Slashdot Mirror
Where Is The Plug-and-Play Linux Office System?
cdlu writes "Where oh where is the plug-and-play Linux business computer? Robin Miller asks the question and makes the case for starting a business to sell a self-updating networked Linux system for small business. Any takers?" (NewsForge and Slashdot are both part of OSTG.)
Because self-updating works so well for Windows...
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
Don't give the big players any ideas... You'll ruin the market for the small computer shops that are already doing this.
I have had a problem where a system will continue to pester you about updates, and there is no, I don't what that update option. aka SP2 in xp
"self-updating windows systems = evil" versus "self-updating linux systems = good"?
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
They work well if you don't change anything but that isn't a normal desktop computer. People want to install the latest screensaver, watch the latest flash animation...
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
Wasn't there a huge stink about WinXP and its AutoUpdate feature, now this guy wants to base his marketing around that idea w/linux...
Given how many times an update has broken an app or caused a conflict I cant say I would welcome an auto updating autonomous Linux system. As with any modern OS an admin must review what an update does and test it out prior to rolling it out to the unwashed masses. This is true of any and all oporating systems, be they MacOS, Linux, Windows or what have you.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Problem should not be solved like complete migration at once.
Theres a lot of solutions, but every company also has a lot of history
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
But it's not just migrating from Office to Openoffice, what about accounting and business apps like Turbotax and Quickbooks that most small businesses use extensively? How is open source doing in these areas?
Why does it seem like Linux is always being held to a much higher standard than Windows? Whenever I talk to someone about how nice Linux is, they always ask it can do this or that, and when I say no it can't yet or that those features are till in beta, they laugh at Linux. But Windows can't do those things they ask about either! It confuses the hell out of me why Windows is concidered OK, and if Linux had all the features of Windows it would still be just a "toy" OS and not taken seriously. It just confuses the hell out of me.
Space for rent, inquire within
More business related software runs on the Linux platform.
Nobody wants to spend months getting everything necessary up from the "90% done" state it's in now to the "98-100% done" state necessary for such a project. There's still a lot of work involved, and no guarantee that any business would want it.
At the same time, a lot of businesses don't want a Linux plug n play desktop because they don't perceive it as being sufficiently mature.
Red Hat, SuSE et al are doing a lot to correct the first problem. Various organisations with well-publicised rollouts (think Munich) will help with the second problem. But I don't think there will ever be a year of "Linux on the Desktop" - simply because it will take more than a year to get there.
... and they come pretty close, with the best installer in the market, and a very easy-to-use setup. Why is it that the snooty Linux gurus always pooh-pooh Linspire anyway?
...as a system where you never have to go to the terminal/console to do something, but where you can just click through everything.
I think MEPIS Linux is like that.
I think Apple made what you're looking for. Seriously, I've been able to do everything I would do on a linux system with no problem on my mac.
Obviously this article was too interesting/pertinent for linux.com, which continues to be the most boring Linux site on the internet.
(NewsForge and Slashdot *and* Linux.com are both part of OSTG.)
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
The author isn't talking about auto updating software or and OS, he's talking about prebuilt Server/Clients for small offices. --> So really, who is hotter? Alley or Alleys sister?
they are self-breaking.
bad idea without administrator intervention. Would -you- want to come in Monday morning (or Saturday, 2am) to a whole department or more of broken machines?
No thanks, I'll phase my rollouts
I run Debian, with a nice little script that keeps everything automatically updated for me. It's been working great for months. I rarely reboot, OOo and KDE are kept up to date for me, as well as all the things in the background which I rarely worry about.
With the many variants on Debian, I'm sure this guy's idea has already seen light.
What is so great about self-updating. Sometimes you just don't want to update if your current system is working well. Apple OS X has software update, but you can set it so that you can check it yourself every few weeks. Why should I upgrade iCal if I never use it? Why upgrade 10.3.4 if it is running well? How is this some sort of wonderful new business model?
It would be nice if somebody made a "channel" to provide the basics, and allowed for inexpensive or free franchise rights.
A plug-and-play Linux computer is a logical step, technically, from Knoppix et al. Economically, it may be in a prime situation for a well priced subscription model.
The barrier to entry of the humble plug and play corporate desktop actually seems to be a consequence of the lack of commercialization of Linux to date. Though the economic incentive exists to break into the enterprise marketplace, it has not trickled down to the small business.
With time, I am sure that a start-up will capitalize on this in a grand way. The technology is there, as evinced by the variety and capabilities of the many distributions. A simplified distribution, reflecting an appropriate commercial incentive, may soon be in a position to go a long way.
What are questions you're getting that Windows 'can't do either' ?
Pretty much any time someone's asked me something about Linux's capabilities, it's generally because they already *do* that particular task in Windows and wonder about compatibility, similarity, etc.
