine for the vast majority. The hardest part of using Linux is getting programs installed and working and configured, which is all an admin job. Like it or not, the rest is generally pie. Most Linux applications (Galeon, Gaim, AbiWord, Evolution) all have very easy-to-use GUIs. I don't see Linux lacking here.

Servers:
I'm sure some folks will correct me, and I'm sure that even more will nitpick here, but how well did Windows work with UNIX? Can it do NFS well? Kerberos? All the client software worked with UNIX I would assume, but somehow I doubt that NT was extremely UNIX friendly upon its introduction. Somehow I don't see the "new technologies must be friendly" in this instance. Can anyone (intelligently) point out a flaw in my logic? (it's late)

Cheers

Re:Linux isn't ready, eh?

[shaitand]

Actually NT/2000/XP/9x/DOS is STILL not very unix friendly. There is additional software available to hack together support for some things... but it costs.

The "right tools"? Feh

[Dalcius]

"With linux, you need them, and if they , at C|Net didn't have them, it probably means they are not that obvious to identify and/or find for the average end user."

What end-users at a typical company these days know how to manage a Windows network connection?

Your analogy doesn't add up.

And who the hell looks for Linux apps at C|Net anyway?!? I have a hunch this might be your problem -- maybe a little ill informed but making an opinion anyway?

In addition, claiming that the "right tools" aren't "part of the system" (differentiate between a tool and the OS) in Linux is ridiculous. Windows has a number of services and tools built in, but nothing so specific that you'd have to hunt for a Linux equivilent in any modern distro.

For example, a typical Red Hat installation (or anything else, really) has enough software (already installed and configured) to log onto a Windows network and happily share files and print. This isn't opinion up for debate, this is plain fact. I've been doing this since I got into Linux, actually, about three years ago.

Just to help the logic-impaired, don't go flaming about "Ooh it's so hard to get SAMBA working." For one, these days, it's as easy as doing it on Windows. For two, again, what end-users do you know in a corporate environment that manage their network connection?

Sorry for the rambling.

Re:The "right tools"? Feh

[Pieroxy]

I've been doing this since I got into Linux, actually, about three years ago

That's your problem: You assimilate your experience with other people experience.

Which distro are you using exactly? When you make the statement "it's as easy as doing it on Windows", which distro are you referring to?

That has always been Unix problem, and Linux is only partially solving it: Disparity. Which shell are you using? Which window Manager? There is a dozen distros out there. A lot of users are going to use the wrong one and will end up having to run xconfig manually and will get served twm as the default XWM.

I use slackware, and it's nothing more user friendly than the VAX system I was using in college. Of course, my choice is made consciously and I know why I am using slackware. I just imagine the average user with that...

Re:The "right tools"? Feh

[Dalcius]

"That's your problem: You assimilate your experience with other people experience."

Huh? I was certainly a Linux newbie when I got into it. You can certainly expect a paid IT admin to learn something faster than I did when I picked it up.

--
"Which distro are you using exactly?"

Currently Gentoo.

--
"When you make the statement "it's as easy as doing it on Windows", which distro are you referring to?"

The last time I played with Red Hat (I believe 8), plugging in SMB information during the install got me up and running without a problem. I'm certain, with all the changes to SMB, that certain networks have issues with this, but I didn't.

Printing has always been a breeze for me in Red Hat. Even on the SMB network at my office. :)

---
"That has always been Unix problem, and Linux is only partially solving it: Disparity. Which shell are you using? Which window Manager?"

Keeping this company centric, a company is going to standardize on one distro which is configured by one admin. This doesn't seem to be getting across. =\ Disparity isn't an issue in this thread.

Here's something I hope you can give honest thought to: are you applying old fashioned methods and geek mentality to this? Most home users are using Red Carpet or the like to install programs (or have someone do it for them, comparable to how most folks probably do it with Windows). Most folks go with the default. Slack and Gentoo are in completely different ball-parks.

Cheers

Re:The "right tools"? Feh

[Pieroxy]

Sorry, I wasn't very clear in my previous post. The bottom line is that even if we can state "Linux is as easy to install and configure as windows", we are lying to ourselves.

Just because we are not talking about Linux, but about a specific distro. Maybe RH and Gentoo are that good today, but all the distros don't have the same level of easiness.

When a end-user (read:dummy) hears that Linux is friendly, he cannot go to the store and buy linux, just because Linux is not for sale. RH or Gentoo or SuSe or any other distro, he can buy, but he cannot buy Linux. That is IMO a major flaw in the "Linux marketting" as of today: People are all talking about Linux when they are actually talking about a distro, based on Linux.

When you hear "Windows XP has this feature", you go to the store and buy it. It's much more straightforward.

Re:The "right tools"? Feh

[Dalcius]

I understand and agree with what you've written. Linux marketing is something that needs to be worked on.

It's really just terminology, so I'll leave it at this:

For the vast majority of users, installations are done by admins (at a company) or by a hardware vendor (Dell) or by experienced users (friends/family). Installation isn't a hurdle Linux must overcome. I hope this myth goes away.

For the majority of uses (browsing, email, IM, movies, image editing, printing, scanning, etc.), Linux generally works at least as well as Windows when configured correctly.

Put the two together, and I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

Listen in...

[Anonymous Coward]

News flash...

Windows is the market leader, it's everywhere,
and since windows holds 95% share of the desktop computers linux has to play by it's rules...
Joe user dosen't care if it's windows, mac or linux, the only thing that counts is that they have their mail (outlook?), office and other apps and that their familiar enviroment. And in my opinion linux isn't quite ready for the desktop..

As a long time windows user (and linux dualobooting since rh 5.0) I finnaly tried to make linux my primary desktop... ehh.. afther a couple of months, I reinstalled xp.. and just a few weeks ago I tried MacOS X at a friend, and you know what? I Switches, and never looked back, I bought myself nice 15" powerbook.. everything is just so slick and smooth and it just WORKS!

until linux gets atleast the half of the slickness of xp or os x it has no chance, really.

Windows blame game?

[Dalcius]

Don't bite, I know...

Here's a little exercise for the reader:

Go implement RPC. Or SMB. Or CSS. Or HTML for Christ's sake. Follow documented standards.

Wait a year. Find out what still works with the latest version of Windows.

Re:It's really all about the software.... not the

[Dalcius]

Windows got it's marketshare from being adopted into offices and then brought home, which then causes more offices to adopt it since employees know it, etc.

You're talking about installation. This is an administration task. Administration tasks are almost exclusively handled by IT folks in companies these days.

Put the two together, and you get a clear picture. As long as an admin can get a tarball of a working Linux installation onto a CD or NFS share (which he can), Linux effectively has no barriers to entry. Business adopt Linux, folks take Linux home, market share grows, companies invest in making software portable to get more $$$, more people use Linux, etc.

Not about Samba

[fm6]

You forget: this is not a review of Samba, it's a review of SuSE. The thing that distinguishes SuSE from other distros is that it tries to wire all system configuration into a bunch of GUI tools. It's always tempting to bypass SuSE's configuration tools and fiddle with the text config files the old fashioned way. But that probably defeats the reason you chose SuSE over other distros in the first place. And if you're evaluating SuSE as it's meant to be used, particularly if you're evaluating it as a Windows alternative, you shouldn't do this.

