Slashdot Mirror
Alternative To Windows Desktops
Eric_Z writes "Ace's Hardware has got a article called "The Mad Hatter meets the MSCE" by Paul Murphy, about the TCO benefits of using UNIX(Lintel) instead of Wintel. According to the piece: 'The subject of this article looks at alternatives to the Windows desktop, which is a hot topic these days with IBM/SuSe scoring a highly public win in Munich with desktop Linux, and Sun aiming to build on StarOffice being the leading alternative to Microsoft Office with a software stack code-named Mad Hatter which Sun also plans to use extensively in-house. But companies depending on Microsoft Certified Engineers to adapt to Linux will carry over a number of problems, significantly increasing the chance of project failure. Paul considers the alternatives, the migration problems, and in seeking a more reliable alternative takes the opportunity to look at the business desktop from an entirely different angle, and propose a more radical solution.'"
Microsoft needs more competition!
The best way to counteract a fat monopoly like those microsoft whores is to put some good ol competition out there against them. Its tough to match those budgets and large scale operations, but more and more companies are fighting them from more and more directions...it can only lead to good things --- better products being produced by everyone.
Either that or more marketing.
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
sPh
It's called an iMac. ;-)
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Here is a Solaris 10 Mad Hatter desktop screenshot.
I fail to see the necessity to produce hundreds of windows-clone distros - isn't it win that we want to draw people away from? Look at it through the eyes of the average user:
It looks and functions like windows. I already have windows. Therefore, I'm sticking with the superior(?) windows
What we need to do is be developing newer, fresher ideas which keep microsoft on their toes - if we do that then at least MS has to keep coming up with the goods. My point is that a line of copies doesn't work - the average user doesn't care about the inside workings - they want results. I'll take the handheld game market as an example - How many gameboy clones have we seen come and disappear, doomed to sit in the back pages of children's catalogs? What we need as I have said too many times in this post is something new. There is more than one way to do it and until OSs capitalises on that and jumps into that niche, there is little hope of removing MS's stranglehold on the market.
Microsoft Completely Shafts Everyone
Management Constantly Spends Erroneously
Many Confusing System Errors
My Computer Suffers Exploits
etc, etc, etc, etc, etc....
"Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
My company runs Windows 98 clients and NT4 server atm, and I figured it was time to upgrade. I looked into Microsoft, with Office/WinXP and server 2003, and the cost was about $40k. That seemed insane, so I decided to try Linux.
I've been running Linux at home now for a few years, and am quite competitent running it. My first step was to replace the slackware/wmaker combination that I was happy with on my laptop to Redhat/Gnome/Bluecurve, and I was immidetely impressed with how far linux has come on the desktop, I figured this wouldn't be a problem.
I showed the owners of my company Linux, and they said they were fine with it on every machine... now the tricky part, application compatability.
Under Wine I was able to get my payroll software and estimating software running, but the accounting software proved impossible. Using older style database clients and VBA, I was totally unable to get it working.
I came to the conclusion that while I can use Linux on the desktop, application support from large corporate vendors need to be there before Linux can run on the desktop. I also came up with: "in 3 years, if we want to run a different accounting/estimating/etc package, will linux work for us?".. That question is unanswered atm, and therefore using Linux in a corporate enviroment seems to be a gamble right now, a gamble that I am not willing to wager on for my company. Another issue is support from our existing vendors... they supported running their software on Windows and 2 of them *REQUIRED* PCAnywhere to be available whenever needed... this was not possible with Linux.
Linux on the home desktop seems more than ready, but enterprise/corporate enviroments seem to need better application support before it's possible... while I do belive that the application support will be there in 3 years, I don't think it's a risk work taking atm.
... as it was just yesterday that it became know that Ford Motor Company is joining the ranks. They are switching from Windows to Linux
the pun is mightier than the sword
These midrange apps are the bread-and-butter of corporate computing. They do not run on the Mac and do not run under Linux. Some are starting to move toward a web browser based model, but not all and not necessarily quickly.
