Slashdot Mirror
Pitfalls and Options For Business-Desktop Linux
swhiser writes "Tom Adelstein dispassionately surveys the remaining fixes that will put desktop Linux through in the enterprise. Peer-to-peer networking, functional printing, laptop support, single sign-on to Active Directory and a better Device Manager (with a driver-get mechanism) are among the things companies are asking for. He says, 'The Linux desktop could fail if companies continue to pilot programs and conclude that it's less trouble to buy Microsoft. Everyone loses in that scenario.'" Pre-loaded systems are no longer a pipe dream or an obscurity, though; read on for one reader's mini-survey of Linux systems from large computer vendors.
Acidus writes "I called around today to the big OEMs (Gateway, Dell, HP, IBM) seeing who offered systems with Linux pre-installed, and the results were good. 3 of the 4 offered Linux on workstations. While no one offered Linux preloaded on laptops, Dell has some references nn how to install Linux on their laptops, while IBM has a scattering of docs on their website about installing Linux on systems. The reps at Dell, even though they have a series of Linux workstations, had to ask me what Linux was, and how to spell it. "Is that L-Y-N-I-C-S?""
We use NIS so that workstations are completely interchangable. Had an EE harddrive meltdown, grabbed a spare machine, ran the kickstart, and the user logged back in via NIS within 15 minutes with no data loss! Could have had him backup instantly if he wanted to go to a spare office.
I can't believe how much easier workstation admin is now that we use Linux.
This way to the egress...
The outsourced tech support probably couldn't spell "Windows" either. They don't even have the same letters on their keyboards as you do.
If someone called you up and asked you to spell some random word in Hindi I bet you'd mess up too.
As for the first topic, it should be no shock to any one that linux needs a whole shitload of stuff, Samba and others are great projects, and provide a lot of the desired functionality, but getting them installed and set up and "playing nice" with your Windows network can be a real bitch.
I mean, who here has jumped through the hoops of adding a linux server to an AD domain? Compare to adding a Windows server to an AD domain. Now imagine Betty McOfficeGirl trying to follow some written instructions to set up her fancy new linux desktop. Not all offices have a team of IT guys swarming around taking care of everything. Most people are on their own.
Linux needs to fight this battle in the small businesses of the world. They got a toe in the door as far as POS machines and kiosks, that type of thing. But linux needs to be running on the PC in the back office of every mom and pop grocery store or restaurant or doctors office, etc...
Everytime I criticize linux I get modded down and shouted at by morons for being a MS "fanboy" or "astroturfer". It's all obvious to anyone who cares to look, though.
Frankly, I don't think linux can do it (replace windows). I don't think linux will do it. I don't think we should be trying to shoehorn Windows compatibility into a Unix clone. Linux' strength comes from its Unix roots, and I think it should stay close to them, and stay focused on conquering the backend.
I see something like ReactOS developing into the horse to bet on.
To me, a Windows killer is something you install over some guys copy of Windows, and they never even notice that some of the icons are in different spots, or the Windows logo is replaced with something new. Everything works as it always did, albeit with all the transparency a GPL'ed project gives us.
Just my 0.02. I really don't think linux could ever replace Windows any more than a tractor trailer could replace a honda civic. All those regular non-mechanical folk don't want to drive a tractor trailer, and don't want to learn.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The truth is that Linux is no where near the quality and refinement of OSX. The only thing that is holding me back from recommending OSX as the switch to platform is the lack of native OOO and in particular a stable 2.0 trunk.
Once native OOO comes out next year, OSX will be the `switch` platform I am recommending to all my friends relatives colleagues...
Regarding Linux, OOO 2.0 is again a main switching point. OOO 1.1.n is still too limited to be useful for power users to switch.
Another HUGE blocking point for switchers to any platform other than win32 is the lack of a `all in one` netmeeting'ish application. Sure there is gnomemeeting but it still does not support an secure integrated vnc server/client p2p component. This is greatly limiting.
JsD
[dreaming of programming Java/obj-c/Python on an apple at apple while programming in Java/tcl/JS on a dell at another]
The eventual goal might be to switch to an all-Linux environment, but in the meantime Linux users need access to all the things they use now. Microsoft would love it if the only practical way to switch to a Linux desktop was to throw out all your existing backend software and start over.
I currently work closely with the CIO in a medium to large restaurant company where we are installing a POS system with Linux as the OS...Suse to be exact although we'll probably be using IRES from IBM which is just a imaging and deployment package around Suse. While we are working out the kinks of the POS, our online ordering system running IIS and Windows 2000 was comprimised and has left us waiting for a green light with our payment processor that has resulted in approximately 1 million in losses. I don't care how much of a budget Windows has if being a "known quantity" makes you a target.