Short answer: the problems reported with Samba configuration don't reflect on Samba itself, but on the SuSE tools used to configure Samba.

I have seen the real problem and it is us

[fm6]

Get real. You can't just say, "All our current infrastructure is broken, and we have to replace it." If you try to tell your IS people that they have to convert all their Windows servers to Linux, they'll laugh you out of the office. Between chuckles, they may ask, "And we're going to pay for this big changeover how?"

On the other hand, if Linux proves itself as a cost saver in a predominately Windows environment, it's likely to change a few opinions, and create pressure to gradually convert over.

I do agree with you about Windows gawdawful lack of standards conformance. It's not even a matter of them ignoring industry standards: they don't pay attention to their own proprietary standards. But even if your IS people agree with you that this is a problem, you're not going to get them to change over on a matter of principle. People just don't work that way in the real world.

The problem with Cut & Paste

[Jarlsberg]

The article mentions problems cutting & pasting. To quote:

Operating system SuSE Linux Desktop More images Editors' Rating: Setup & ease of use 7.5 Features 7.5 Performance 8.0 Service & support 7.5 List Price £410 (includes maintenance program for up to 5 workstations) ZDNet Review 28 July 2003 To investigate SuSE's Linux Desktop, which is based on the company's Linux Enterprise Server technology, we ran it alongside a number of Windows systems in a 'live' editorial production environment for around two weeks. The idea was to see how well this business-oriented operating system/application software bundle worked for a moderately technical user working in a Windows-dominated world. We emerged from the process having had some pleasant surprises, but with some reservations too. After a challenging start, the system generally performed so well that it was easy to forget the underlying technology being used. But when problems did crop up, they tended to take some time to solve. Installation & setup The first troubles we ran into were in re-installing the software from scratch onto a dual-boot system with Windows XP running on a separate hard drive. This step was needed, according to SuSE, in order to install a feature that had been forgotten in an earlier installation -- the LAN browser. But several attempts to install SuSE Linux Desktop (SLD) failed to result in the appearance of the elusive feature, while other system components mysteriously disappeared, leading to much head-scratching and many further installation attempts. In the end, this seemed to be down to a combination of bad install CDs and a bad CD-ROM drive; the software installed without problems on two other systems. Once SLD was successfully in place, we faced our next problem: finding a way to communicate on the Yahoo Messenger network used by ZDNet UK. Yahoo supplies a Unix client, but SuSE users must use a package designed for Red Hat's distribution. This does not get on at all well with SuSE's package installation tool, YaST2. As is often the case in the Linux world, an open-source alternative to the proprietary software is available -- in this case Gaim, a chat client compatible with the messaging networks of AOL, Yahoo and others. Gaim was even included on the SLD setup CDs, allowing YaST2 to add it with a couple of mouse clicks. Unfortunately, the version on the CD was out of date, and a bug kept it from signing onto the Yahoo network. This is where SuSE's online update feature comes into play. The online update is not designed to install new programs, but if you need a quick upgrade to an existing application, this feature will often be able to provide it, as well as the latest operating system bug fixes and security patches. Access is through a paid support deal with SuSE, which most organisations will have as a matter of course. In our test, patches were downloaded and installed with a minimum of hassle, although we were instructed to restart a process by typing in a shell command -- something that would scare many users. Automatic software installation The online update tool is not guaranteed to have all the latest software, however, and does not completely solve what can still be a major headache for Linux users: installing software. Fortunately there are several alternatives available. If Windows desktop systems are cheaply-made, assembly-line automobiles, more or less well-built, all exactly alike aside from the odd optional leather seat or cup-holder, then Linux can feel more like a hand-built Rolls Royce, using more or less the same parts as another Rolls, but fundamentally an individually-crafted machine. One of the side-effects of this situation is that an application packaged for one distribution won't necessarily install flawlessly on another, or even on another version of the same distribution -- as we discovered when poking around for a more recent Gaim package to install on SLD. Applications can generally be found in the form of a package, using a format

Wrong question

[fm6]

Now the question should be, do you want 80% of your IT environment to depend on a product from a company that behaves this way?

Obviously not. But that's not the question you should be asking. The question is, how do eliminate our dependency on these "monopolistc" systems? Simply reciting the "Windows is fucked up" mantra does not seem to be an effective strategy. The fact that the mantra states an obvious truth is beside the point.

The problem with Cut & Paste (amended)

[Jarlsberg]

This is ironic. I meant to cut & paste just the section where the problem crops up, but instead got it from the start. DOH. Ok, so here is the quote:

Most of these quirks were minor. For example, there were difficulties cutting and pasting text to and from Mozilla. This can be seriously frustrating for online editorial staff, whose jobs tend, sadly, to involve lots of cutting and pasting to and from Web browsers. The problem seemed to be solvable by reloading in Mozilla or restarting the browser, but this way madness lies.

This is my single most annoying beef with Linux. In Windows, you can cut & paste from almost any app to almost any app. This has always been a big point with Microsoft, and was even a big selling point with the pre-W95 systems. It's damn annoying when systems running Linux in 2003 cannot achieve the same as MS did in the early nineties. Linux need a cut&paste that works across applications!

Re:The problem with Cut & Paste (amended)

[Anonymous Coward]

uhhh, there is. If you can't figure out how to use it, it's your fault.

Re:The problem with Cut & Paste (amended)

[Jarlsberg]

Copy & paste may work occasionally, but it's pretty erratic. It doesn't always work.

Requirements

[fm6]

As long as a host of applications run under Linux that satisfy the requirements of the user then there's nothing to complain about.

Here's a requirement: most users need to interface with the exiting Microsoft infrastructure. Which is not going to go away, no matter how much we whine about it's shortcomings.

Re:Requirements

[Bruha]

And any sysadmin worth their money knows how to get information off the expensive infrastructure..

It's the same as migrating from a Oracle db to MySql you can use the same process getting the relevant data off exchange servers and putting it into a Linux eqivalent.

Yes it takes time and a bit of money but hey in the long run you can fix it yourself.. You dont have to pay exorbant licensing fees and such either.

And in most cases it's secure.

Re:Requirements

[fm6]

Talk about simplistic! Oracle and MySQL have a lot of translation problems, but at least they both follow the same general model of DBMS. And even so, transistioning from one to the other is damned difficult. The inconsistencies between MS Word, Excel, Exchange, IIS, etc. and their open-source equivalents are a thousand times worse.

You can argue that this is because MS apps are full of obfucatory conventions and endless design kludges. I'd actually agree, but that doesn't change the basic problem. Migration on that scale is complicated and expensive, and isn't going to happen just because various open-source advocates think it's a good idea.

Now why would it need to interact...

[SlashDev]

.. with the windows network, beat me... People still don't get it...

Horses in WWI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Horses were still used in World War 2 millions of 'em. See here or here

. The Soviet Army shocked Berliners in 1945 when their camel train entered the city...

Re:Woh, this review was sort-of positive

[IamTheRealMike]

Mozilla has always let me cut and paste.