Until Linux equivalents exist for these midrange apps, the Linux desktop will not be used in midsized organizations.
sPh
Must Consult Someone Else
They used the "mongoose thrown into a snake pit" metaphor to refer to Linux being used in an all Windows environment, and the "Indiana Jones shoots the swordsman" metaphor, to refer to the technological advantage of Linux over Windows. But combine the two and you get the "Indiana Jones thrown into a snake pit" metaphor, and you know how Indy feels about snakes... things don't look good for Linux it seems.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
I just stuck a fresh install of RH9 on a laptop. It installed amazingly well - in fact, it installed better OOTB than win2k.
But "better" lasted only until it came time to actually do stuff with it. Sure, samba seems to work well and it has no problem browsing shares on MS boxes. But try to play a video file... oops, no media codec installed in the RH9 default distro. Hmmm... well, try to play an MP3 then. Ooops, no can do - cannot play an MP3 file from a file in a samba share. Try copying the file to this machine and perhaps it can be played then...
I really want linux to live up to the promise. Really. And I'm looking forward to working with the new media structure in gonome, and hoping to do my part. But I'm honestly beginning to wonder if linux can ever catch up - much less take the lead - on a user friendly desktop.
By making it more and more difficult for users to run unlicensed copies of Windows OS (XP was a great start, they'll do better next time for certain), the home user who wants to upgrade will find themselves "upgrading" to something else entirely if they want to keep the price the same. No one wants to pay for a software "dongle" to make other software they (may) have paid for work. People buy computers to surf the web, send email, play games. They don't feel they need to pay just to be able to move files around.
I am hoping that the kind folks at OpenAL and OpenGL make a compelling replacement for DirectX so that games will run natively on Linux. When you get the gamers, you will have won. MS has the gamers right now. When those gamers come to Linux, they'll learn the OS and show their friends. Windows will lose its ubiquity on the desktop because no one wants to pay to upgrade their copy of windows, or even pay for an original license when building a machine.
It is only a matter of time.
Main thing that bothers me about this article is how obviously slanted it is, without really going into what's important. I mean, I see all of these statements about how things that are true in the Microsoft environment are not true in the Linux environment (or at least, aren't best practice). So, the missing information is this - if the design is flawed, and the solutions are wrong for the problem, then what are the solutions (at least give us a hint) to these problems in oh-so-perfect, everything-else-sucks Linux? Okay, so maybe I'm feeling a little annoyed, but if I'm supposed to be developing/supporting solutions in multiple platforms, perhaps some lucid discussion of the issues and their solutions would be useful? Certainly this article pretends to be hitting these things, but it fails to execute. I'd love to see some links that try to hit these issues in a more complete manner. Anyone?
1) Most office workers barely know how to use the software they have. The transition will require training them to not know how to use a whole different set of software. Oh, wait, it won't because no one needs to be trained to not know stuff.
2) Which is?
3) Benchmarks are where?
4) Not nearly enough said. Again, benchmarks are where? And why are they "Linux" FSs in #3, but now we're talking Solaris? Which is it?
5) People had to learn to use both Word and Excel as they migrated from packages like WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3. Not to mention the changes from version to version of just the MS software. I think your users will survive.
I do not have a signature
If memory serves, Microsoft and Novell came under fire a few years ago for their use of the word 'Engineer'. In the non-IT world, the word actually carries meaning: one must complete a licensing process before calling oneself an Engineer. Additionally, these real [i.e. non-IT] engineers are actually held liable for defects/mistakes/incompetence, etc.
My dad is a Certified Manufacturing Engineer and a Professional Engineer (P.E.); this issue was covered extensively in his trade magazines.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Several of the comments made in the article seem to indicate that the author is living in a happy dream world, where clever users are oppressed into mere drones by MCSE's and MS software. He acknowledges that it is a best practice in the Wintel world to lock down machines as much as possible to minimize support costs, yet seems to think that Unix will "empower users" (from a sidebar) without causing any problems at all.
