Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
I am full of goo... black evil goo
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.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
The pitfalls of being quoted out of context. :)
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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.
Does my bum look big in this?
Microsoft's lack of open standards with stuff it develops?
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.
"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
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
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).