There is a known bug in Mozilla (known for AGES now) where it cannot copy'n'paste large amounts of text, due to a screwup with their implementation of the X clipboard protocols. Unfortunately the guy who "owns" that module, has never done anything with it. The bug still remains unfixed.

When B. Gates quits trying to stop Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats when!

Re:To all the posts saying "get rid of the windows

[t0qer]

And there's never more than 1 groupware option for Windows

Sure there is, there's novell groupwise, lotus notes, pegasus mail.

But those fucking salepeople and upper management gotta have their palmpilots for their "productivity" (read corporate status symbol)

Try changing the title

[16K Ram Pack]

How about "Linux Success on Desktop (but a few issues)"?

It seems to me that from reading this, that I could probably switch to it pretty soon.

Updating GAIM? I can do that, pretty easy.

Palm Sync missing a few fields? No sweat.

Windows permissions? No big deal.

One thing that someone should get busy on is writing a web-based Open Source replacement for Microsoft Access. That's a real killer app with no replacement.

Failures of a diesel engine

[minkwe]

It still can't use Petrol, how long will it take for these problems to be ironed out?

Oranges Vs Apples Vs Bananas

[rat7307]

I think windows fails the test on MY network

Can't seem to get it to co-operate with my NFS shares....

There is a BSD box, a few Linux Boxes and a Solaris Box that all seem to be able to do this trivial task.....

MAybe Windows is the OS with the problem????

Re:Oranges Vs Apples Vs Bananas

[Windows Dude]

You have to use Samba on the Solaris or Linux systems for Windows boxes to access them. Or you could install the Services for Unix client on the Windows system and then it can access the NFS file system.

My observations (flame on!)

[vjzuylen]

Being a parttime Linux user myself I thought the article made some valid points, so I'm a bit disappointed about the reactions here one Slashdot. It's strange how most of the pro-Linux comments in this thread fall into one of three categories:

1) They point to the overall vagueness of the article as a sign that the author doesn't know what he's talking about, suggesting that he is unqualified and his experiences shouldn't be taken too seriously. You might as well apply this to any user you don't agree with, or can't be bothered to listen to.

2) They point out that Windows isn't without flaws either. Well, of course it isn't. Why do you think the author chose to look at the viability of Linux as an alternative in the first place? People are constantly looking for improvements over the status quo. The point is that the Linux distro tested in the article doesn't offer this improvement (yet), either.

3) They believe that Linux shouldn't try to emulate Windows, or compete for end user desktops with Windows, because the two systems are fundamentally different and are intended for different use(r)s. This, to me, seems the most valid argument.

However, it may also reveal a rift within the Linux community itself. One part of the community acknowledges that each operating system has a different purpose, choosing to focus on better achieving that particular purpose, while the other (sometimes obsessively) focuses on the inferiority of Windows and its users, essentially claiming that Linux is the only operating system a computer needs.

Well, you can't have it both ways. If Linux, its developers and distributors want to gain a foothold in the mainstream business/desktop market, they'll have to play along and emulate Windows to some degree - because a lot of end users have come to expect Windows-like functionality from their operating system. In the absence of this functionality, Windows is still the best choice of system for many users, and some of the pro-Linux/anti-Windows fanatics in here would do well to acknowledge that.

Switching From Linux to Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm i'd like to see a review of windows XP from a company running SuSe and a powerfull unix mainframe...

Wonder if they would ;
over time a few annoying quirks did begin to show up. Individually, they made little impact on productivity, but taken together they made us question just how easy it would be to migrate to WINDOWS desktops en masse.

6+ years old computer and the latest OS

[arthas]

I have 6+ years old AlphaServer 2000 5/250 (250 Mhz 21164 CPU with 4MB cache, 256MB RAM, 2GB hard drive) and I run the very latest Tru64 Unix 5.1B on it. There are absolutely no problems at all. I can run Netscape 6, XEmacs, C compiler (DEC/Compaq/HP compiler of course), LaTeX, OpenOffice, etc).
This system can have two CPUs. I think I will buy two 375 Mhz 21164A CPUs with 8MB cache/CPU (fastest CPUs for this model). Not that I need to upgrade but I think it might be fun.
AlphaServer with Tru64 Unix Pros:
- CPU and memory failover
- AdvFS filesystem
- clean architechture
- excellent SRM firmware
- OS and hardware are designed to work together
- very nice administration tools
- good documentation
Cons:
- can't play games
- AS2000 is big (weight: 50kg)
- Tru64 licenses (additional licenses for additional CPUs etc)

Re:6+ years old computer and the latest OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, I'm running OpenBSD 3.3 with XFree86, Apache and Sendmail on a ten year old P133.

Why shouldn't I be able to run the latest software on these machines?

I'll see your ntwrking and raise you 1 Active Dir!

[LINM]

It's important to note that Xandros also provides out of the box Active Directory support for it's corporate clients.

This is in their recent 1.1 release that really kicks some serious booty.

Re:To all the posts saying "get rid of the windows

[nathanh]

And there's never more than 1 groupware option for Windows

Sure there is, there's novell groupwise, lotus notes, pegasus mail.

Yes, thank you, that was my point. Welcome to The Land of Sarcasm. Maybe I should insert a laugh track for all the humor-impaired Americans?

Windows Networking....

[caffeinex36]

Everyone seems to mention they don't care about windows networking, etc. etc. First off all, I do fine with Samba for basic needs. Second....if you don't care about windows networking...I ask...do you have an IT job? Believe it or not...most companies run on a windows network. Welcome to the real world, where unfortunatly you HAVE to play with the other kids!

I would LOVE for someone to try to tell uppper management "hey..we have this new operating system...thats mostly free..has less support that MS...and can't really play nice with our current network...so we have to migrate that too...BUT it will save us a little bit of money"

I do agree, however that MS should be more open with standards so that other OS's can interoperate with it's networking components. After all..I did see a UNIX services for Windows CD in my last SYSadmin.

...but unfortunately did not see a windows services for linux in my last windows magazine!

Ah at Last! The cat is out of the Bag!!

[anandcp]

The Emperor is not wearing any clothes! I always suspected Linux to be not as enterprise-friendly as Windows. Now this is true. As i keep saying Linux is just good for servers administered by nerds who eat, drink, compile. Real world users use Windows, because- IT IS SO EASY !!! Get that you Linux crowd ! Make Linux Desktop as great as Windows and your market will boom. I again promise: Linux will NEVER, NEVER make it to the enterprise desktop.

redhat

[crimsontiger6]

I used linux on my second PC for 6 months and even got it networked and sharing my DSL connection but eventualy I got sick of the hassle and put my old copy of WinMe back on. WinMe networked fine with my XP box and everything just worked. My second PC is my wife's main work PC so she was happy to have windows back too. Still I miss the warm fussy counter culture 1337 kind of feeling using linux gave me and all the hacking and command line stuff reminded me of my C64 and Amiga days.

But when it comes down to it i just want it to work. Now all our printers and drives are shared without any probs. If I could have done that with linux without wading through endless command lines and man pages I would still have it there. Oh well now all you linux zelots can start flaming me. Let the stoning commence.