/. crew decide that the author is living a dream?
Is he crazy? The reasons that machines are locked down is that the endusers are stupid. They know nothing about computers, and ideally they shouldn't have to - they are just tools to do their real jobs. Any extra capabilities will just allow them to break more things. Sun can only support so many users per admin by locking systems tighter than most MSCEs could dream of - the answers to what is wrong are so easy because there are no other options. The users aren't empowered, they are chained down as much as possible. All to the good; but believing you can take the same idiot endusers from a windows shop, give them magic Lintel boxen and some responsibility and rights to manage their own systems, and get *fewer* support calls is just delusional.
And thinking that it's the OS that is driving all those fast upgrades to physical machines is also absurd. A huge portion of all business desktop and laptop upgrades is driven by vanity, not need. Good luck thinking that a rational OS decision based on security and TCO will quickly stop "mine's bigger" purchasing. You think execs sending email, looking at excel spreadsheets, and playing solitaire need those multi-thousand dollar laptops? You think that running linux they'll stop buying them?
I liked the approach of the author, to look at the practices that will be reflexive to existing support staff and the effect they will have on a Linux implementation. But his take on the reflexive approaches of the *users* is completely unrealistic, and renders his article mostly useless. Face it, most of the people here on Slashdot have dealt with those endusers - you think the majority will agree that they will miraculously become wise if just given a chance? Or will the
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
Because, in larger business environments, they suck.
The argument presented in the paper is more of a thin-client vs client-server/desktop approach.
With the software properly installed and managed on a central server, not individually on each PC, there are significantly less problems.
Whole industries have been built around the Windows PC that aren't necessary from a corporate standpoint. I speak of client-side firewalls, anti-virus and disk imaging software.
No need to "push" an image when the PC gets corrupt. No need to reboot the PC. No need to run and license individual anti-virus applications. No need to scan for spyware, etc on each PC.
"PC Empowerment" is a BS phrase. The only thing most PC's empowered the coporate user to do was send worms, catch viruses and play games. Applications like a word processor, spreadsheet, presentation program, CAD, project management, e-mail and other business software can just as easily be run via a central server. Administration is tons easier.
And with full-duplex, fast ethernet to the clients and gigbit or bonded channels to the servers, load and run times can often be faster than off of cheap PCs with hard drives.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Speaking as someone who works for a very large government institution, I think the only way to get off the Microsoft train is to go with Macs. And I'm not being a troll when I say this. #1, the computer and the OS come from the same supplier. This is where Linux fails because none of the reputable hardware companies will offer real support for the OS if you run into troubles; nor will they indemnify the institution from the frivolous claims by the likes of SCO. If you buy the HP line, what are you going to have to do, install Mandrake on your own? Won't you still be paying the Microsoft tax unless you buy the PCs from Mitec, a mom-and-pop whitebox store, or purchase a Dell line with that DOS'ish OS on a bundled disc? Or, if you want support, you have to pay extra to Red Hat, IBM, or Sun? #2 the Microsoft apps won't run natively on Linux. You have to run Wine or Codeweavers software, and I'm sure if a government agency does that, Microsoft will be on the phone with the various elected officials to start investigations on software purchases as well as EULA violations (and a BSA audit wouldn't be too far down the road too). I've been thinking about all of this because we run Win2K on Dell P3 800mhz machines, and its time to start upgrading. But each of these concerns is enough to kill any suggestion for switching to Linux, especially when everyone who has a hand in deciding IT issues has MCSE certification to justify their jobs. Whereas if an agency becomes a Mac OS X shop, you have the Microsoft Office apps, but the hardware upfront costs more. Granted, you can shave off 1/3rd of your IT staff if you go Mac, but the political party that would be most interested in saving government monies in such a manner (through layoffs and eliminating redundancies) would probably not be inclined to help Apple out since Jobs and others are left-of-center in their political affiliations, not to mention Al Gore is on their board of directors even if it is in a ceremonial position... And the taxpayer suffers, not to mention us employees that have to use this *poodoo*...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Personally, I know quite a few. A good portion of the MCSEs that I know are quite skilled in *nix. I think it is funny how narrow minded some of the people are here on slashdot.