"Everything in the universe is clouded by the impositions of the mind"
that would be nifty... we have no such thing. Outlook gets mail and stores it on the local machine, removing it from the server. this may have been done because of server space in the past, but now it is a pain if a workstation dies. spares are a pain. users exist on the server (for email) and on local machine, everything on the local machine. not many computers to support here, but enough that I would like it to be easier.
don't be like us, plan ahead for time & cost of support.
I have nothing witty to fill this space with yet.
8. Compatible Windows Media player Codecs.
WHY???? Show me ONE big corporation which needs to play movies on the users desktops!
If you want to migrate away from windows you need to start divorcing MS. Take a look at how Novell is doing their internal migration for example.
1) Do away with office. Replace office with openoffice the desktops (still windows).
2) Do away with outlook/exchange. Lucky for novell they have groupwise.
3) Set up a CMS system (novell used thei ifolder product) which keeps track of documents the employees create. This trains the employees to go to an abstract location for all their documents rather then "my documents".
4) Set up a desktop distro with open office, groupwise, ifolder and you are done.
It could be done with small gradual steps. Novell has done it, IBM is doing it and neither one of them is a small company.
evil is as evil does
decisions in IT departments, Linux won't make much inroads on the desktop. They generally make decisions based on paid consultants and glossy magazine ads. Now, if the word spreads that companies can negotiate with MS based on threats of migration that'll keep some IT costs (somewhat) lower. Of course this can only work in bigger shops. Smaller companies can't do this.
The decisions have to be made on the basis of the business, not the basis of the technology itself. So I don't blame them for hiring experts (consultants) to do this sort of work.
THe fact is, there are Linux consultants too (I am one of them) and we can create decent marketing material. But the best marketing is done face to face where you can actually communicate with your customer.
Most of the problems talked about here are due to trying to fit a square peg (Linux) in a round hole (Windows workstation concept). Yes, it can be done, but it is not really optimal. Yes, we could use some more tools for allowing easy sharing of printers, for example.
Linux workstations are viable today, and have been viable for the past five years. THey offer unparalleled ease of use (given a little bit of effort to ensure that the desktop has the best icons, etc) and ease of administration, especially when given to someone who knows absolutely nothing about computer (Linux or Windows). For people who have become comfortable with Windows, this is another matter-- the computers are different enough that some frustration can be expected.
For small to midsize businesses who don't have an existing IT infrastructure, I tend to recommend Linux. For those who are not dependent on commercial vertically targetted applications, I recommend Linux. There are some gaps (payroll software being one) but these are relatively easy to mitigate.
Linux is not at the moment the desktop for everybody. Many businesses have way too much invested in Microsoft to make the move easily. And this is OK. It is up to consultants to counsel customers when their preferred solution is *not* likely to succeed too (far few take this road though).
The window of opportunity for desktop Linux is just beginning to open. Don't expect it to close too soon.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Exactly. Or take a directory of files named file001 through file999 delete file001 and file002 and move the rest of all of the filenames down two numbers - do that with your mouse!
People who don't understand the CLI don't realize that it's actually a programming language file, but you only get to see one line at a time (default file size is 500 lines) - you can change that, you can search, edit, switch to multi-line mode, write little scripts, change the copyright year notices on all of your webpages on Jan. 1 with a simple one-line command, etc...
Extending the argument that GUI is better, what you're actually saying is more like questioning why we should use C or C++ or Java or basic or any programming language that has to be typed in, let's just point and click our way to writing software programs!
Furthermore, why should we even use the English alphabet or the keyboard? We can do everything we need to do with a mouse - that way, you get carpal tunnel sooner, which means you can quit your job and get paid more than half of what you were earning for having people do surgery on you!! Great idea, huh?
English is a language, just like Perl is a language, just like C is a language, just like any other programming language. And you know what? Bash, the Linux default shell, it is also a programming language. That's the whole point. You can type your business letters with your keyboard or you can type them with your mouse...
On top of everything else, if you make it so darned easy for anyone to do anything on a computer, you will outsource yourself to someone making minimum wage. Since when is being stupid a desired thing? I think we need to get over the idea that computers have to be "easy" to use - it's a skill - take 6 months to learn how to use a REAL operating system the right way - what is life expectancy - 65+ and growing? What is 6 months out of that to learn how to use a tool that you are going to use for the rest of your life?