It's not an itch yet..

[hacker]

"When will this stuff finally be ironed out?"

When the itch becomes big enough to scratch.

Remember, we, as Free Software authors (note, most of us are unemployed now, and have been for well over a year or more), do this in our spare time. We focus on things that are interesting, innovative, or that pique our curiousities. What is the motivation for us, to get Linux working for a company, who will just use it to lower costs, but at the same time, not transfer those savings into hiring new people to work at their company?

We remain unemployed, while helping the company lower costs, so they can deploy Linux in their company, making their working environment cheaper and more efficient, and we get... bug reports. No thank you.

I work on Free Software because I like to, not because I have to. Once you make me feel like I "have to" work on the code, it no longer becomes fun. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. If it's not going to be "fun", then it better have some other benefit (i.e. like a job with a salary behind it or use some innovative new technology or something else) to make it interesting.

Let them feel the pain. When we're ready to make it work, we will.. or we won't. The source is there, they can certainly fix it themselves. Why do they have to "wait" for us to do it?

Linux is laggy

[ed1park]

I've been using RH9 since it's release, but I finally switched back to Win2k last week. The reason? It's too laggy. Mouse movements on an empty desktop are fine. But switching between tabs in Galeon and other tasks seem to incur some lag. I finally got tired of it. I plan to go back when RH releases something based on 2.6 as I understand that the problem has been addressed.

Another annoying thing is that OpenOffice apps took way to long to load. (they even load faster in windows.) My final wish is to have a program like windows commander. I've tried MC, and a few others, but they don't meet my UI requirements.

So now I'm using W2k with Cygwin, Firebird, Gaim, and Outlook2000. I wish Evolution was crossplatform.

Microsoft owns the real world

[crimsontiger6]

I've been reading this thread. OK linux is great as a geek playground. I used to set up PCs for home users and all they wanted was the same box they use at work with the same software. Their kids wanted to play the latest games that they sell at K-mart etc. This all equals Windoze. Apple and Linux don't have cred with kids and kids drive a lot of computer sales.

Geeks say who cares if its mainstream I can make it work. Well that won't do in the real world. So keep up the geek pissing contest that makes slashdot what it is, but once in a while get out and have a look at the real world. Because Microsoft owns the real world.

Conclusion: MS SMB implementation still a barrier

[aphor]

Not sure if they were using SaMBa or SMBfs when they were having their problems, but MS Networking is a quagmire of interoperability problems.

Linux 'musn't' anything.

[Qbertino]

Ok, I get that there are 'doze enviroments. Worked in them myself. And I also get that there are people who are starting to get anoyed about the suckage potential Windows comes up with on a regular basis. So was I.
I also very much understand *nix n00bs being offended by the somewhat impolite behaviour of *nix-geeks, just like I have no tolerance what-so-ever against die-hard Outlook fullquote posters and the likes.

But *for once* lets please get this strait:
Windows is NOT , I repeat: IS NOT the bar for desktop usability. It's, at best, the bar for good marketing.

And the worst thing OSS can do is do nothing but ape the crappyness of Windows usability and workflow the way, for instance, KDE did and, to an extent, still does. If there is any OS out their who's users would have a point in saying: I trade workflow flexability over true easyness of the GUI concept, then it's the Mac users.
Now for the integration into Networks: The one OS that was just plain evil for the longest time when it comes to networking was, right, Windows. Windows ignored and still ignores standards a dime a dozen and simply won't play ball when it comes to serious network integration. Where's the built in NFS for instance?
Anyway, what I'm going for is this: If there is anyone in the corporate world wanting to take advantages of *nix in a doze enviroment the last thing they should pick at is the fact that it doesn't go so well with 'doze
You may get picky with me when a complete *nix network doensn't play as well as a complete 'doze network. Or if a 'nix Network doesn't have the enduser usability that a 'dove enviroment has. But frankly: That will never happen. Because by now, having reached desktop parity in the standard apps dept.(OOffice, Mozilla and all that), *nix kicks M$ up and down the street usabiltiy wise. Like I've pointed out earlyer.
If someone what's compatabilty with M$ they should ask them. After all, it's them not following common opend standards.

Bottom line:
If you like it or not, get used to the fact that M$ isn't going to be a monpoly anymore. Never again. No matter how hard they try. Welcome to real competition, pal.

The Problem is No Common Samba Front End

[HighOrbit]

The article mentioned that MacOS X worked well, but I think MacOS X also is running a hacked-up version of samba in the background. The grand-parent post said his Mandrake box played well too. So the problem is not in Linux or even the basic technology of Samba. The problem is having a good common widely distributed front end for Samba that asks the user some basic questions about his account (user, passwd, domain) and then interrogates the windows network to find out what the appropriate settings should be and runs a background script to do the configuration without the user ever having to open a shell or edit a .conf file. It sounds like Apple and Mandrake have this problem licked, now the solution just has to be propagated accross the community.

Of course, it would help if MS would be more open with their network protocols and stop making "updates" to the protocols to break competitor's products.

Maybe the poster isn't quite ready for slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

>Maybe Linux isn't quite ready for the desktop after all.

Maybe SuSE linux isn't quite ready for the desktop.

Redhat's desktop option doesn't have most of these problems.

The netbios problems were no doubt caused by the machine not belonging to the domain. This is easily solved if you have a competent administrator. It requires that a build be developed for deployment. Same as MS. Lets see them install a windows box from the cd's and not have any problems...

This reviewer probably had an MCSE around, but no SSE. This may have biased the review. I have never had a single (non-stupidity)problem mapping samba shares in a windows domain environment. I do it at work and set it up for other people. I use these shares every day without incident.

It isn't fair to compare a freshly installed out of the box linux with an established workstation build of windows. A better comparison would be to give Joe shmoe a cd to build a windows workstation, Joe blow a set of linux cds, and turn them loose in the same network.

I *guarantee* you that Joe shmoe will have problems when it comes time to add the box to the domain.

l8,
AC

GNOME is playing catch-up, KDE supports this

[Moritz Moeller - Her]

KDE already supports setting group policies with it's excellent Kiosk Mode. You can lock any indvidual setting for users. KDE-3.2 will probably include a GUI to make this even easier to configure.

For KDE-3.1 see this excellent article in Linux Magazine:
http://www.linux-mag.com/cgi-bin/printe r.pl?issue= 2002-11&article=kde

proprietary?

[iii_rjm]

Just what obscure format does the OS use when storing files? I know the Office suite has it's own format for file but I also know that I can export that data from the spreadsheet, the word processor and the database, into non proprietary formats. I also know that their proprietary formats aren't that obscure else no one would be able to write all the reader programs we see for these formats.

Re:proprietary?

[HiThere]

It works like this:
1) You define a proprietary format for you application, and if the data is stored in that format, then it has extra features (e.g., being nicely formatted).
2) You put barriers in place so that other programs either can't use the data, or can't use it as well. (Absolute barriers offer a tremendous advantage, but are more difficult to implement and largely unnecessary.)
3) Come out with a new version, and some reason to upgrade. The new version can read the old versions default files, but not conversely.