Taking a couple of tests because:
a) they were free.
b) they net you a couple more bucks an hour.
c) gasp! you want to know a little more about a product that you have to work with every day.
doesn't make you a dumbass.
To many corporate people, it would be just as hard to migrate the Office software as it would the OS. MSOffice is so ingrained in the corporate culture it is pathetic. I have to send my status report to my manager in a Word doc. Everything is stored in freaking Word docs around here. Want to show some people some pictures? Put them all in a Word doc, that way you can email one huge .doc file. I once complained to a guy because he was attaching screenshots to a bug report like this. I explained "do you realize that for someone to see these, they would have to use MSWord. They are just images". His response? "Everyone here has Word installed, that isn't a problem."
As for the others, you won't see IE go away as long as MS is the OS. Hell, our internal website won't work with Opera, the browser I use. I am actually surprised that my boss lets me run it. Gotta conform and everything.
Our department gets its MSWord licenses from Corporate, so it doesn't cost our department anything. That is what the managers are most concerned with, their budgets. As long as it doesn't cost them anything out of their budget, who cares? If we all have to upgrade to OfficeXP (which we are doing) from Office2K, then Corporate will take care of it.
It doesn't matter how compatable it is, if it looks like Office, acts like Office, is better than Office, or is 100% free. If it ain't MSOffice, a lot of places won't use it. Companies sign deals for their OS/Office licenses, so many times you can't split up the OS/Office software. Oh, and you have to upgrade every 3 or 4 years.
So while I appreciate your idea, in companies where MS has them by the short hairs, it doesn't fly. It is also one of those things that makes me yearn for a better economy, so I can quit this cubicle wasteland and go work for a small company again. The "corporate atmosphere" is slowly killing me. It is killing everyone else too, they just don't realize it.
Kee-rist, sounds like somebody has a case of the Mondays.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
And I get Troll'ed into next week... ;)
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
One of the major benefits of *nix mentioned in the article was the centralization of processing, and how that can decrease hardware churn.
It's true, but by itself, it leaves a lot of wasted resources by having P3s and P4s acting like dumb terminals. If I'd just shelled out for new machines, I wouldn't like having to shell out for grunty servers to supplant the grunty desktops I'd just bought.
But the ability to have the whole network act as a Mosix cluster takes this and flips it on its head, allowing maximum leverage of all the hardware resources that the organization already has. Aside from the real-world benefits, pitching that would make a purchaser feel clever, not stupid. It ought to have had a mention.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
That's why Disney called their non-"Engineer" engineers, "Imagineers."
This is quicky becoming the "All your base" of 2003.
One technology department I'm familiar with had its budget slashed incredibly. Basically, by some pointy haired boss using a CDW catalog and his HP 12c to project the figures.
The IT staff were in a panic. Supplying WinTel machines as budgeted wouldn't allow funding for many server side technologies and pet projects. Moreover this didn't go over well with the IT staff who would have to be responsible for maintaining and securing these machines. They weren't Linux savvy yet and if they were being honest, most had come to depend on GUI-driven, point-and-click tools to help them in their maintenance chores.
As they were assembling their rationalizations to take back to management, some extremely clever in-house developers on the IT staff, came up with an open-source solution to deploy:
* Come up with standard Linux install images
* Develop tools on Macs to maintain these images
When the IT staff realized that with this method they weren't in danger of losing their own ease of use, they started coming up with their own justifications for this plan.