Setting stupidity as a goal is counterproductive. I think it would be better if the goal were that computer operators learn the skills necessary to use something like Linux or BSD. The basics are something you only need to learn once - they are more like concepts - so if the computer operators learn how to use the computers properly, we will have a more realistic computing environment - because no matter how "dumb" you make something or how "dumb" you make a job description, it's always someone else's job to come and fix it when it doesn't work anyway. What I don't understand is why intelligence and skills aren't the focus - they are in almost anything else? You don't hear someone say - "They ought to make theoretical physics easier... it's too hard!", or "They ought to make Partial Differential Equations easier... they're too hard!". C'mon, people... get with it already.
I think Linux printing is ready, but just recently. That means that things don't come preconfigured to use CUPS yet, which means there's significant setup effort.
/sys/bus/usb/drivers/usblp/*/../product, and look up the right info. Then it will look in /sys/class/printer.
The way things go with Linux is that things start out unsupported. Then they get flawed support. After a bunch of development, the right solution is made, but it requires a lot of configuration to set everything up. Then it comes preconfigured and everything just works.
(When I started using Linux, in '96, in order to get X working, you had to write a mode line with the timings you wanted to get things just right. Then X started coming with mode lines for all the nice modes. Now you don't need mode lines at all; the server will come up with the right information itself. Imagine my surprised when my new X server, with nothing in the config file other than my monitor's capabilities (old monitor; new monitors report their own capabilities), instead of coming up in 1280x1024, came up in 2048x1536 because that's what it could do.)
Today you have to tell CUPS what your printer is. But tomorrow, you won't because the software will read
The article is thinking in the microsoft way about getting drivers. Why should you have to click on an unsupported device in order to get a driver for it? Just try to use it and it should fetch (or build, or just load) a driver. If it doesn't know what the device is, it should use a cddb-like system to report the lack of support, and let users who get it working report what they did.
I just ordered 100 lattitude D800 laptops. every one of them will be 100% identical
Wow - we ordered 2 *on the same day* and they both arrived the same day from the same location. They have different wireless chips inside. One person has wireless under linux, one doesn't.
Here's hoping all *100* of yours are 100% identical down to the internals.
creation science book
I am a PHB, and I would like to run linux. However, it's my techies that don't. Only half of them enjoy running linux and the other half think everything that spews out of Microsoft is golden.
I would love to save on the licensing costs of Microsoft. I think Microsoft is a blood sucking company that creates virus-ware (software that requires other software made by Microsoft to work effectively) that I hate having to proliferate accross the company I work for (1200 workstations). Many on Slashdot like to blame a lack of adoption of linux on management, but that's not the case here.
So, how do I convince the other half that Linux should be in our future? Firing them is not an option. No Linux migration would be practical without their complete support and "decreeing" that we will move to Linux will be a failure if my main tech folks don't support the move.
Politics is a major factor and the numbers can be managed to show any results that you want.Yet in case after case, that exact situation has happened. Again, the numbers can be managed to show whatever someone wants them to show.
Being the new CIO or VP and doing nothing except maintaining the status quo is not going to look good on your resume. That's where the politics come into play. If you aren't already on the most popular system, lots of "problems" will be "found" that can only be "fixed" by migrating to the popular system. If you're on the most popular system, then most managers will not risk their career by championing a migration to a less popular system. Instead, they'll focus on centralizing that which is decentralized and decentralizing that which is centralized.And I did not do that.Incorrect. The actual thought process is more "hmmm... something that might save money, but might fail and cause me to lose my job - nope, I'm not risking my career".Yes it does. I can sit someone down and they can type and print from OpenOffice the same as from MSOffice.Only if the users at the company in question are part of the "some users" group that you mentioned. If they aren't, then there won't be problems.Whatever. Lots of people use it and is seems to work for them. I'll leave out the rest of your ill-informed rant.
In business, it's about politics. That's the fact. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll be able to move beyond tech.
After having to deal with underperforming Access "databases" by dudes that thought they knew better, my company (and another one I worked for) barred the damn thing from desktops and put DB development where it belongs: with dedicated teams.
These teams, knowing their stuff, would not touch Access with a 10 metre pole.
As for small companies, they are carving their own obsolescence: I used to porvide support for dentists. While the Access solutions they had normally gave uncountable headhaches, Linus or UNIX solutions kept working silently, the trusty powerhorses that ensured the dentist could do his work and not wait in frustration thanks to the latest virus or BSOD.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Damn straight! I'm a programmer at a small company of oil engineers who frequently "try their hand" at creating "applications" in Access and Excel. It's copy-and-past all the way to the finish line. Who needs the notion of abstraction when your ever-ready friends Ctl-C and Ctl-V can do all the hard work for you? Ctl-C is like the left leg, Ctl-V is like the right leg. Apart they are useless. Together they make a deadly team.
The stuff they churn out is usually visually replendant, but in functional terms are complete pieces of crap.
Honestly, I feel like punching someone.