This defines the basic structure from the company's point of view. It has these additional features:
a) If the customer wants to move to another program, he must convert all of his old files into a transfer format, at an unknown amount of effort and with an unknown degree of degradation in quality.
b) One way to assist in coercing people to upgrade is to encourage others to exchange files with them using the default format of your program. This also encourages new customers (for you ... it may be disadvantageous to your customers, but they probably won't notice).

Now presume that the company looses interest in some feature, or even in the entire program. Then when you can't keep the old version of your program working, you are at risk of loosing all of your data. Certainly all that hasn't been converted (with an unknown degree of degradation in quality).

P.S.: I am currently in this position. I have a piece of software that only runs under Windows 95, and am beginning to have increasing difficulty in keeping a Windows 95 machine alive. There is years of data created under this program, and the "portable format" will probably loose important features. Not always to the same degree, but it will loose a lot frequently. Win95 under VMWare doesn't run compatibly enough to support it. I'm currently trying to get it to run on an old laptop, and have some hope (Win95 is installed successfully, but I need to find some hardware drivers). Currently the program crashes on the new machine, but presumably if I can find the correct hardware drivers this will be fixed. That will save me as long as that portable lasts. But then?? Win95 won't install on the computers that are currently being made. Do I need to stockpile old computers?

Not being able to transfer your data is a serious problem, and one shouldn't get caught in that bind. I shouldn't have, but I did. I'm regretting it. Be warned.

(Of course, I still don't see what alternatives I had at the time, but NOW there are alternatives.)

Re:proprietary?

[iii_rjm]

What does the OS (WIN 95) have to do with this? The format was chosen by the developer. There is nothing in the OS that says a file has to be stored in some non documented format. This program could have been on a any *nix box and still have a proprietary format to the files.

Re:proprietary?

[HiThere]

The OS Win95 is significant because it means that I can't move the proprietary program to another system, move the data, and continue normally. This program, however, won't even work under Win98. So I'm pretty much stuck.

Well done

[Homburg]

It's ages since I saw a proper troll on slashdot - and not only did you manage to sucker a few replies, you got the mods, too.

(For the clue-impaired, the parent includes a humorous reversal of the real situation - C|Net is full of software for _Windows_, where the equivalent tool is part of the system on any linux distribution)

Re:Well done

[Pieroxy]

Thanks. That wasn't actually a troll but a very serious and extremely bad formulated complaint about Linux... ;-)

Here is a better version

Linux and Desktops...

[xchino]

I say this everytime this comes up, and I always get modded as flaimbait, but I'll say it again.

People who say Linux isn't ready for the desktop are wrong. Perhaps THEY aren't ready for a Linux desktop, and perhaps their company isn't ready to make the switch, but I use and have used Linux as a fully functional desktop for well over 3 years. I can do anything I want with it. (save running ANY windows software, although I have a large library of windows software that works great under wine)

My point is this, rather than say Linux isn't ready for the desktop, say Linux isn't ready for mass adoption to the desktop by windows users. Linux makes an EXCELLENT desktop by those who care to make it work as such.

Owing Is A Two-Way Street

[Ilan Volow]

If Free Software developers don't owe desktop end-users anything, I can't for the life of me see why corporations or the public sector owes it to Free Software to install GPL'ed stuff on their machines.

Owing is a two-way street. I figure it's about time we started paving the other side.

The instant you people starting screaming "Free Software is perfectly ready for the desktop" and the instant you started demanding that the public sector replace their desktops with whatever you were making, you lost the right to say "don't blame me, I'm just a volunteer." When you force software on someone, you earn an obligation to make that software work for that person.

And by the way, don't bother responding to this post unless you have the balls to call yourself something other than "Anonymous Coward".

Re:Owing Is A Two-Way Street

[ciaran_o_riordan]

No one has suggested that the public sector should use Free Software because they owe it to us.

I don't "demand" that the public sector uses Free Software but they should be made aware of it, and given the long term cost difference, I think they should give it a serious thought.

What if the government of my/your country suspended all software purchases for one year? How much would they save?

I bet they'd save enough to pay a bunch of developers to add the final polish they want to whatever Free desktop they go with.

I wouldn't force it on them, but I will say "Look, we have a completely free operating system here, the code can be altered and distributed without royalty, your IT dept can fix bugs and customise it and will benefit from the customisations made by others.".

This isn't about pushing an agenda, it's about helping people. Free Software doesn't have payed marketing divisions. It has a community.

Ciaran O'Riordan

Re:Linux is Dying

[I_Heat_Sexylaid]

Al Greenspan has loosened interest rates about as much as he can.

Re:It's really all about the software.... not the

[Deacon Jones]

Excellent point, and exactly what I was going to note.

As a hobby, I enjoy 'tinkering' with Linux, and actually owe a great deal of that to reading about it here on Slashdot.

That being said, there are things that Open Source software is simply 'not as good' on, and I've somewhat given up on them for now:

• The Gimp vs. Photoshop--even for the simplest of uses, Photoshop wins hands down. Its user interface is easier to navigate (for me), and seems to make more sense. Plenty of tasks are more easily done in Photoshop, and as a whole its simply much more advanced. The GIMP is at least 3 iterations behind...and not to mention the great amount of Photoshop books/doc.
• Open Office vs. Office -- as has been noted before, Open Office is still very "clunky" and just not as "smooth" as Office.
• Wireless support. While this has gotten better, its still not great...my wireless laptop connection in Slack/RH/whatever will just drop out for no reason sometimes...then I have to go the command line, bring down the eth0 port, bring it back up, issue the dhcpcd command, and yay its back. Never have to do this with the software that comes with the card that unfortunately runs only on Windows.
• The software dependency/installation hell you can get into with Linux software. Oh, and uninstalling is almost never as easy. (I did say almost).

  Now again, as with the parent, these are more gripes with the software then with "GNU/Linux" itself. I do love the configurability of Linux. I absolutely love Fluxbox, and wish there was an equivalent for Windoze. And RH 9 was the first distribution I saw where the fonts out-of-the-box were as good/better then Windows fonts.

  But until the software makers (and I didn't even get into games) start gearing more non-Open Source software towards Linux boxen, then as an en masse desktop it will not ever seriously threaten Micro$oft.

It will never be good on the desktop...

[Anonymous Coward]

until they dump XFree86. Seriously, it sucks.

Re:To all the posts saying "get rid of the windows

[Lumpy]

It's a lot more trouble than it's worth when you can just send the palm pilot retail box to the end user and he/she can install it themselves.

you just told me that you have nothing to do with corperate administration... Or you are a complete boob that needs to be fired right away.

Installation of the Palm desktop utilities and drivers requires ADMINISTRATOR rights on the user. Not logged in as admin, but their account switched to the administrator group, software installed and then switched back.

any admin or IT person that has the user install ANY software or hardware needs to be fired with extreme resentment..

I support 35 palm users on this damned windows OS, and it's not fun.. try debugging the damned conduit to outlook and why it takes almost 20 minutes to sync email... (outlook coupled with corperates idiot decision to put email servers 1/2 way across the country helps this)

who told you that?