* Good to have IT staff on higher-security platform
* Unauthorized users easier to id due to distinctive design
* Wider compatability than Windows or Linux alone
The voiceless masses have been fairly receptive to the new plan (or at least not coordinated enough to voice a strong opposition). Key executives were allowed to be exempt from the Linux standards, but they were encouraged to use Macs with MS products rather than full Wintel machines (to be as "standard" as possible).
The use of friendly maintenance tools on Macs (which used tech friendly technologies under the hood for the geeks) was the key to overcoming the general IT fear of Linux. It's not certain if IT will keep using Macs down the road once this irrational fear is gone, but it was very important to get the ball rolling at all.
"A Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer is to computing what a McDonalds Certified Food Expert is to fine cuisine"
My 2 cents...
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
I can verify that the MCSE community is about 50% losers who I would not trust to tie their own shoe, and about 50% who know what they are doing on SOME if not MOST computing environments. Those are the ones who DONT just do Windows, but are versed in UNIX, Mac and other systems, and are prepared to deal with differences. I would suggest that any company that hires an MCSE who knows no other platform, is a very dumb company.
That's right. Because an el cheap-o quickie cert is no substitute for actually knowing something about computers It's certainly no substitute for a CS degree and 20 years development and admin experience on other platforms. Experience on a variety of platforms is actually the only guarantee you have that the person has any idea what's going on when taken out of their little point-and-click dumbed-down MCSE world.
I just had to laugh when this one MCSE was running around to my management telling them that my Linux box was "insecure" because it didn't have a virus checker. In actual fact, I'd put a virus checker on it that was 10 times faster than his, just to whipe his arse when his complaints got loud enough. I was also running a full-blown IDS, proxy and firewall on the Linux box.
When the "meeting" came, where I was supposed to be on the defensive about my "insecure" Linux box box, I told him how I'd tested the security on his "corporate level IT", described the measures I'd taken on the Linux box, and told him if he could show me a text file on my hard drive saying "MCSE WAS HERE" (like I'd left a note on his saying "TUX WAS HERE", and showed it to him in front of the very management he was bitching to about my "insecure" box), then I'd agree with him that his systems were more secure than mine. Never happened. The little toad. He went out and spent 30 grand on a turnkey firewall box after that, and had to get someone else in to set it up. And it was still crackable because it was so badly configured. Helped that I knew the guy that had designed it. BSD-based box. Nice little unit. Utterly useless in the wrong hands.
You know if these stupid, arrogant little MCSE toads weren't running around trying to play politics while not knowing even the fundamentals of their fields, it would be easier to help them get on with learning what Linux is about. They must get some sort of Ballmeresque Monkey-Dance Pep Talk about how it's in their best interest to play politics to try to ensure Micorsoft lock-down in their company or something. Monoculture.
I suspect little dramas like this are being played out all across the world, and the details of this particular story (mine, or the MadHatter's) are not particularly important.
What is important is the point that a quickie cert on which buttons to push is no substitute for actually understanding how things work, by the experience of having built things yourself , noticed the commonalities between systems (and the differences amongst them) when going from MVS to VM/CMS to Wylbur to TECO to TOPS to UCSD Pascal to VMS to BSD to SysII to HP/UX to SysV to Irix to SunOS to Solaris to NT to DOS to WinXX to RedHat to SuSE...in addition to a formal education.
The difference between an MCSE with 5 years of "experience" pushing buttons, and an MSCS with 20 years of experience in devlopment and systems planning and admin is like the difference between the machine-operator and the engineer. Why aren't the engineering societies demanding that the "E" in MCSE be changed to "O" -- for OPERATOR. (Support Engineer? What is that, somebody who designs sports bras and jock straps?) Because that's all they really are, is computer operators, NOT Engineers -- unless they have a whole lot of other training and experience, as you point out.
An MCSE is like someone who struggled through a high-school equivalency and then barely got an SAT score that qualified them for college by "studying the exam" vs someone