[twitter]

Actually, if you want to compare a cars radio to MS software- I think the obvious comparison is to Windows Media Player. It's free. Excellent quality. No advertisements. Does more than most of the competitors. Exportable playlists. Free Upgrades (Download from the fastest servers on the web.) Built right into the dash.

I'll give you that it's built into the dash. Microsoft makes it just about impossible to use anything else. Only the most dedicated windoze user could figure out how to undo it to use winamp or Apple's player instead. I lack such patience.

Everything else you believe is wrong. WMP is neither free or without costs. You must own a current M$ OS to have the WMP binary program, and that's very expensive. Other costs are a EULA that essentially gives M$ full read/write access to your computer, which they abuse with an avalanche of adverts. The quality may be good enough for you, but every other player and every other format is technically superior. The playlists are so unlexible as to be useless. The upgrades are forced and more likely to remove functionality from your entire OS. The next feature M$ is proudly promoting is files that "expire" and are erased without your consent. You probably already have a passport account, demonstrated to as insecure as any M$ thingy, and tied directly to your wallet. There you have it - you have to give up all privacy, take finacial risks, suffer adverts and pay for the ability to listen to music on M$ platforms.

Why does anyone like that kind of shit?

Re:who told you that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Buddy, I have read several of your posts and have come to this conclusion: you are the quintessential posterboy for why nobody respects linux zealots. There isn't an open minded cell in that bloated carcass, is there? The best tool for the job, as long as it's linux, right?

Shouldn't you be at an anime-a-thon or a Star Trek conference instead of making a routine ass of yourself here?

oh yeah, right, right, right.

[twitter]

... maybe if you have a 300mhz CPU, 64mb of RAM and a 2gb hard drive, it [XP] doesn't work too well ... Bootvis.exe makes Windows boot faster.

I get great GUI performance out of 400MHz K6/2's for three people at a time. You can buy such a machine, new, for about $200. A P133 with 64MB RAM is usable under Debian stable and is closer to six years old. I don't "boot" any of my machines because I don't have to turn them off. An OS that does not run well on hardware like that is wasting resources on things the user neither asked for nor wants, like screwing up network settings and forgetting what hardware it has. Why would anyone spend money and subject themselves to M$'s humiliating EULAs for something that blows like that?

There is no failure for me

[AstroDrabb]

I have been using Red Hat 9 at work exclusively for about 4 months now at a fortune 500 company as my development workstation. Almost every desktop here is MS, except for mine. We have Linux, Solaris and MS Windows servers. I have not had any problems at work. It has been such a joy to use my favorite OS at work. I get much better performance with my Linu box then when ms window XP was on there. Using samba I have no problems working in an MS windows network. I have far greater development tools under Linux then I had under MS windows which has helped me be more productive. My home network has been 100% MS free for 3 years and I just switched my brother-in-law to linux for his HP notebook from MS windows XP. While there is more to learn with Linux verses MS Windows, once you get the fundamentals of Linux down, you would be surprised at all the power and tools you have available.

The only single problem I have had with Linux at work has been with MS's horrid Exchange server. I have been using Ximian Evolution 1.4.x for a month or so and it has worked great. Until the exchange admins upgraded to the "latest and greatest" exchange server. MS changed something in the protocol and now basic Ximian Evolution cannot connect. However, Ximian's Exchange connector lets me connect in fine, so I will be buying that product.

I guess the point of my babbling is that if you use Linux and expect it to be a free version of MS windows, then you will be dissapointed, just as you would be dissapointed if you use MS windows and expect it to be an expensive version of Linux. I personally am tired of all these crack head reviewers that don't know how to compare two products and find the pros and cons of each. Linux kicks on the server and Linux is great on the desktop. Spend a little time and learn all the powerfull tools and features that are there for you.

Re:Blah blah blah...

[bninja_penguin]

you said:

Linux fails on the desktop for four reasons: 1. Usability - 99% of the computer users are not geeky or technical enough to deal with the geek/tech slant of major linux distros. Consider how many linux setup/configure exercises force you to edit config files (not an option for most users).

Maybe three years ago. That was the last time I ever had to open a config file to setup or configure anything. I use Linux as my desktop operating system, so no, I've not setup Apache or things like that, but niether is anyone else who's using a desktop system.

2. Consistency - Very few, if any, linux applications have a consistent look and feel which makes them much harder to use since each and every application has a different UI method. Gimp is a great example of this.

One program does not make a great example. The gimp for Windows doesn't look like a Windows app either. Photoshop on Windows doesn't have the same consistency of look and feel as Notepad, and Media Player, espcially when skinned, doesn't look or feel like Excel.

3. Documentation - The overall quality of open source software is best shown through its poor or unusable documentation.

Linux has more documentation for anything you'ld like to do with it than damn near anything else in the world. Of course it's poor, as it can't have a bank account. And, if it's unusable to you, that may be because you don't have a good grasp of computer verbage. Some one who knows nothing about construction could pickup a manual on how to reroof a house, but if they don't understand the verbage, they would think it unusable also (what's the difference between a soffet and facia? If you don't know, you may have trouble understanding roofs properly.)

4. Overdoing the installed number of applications ...

So what you are saying here is when car shopping, a novice would rather have one choice? I mean, they just want a vehicle that does what they want right? so why can't the car dealer just give it to them? Same thing with applications.

And, on your suggestions for Linux, you said:

4. Adopt a modern windowing system instead of X

Why would someone want one of these modern windowing systems (I'm thinking you're thinking of XP style) that can't run remote displays, can't provide a separate layer from the GUI, are not portable across platforms, and don't have decades of refinement behind them? X may be old, but it, to me, is more modern than any other I've worked with.

TSE?

[Anonymous Coward]

How's about tossing in some Terminal Services Boxes? Linux on the desktop, TSE providing "floating application" support.

Additionally, there's VMWare to bridge the gap. It's a little pokey, but useable on a SOTA machine.

So they had 2 problems, 1 which was their doing

[buchanmilne]

1)A Yahoo-compatible IM client
There's not much you can do if you've tied your clients to a proprietary IM protocol, they should look at a different solution first, otherwise they have tied their data to the IM provider, and are permanently at their mercy

2)Windows network browsing.

They obviously don't know that you can set your username/password for kio_smb in KDE Control Center, which will then allow you access to authenticated shares on Windows/samba machines. I access our samba domain controller and our Windows 2000 Server member server with kio_smb without problems, authenticating so I can get to shares that are not accessible without authentication.

Also, you can use smb://user@server/share to use a different user account, and be prompted for your password.

IOW, the failure of this trial is due to incompetence of the admins administering the linux trial desktop, since they should have set this up.

But, there are still some issues with kio_smb, mainly due to problems with kio_smb, such as kio_lan generating url's to the hostname, and kio_smb using the hostname (instead of doing a netbios lookup, and using the netbios name in the connection), where it should be using the netbios name (otherwise windows9x clients won't respond).

Anyway, look out for better out-the-box support in Mandrake 9.2

HAS to be said...

[FurryFeet]

Actually a better comparison would be evaluating a car and saying it doesn't fit on the existing roads

Canyonero!!!!

That's actually my joke in its entirety. Lame as it is, it is a Simpson reference, so gimme my (+5, Funny) now, dammit.

What you said...

[bninja_penguin]

Spot on!!!

Don't they have IT staff where he works?

[ealar dlanvuli]

In a real-world production environment, we found that SuSE Linux Desktop worked surprisingly well, and supplied all the software needed in a typical office. In fact, some of the software was better than its Windows equivalents, such as the XMMS media player, which imitates WinAmp but is somewhat easier to use. In general, we did not find using Linux in a Windows-centric environment to be a handicap, which is saying a lot.

Most of those problems would never make it out to the end user. But, I might add in windows we still can't use numlock through citrix. So I guess that makes the copy-paste problem nulled.

There is a reason end users don't install windows, it applies to linux as well.

I'm amazed you missed that..

[Inoshiro]

"anyone with any sense uses jpilot with palms, not the KDE stuff, and if you will mix GUI libraries then you will have problems cutting and pasting with the mouse."

In the same sentence you say to use a program which would cause a mix of GUI libraries as you say something about not mixing GUI libraries. Chasing one's tail is why Linux on the desktop ain't happening.

You can say that there are solutions, but the thing is that distributions are supposed to have these solutions already bundled up for the consumer. Yes, including patches that make cut/copy/paste Just Work (TM) across any GUI library set. The end user doesn't care what toolkit is used, and neither should anything else. It should be interoperable and consistent.

Again, this is why Linux on the desktop is nothing more than a giggle inducing fit unless the end user is a Unix admin already.

dual boot.

[twitter]

The next time these machines get an update, they're going to Linux, and that's only when I know that things are going to work right.

To make sure everything "works right", I suggest you dual boot the machines that have specific hardware functions and other nasty traps that are difficult for the free software community to solve. This way, your clients get the best of both worlds and lose nothing. You might also consider keeping one latest and greatest Microsoft box around, but blind it to the network and get things on and off it with the other free operating system. If you really want to get fancy, look into Suse, which can run many Microsoft progams like Excell, Word and Outlook. My Microsoft translators are Star Office for file formats and a dual boot Debian and Windoze98 computer for leagcy hardware.

The point was, Linux isn't a major market share holder yet, and until it becomes one, the Linux community will have to play by the current rules, no matter how unfair they may seem.

Free software is better because it adheres to RFCs and other best practices. The rules being broken are silly Microsoft "standards". Microsoft's refusal to work with the rest of the world, combined with abusive licensing is why they are losing their grip.

You are blaming the wrong thing.

[iii_rjm]

That is not the fault nor the responsibility of the OS. That lies with the developer. They are the ones that locked you in not the OS.

Re:You are blaming the wrong thing.

[HiThere]

Who cares about fault. Currently, if I made that decision again, it would be *my* fault for choosing a closed solution. Closed solutions are nearly guaranteed to eventually turn around and bite you. (I've seen it happen several times.)

If the file formats were open, then I could move the data to another program. They aren't. So I can't. Be warned. Don't make this same mistake.

The company that originally made the program went out of business. The successor company basically dropped the program. And because the file formats are closed, I can't fix things. As long as I can continue to find systems that will run Win95 (and support compatible drivers for various hardware) I can keep it running. But I can't escape without paying a high price. (I keep hoping that the next version of Wine or WineX or VMWare will be good enough, but not so far.)

If anyone's to be blamed, it's me. I made a decision that I knew at the time would eventually land me in this pickle. ("But surely we won't still want to be running this 20 years from now...") But the teeth of the trap are closed format files. And the jaws are Win95. (And Win98 et seq. being incompatible with it in certian [hidden from me] ways.)

Any game...

[DrCode]

Yes, I, too, can pick up a game and install it easily on my Windows box. Then I can watch the box crash every 15 minutes of play. Driver problems? Who knows? Where would I look?

If Linux gives me trouble, there's always some information in a message file somewhere.

You say that XP is great, and maybe it is. But I heard the same thing about 3.1, 3.11, WFWG, 95, and 98SE (which is what I have). Trusting Microsoft now, for me, is like trusting Ford in the mid-70's when they advertised that "Quality is Job 1". It took a quarter-century for Ford to change their culture and really improve, and I'd expect that Microsoft would need about the same amount of time.

Its all about games

[ColShag]

I'm sure this has been said a million times already, but I thought I would throw my $0.02 into the mix anyways:

- Ever since Windows XP came out I've started down the road of "I hate windows". But, I'm stuck with it because I love computer games.

- I decided to try out Linux to see where it is at and I wanted to throw out my observations from someone who is new to Linux, but not new to computers in general. This is what I noticed, what I liked, what I did not:

I Tried Red Hat first. I loved the install program, it blows away Windows, in its ease of use, I loved how it detected all my hardware, I was online (through DSL) without any work, my printer worked fine, everything was great. Everything was great until I started installing and uninstalling programs.
The rpm system was interesting, but not very effective. Sometimes they worked, sometimes they did not, I decided to try something else.

I then tried Mandrake 8.2? It installed ok, but it did not detect my printer, it had a few other detection problems with my video card, monitor. I decided I would move on to another dist.

I really wanted to try Suse, I heard it had a good install/uninstall program, but they decided to make the iso's unavailable, and instead you use this ftp setup to install. It was a pain to figure out right away so I decided to move on.

I heard about Debian and I really liked what I was reading about apt. Unfortunately, I was having trouble getting the CD's.

I then ran into knoppix, which is Debian Based, and fully installs (and runs) off a CD! Wow, it was impressive, it detected everything, even better then Red Hat, and the bonus was I could try out apt.

I figured out how to place this OS on my hard drive, and suddenly I had something impressive. I can't stress enough how awsome apt is for installing/getting/uninstalling/patching/updating programs. It absolutely blows away windows or rpms.

Now with that out of the way, what are the problems that Linux needs to work on to get me and the millions of Windows users like me to convert fully to Linux?

Simple: Get those Linux programmers to take off where winex (transgaming) has gone and get a fully functioning directx->Linux library going that would allow any Linux machine to *easily* install any windows game (since they all use Directx, I think this is the answer).

Transgaming (www.transgaming.com) has the right idea, the only problem is that they cost money. I think OpenOffice, and all the other great Linux apps will take care of 99% of the windows users on that front, BUT games is the big wall that is keeping a good portion of windows users from *fully* moving over.

Build a Linux compatible Directx system that would *easily* (read easy to install, some sort of graphical interface would be nice) store bought games that use windows/Directx.

Once this happens, a large number of gamers will be using Linux only. This will affect the market, causing a large number of future games to be built for both Windows and Linux.

With these libararies freely available for game developers I'm sure they can port over their games to windows and Linux with ease.

C

A FHS solution for separating GUI apps

[Pflipp]

The current FHS totally ignores the difference between command-line tools and GUI apps. (This is because, in its view, X11 is still seen as an add-on to UNIX.)

The distinctions that are made by the FHS, that are related to this problem, are:

3.12 /opt : Add-on application software packages
4.4 /usr/X11R6 : X Window System, Version 11 Release 6 (optional)
4.5 /usr/bin : Most user commands

It's clear from reading the FHS that /opt is a directory for apps (be it add-on apps), and /usr/bin is officially reserved for CLI tools, interpreters, etc. Remarkably enough, while the FHS explicitly states that distro's *as well as* maintainers may fill /opt, and doesn't hint about using /usr/bin for applications at all, the latter usually contains all the app binaries, and the former doesn't. It's totally unclear whether you may use /usr/X11R6/bin for storing X11 apps, but current practices suggest that only windowmanagers and X11 tools (xclock, etc.) be stored there. /usr/bin dirlistings from GUI environments make it clear that we need to separate tools and apps. An argument against using /opt to store most no-basic software used to be maintaing $PATH. By ensuring that all /opt packages are what you'd generally refer to as "applications" (= stuff that you usually don't invoke from a command line), we could use /opt for our purpose.

Users, however, have no use for the hierarchy inside /opt; they just want to click-start an application. This could be done by displaying the app dir as an application icon, like in NextStep/ OSX. (Maybe using some resource file to point at the main binary and the icon.)

You could argue against /opt being named "/opt" and not e.g. "/apps". That's fine. Yet, I think using the system proposed here would be a mighty fine backwards-compatible way to handle GUI apps better inside GNU/ Linux systems.

Re:To all the posts saying "get rid of the windows

[t0qer]

Maybe I should insert a laugh track for all the humor-impaired Americans?

Well it's an american based website you twit, why don't you get off your un-american high horse, and calm down with a nice tall glass of STFU juice?

Re:To all the posts saying "get rid of the windows

[t0qer]

you just told me that you have nothing to do with corperate administration...

Trust me, I got plenty of years in corporate IT. If it was always up to me (which it usually never is) I would have active directory group policies set up to give the users a locked down desktop.

Usually the way I have it set up is to give the user admin rights to the local machine (hence they don't need AD admin rights) Here is how you do it..(machine must be added to the AD or domain)

start>run>mmc ctrl-m add, then choose local users and groups. On groups, open up administrator. Browse to the user object on a AD tree, or the username in the domain you want to give local administrator access too. That's all there is too it. They have the power to install whatever they want, without sacrificing admin rights to the domain.

outlook coupled with corperates idiot decision to put email servers 1/2 way across the country helps this

You hit the nail on the head!

har har har, kazaa downloads.

[twitter]

255 million downloads of Kazaa, 232 million of ICQ pro through Download.com that shows a real fear of Windows

Did you ever think that many of those downloads were by the same people who feel compelled to "rebuild" their windoze computers every two months? This shows very little trust or feeling of real ownership.

Joining the domain

[downwa]

To get a Linux box on that same network, I need to install SAMBA, configure the .conf file, run some command line utils to join the domain, configure PAM, get the init files working

Or use Mandrake, which automates all of the above steps. It appears from the description of the problems that the ZDNet people hadn't joined the domain, which Mandrake would have done automatically for them.

However, when you get to that step, you'll find you need the domain admin's password (same as joining a domain in Windows), and that's when you'll run into problems-- you'll have to let them know you're running Linux, installing your own OS, rather than letting them "reimage" your box for you as usual. Then you'll be running into political issues.

But that shouldn't be a problem for the ZDNet people, because they're not doing this "under the table".

Microsoft makes interoperability hard

[downwa]

Linux distributions try to interoperate with Windows-- but Microsoft's undocumented protocols make that hard to achieve. See the halloween documents for their motivations...

Bullshit.

[jotaeleemeese]

Sun does not use MS stuff and can communicate with their cleints fine. And that was before Star Office.

Nonsense.

[jotaeleemeese]

The advantage is that it puts your IT planning back in your hands.

Under the current situation you are hostage to whateve MS wants to take you today.

Visit your grandmother more often

[Anonymous Coward]

You know you need to spend more time with your grandmother when the highlight of her day is rushing out to collect horseshit.

You don't keep something because it is popular.

[jotaeleemeese]

You keep it because it is cost effective.

Today, any fresh infrastucture build from scratch is cheaper if one uses Linux. That includes the desktops. No threath of DRM, not threat of surprise audits by MS backed "protection" gangster like organizations, you choose when and who upgrades your software.

And if you are in a hurry, you can correct problems yourself.

You seem to forget that once upon a time Windows was the hobbist OS.

Look sonny.

[jotaeleemeese]

If you can't take the time to learn Linux to do that don't blame the OS. Blame you own incompetence.

All what you are saying is piece of cake with Linux/Unix.

Great Point

[oob]

You make a great point in regards to servers.

The data centre and the server room are full of Unix. The systems in the data centre are core business and mission critical.

Windows does not play well with Unix by design, therefore Linux as the corporate desktop is the best solution.

With Linux I can give every user in my organisation a custom made desktop optimised for the department that they work in and the job that they do.

The machine in front of them is locked down by default, standard in Unix since before most of us where born. If that isn't enough, I can give my users a chroot environment.

I can use LDAP or NIS or any number of alternatives for centralised access controls.

I can use NFS for file system sharing across the enterprise, with benefits like backing up every user's data simply by backing up one or several NFS servers. I can also deploy updated versions of applications to every workstation from a centralised location in seconds.

I can keep every workstation at the latest patch level with any number of "set and forget" automated tools.

I can remotely administer every workstation in my organisation easily and securely with SSH.

I can provide Mozilla, OpenOffice and Evolution to my users to provide 80% of them with 100% of the tools that they need to do their job and interact with users in other organisations who are still using obsolete Microsft desktops. For the 20% of users who require additional tools, I can provide them from other Open Source projects in most cases.

My users can interact with the core systems easily and securely, because the desktop that they run is a variant of the server OS used in our organisation's mission critical systems, meaning that there will be no incompatabilities between file formats and protocl implementations.

Linux on the corporate desktop is a no brainer.

Look buddy...

[Chordonblue]

Sand...

Head...

Bury...

Go ahead and keep it there if you want. The article was about why Linux isn't being accepted as strongly on the desktop. Perhaps it's obvious when you're OS agnostic.

Re:To all the posts saying "get rid of the windows

[nathanh]

Well it's an american based website you twit,

Only an American would say something that stupid.

A New Beginning?

[Charles_Lamontagne]

The idea of starting a project like that you've described definitely seems like a daunting one, but I will most definitely consider it. The thought of building a stable, useable and linux-based port of Windows 98 is somewhat of a strange one as it seems to me to be an oxymoron in itself. Just kidding (sorta!) Seriously though, the reason I said notepad was their only good application was because, as you said, it doesn't crash (which we have a hard time saying for anything else that Microsoft has created.)

I will sit down and start researching this possible project when I have some time on my hands (which shouldn't be too far away.) I will post some updates as to my discoveries and my thoughts on the project and will ask the community for input. This should be fun.

Unlike the others...

[Anonymous Coward]

...who seem to think your post was funny (including the moderator, supposed to be less childish), I think I understand the beauty of your memories.

May the Lord bless your grandma, wherever she is now.

And try to keep that valuable memory...

Indeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also my point of view... your post should get +5, insightful, but future is not easy for everyone...