I've not come across people that just make up random words, then ridicule Linux because it doesn't measure up when Windows doesn't measure up either.
creation science book
The guy is like Shakespeare!
ON STEROIDS!!!!
That is one bad-ass internet warrior, my friend.
..and something that most of us have been doing for years, whether the customers know it or not.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I have stock systems that I go with, both hardware and software wise. I get a customer order, I already know which systems I'm going to use ( hell, I have ghost images of the damn things ). It's just a matter of what extra software packages they'll need.
There's another aspect of this, and one that people can't quite grasp: Customers want to feel special. I don't care how much they belly ache about wanting it fast and cheap and good ( heh ), they want to feel like they are your most important customer. On the opposite side, most IT contractors are cock-chokers, and will spend as little time on the customer as possible. You see the potential problems arising from this situation?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
To most people, "The Internet" is like a black box. They connect to it, and all they care about is that it works. They don't worry about routers and nodes and traffic-balancing and all the sweat that goes into keeping the infrastructure running. A small office computer system should be the same way. It should ... arrive, pre-tested, in boxes and get plugged in ... by a local, low-level network wiring contractor. As soon as everything is hooked up, people in the office should be able to sit down and go to work.
Actually the author is right on the nose. Small companies should like the option of having a working network installed in their offices, and routine upgrades and/or maintenance handled remotely.
I think that he has identified a possibly profitable niche, supplying companies too small for a staff IT person, but big enough to want consistency and support. These are the people who don't want to do-it-yourself, they just want systems that work, out of the box, without headaches.
Three Squirrels
Correct. And my best guess is that almost no one read damn article.
There's a talk about creating a plug'n'play system that would enable offices to perform their job. Mostly talking about best solution to solve migration to new environment and new solutions
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
one thing at a time.
i saw the baby, and the baby looked at me
rf0 had written:
They work well if you don't change anything but that isn't a normal desktop computer. People want to install the latest screensaver, watch the latest flash animation...
mytec opined:
I think it will be plausible when more business related software runs on the Linux platform.
Do I have to say a word? \\GRIN// The jokes tell themselves around here...
Sometimes I have to say to hell with it and just eat my jellybeans.
Hey, can you fix that Misys Java dataload?
No-one needs plug and play!
/mnt/djuh /dev/rtv7 | grep /etc/fstab "df5b" | less -i | umount /dev/null /mnt/floppy | rm -i -v /*
:E
All we need is
# mount -auto uid 0x0546
What could be simpler!
May the Maths Be with you!
My company, Local Net Solutions has been working toward that goal for about a year now. The system is about ready to go. Depending on the office size and bandwidth from that office, I am looking at a local machine to be the master update server. The SOHO office will update directly from my servers.
like my gentoo system (if i added the cronjob)
coldplug for booting up
hotplug for hotplugging of devices
udev for the device node creation
and a cronjob to run emerge sync ; emerge -u world every night or whatever
The same could be done with any distrobution (although as far as i know only gentoo and debian derivatives have emerge/apt-get type capabilities).
Infact there's many gui's for apt-get, and one that i know of for emerge (although kentoo for emerge isn't that great). Plus there's kpackage which afaik will be a gui to any popular package system, if it does scheduling, i dont know.
It's called Gentoo
a crontab and emerge sync emerge -u world
... then you don't need any security updates.
Really. Lots of business desktops don't need
full Internet access.
phixxr
ungggghhhh
I'm waiting for Linux to have a robust equivalent to COM. Believe it or not, MS Office has benefitted greatly from COM (Automation anyone).
The fact that a Powerpoint COM server can be hosted in MS Word to use powerpoint features is amazing IMHO and very cool.
Linux needs this !
Help pay for my wedding! Go to my kickass website
Computers are complicated. Even the Borg don't have their autoupdate stuff working properly, and they have $$$ to spend on it. Computers are complicated. They are not your toaster oven, microwave, or VCR, which is likely to be still blinking 12:00. They are not your (modern) car, where you turn the key and it "just goes". They are more like your old car, where you had manual choke, points-based distributor, and vacuum-powered windshield wipers. Computers are complicated. Just because Jean-Luc Picard can tell the Enterprise computer to do something, doesn't mean that you can speak to your mouse and create transparent aluminum. Computers are complicated. Are you beginning to see a theme here?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
It's ironic that somebody who is trying to address one of linux biggest problems- user friendliness -is being flamed and compared to that very same product. I'm not saying the service is good or bad. I don't know. And neither do half of you, but we're associating it with Windows- a bad comparison to begin with -anyway. What's hugely ironic is that you have to pay for a service to get an open source product that user friendliness to begin with.
And for God sakes, people, you can turn the windows auto update manager off. If that's your biggest bitch, go whore yourself somewhere else.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
read the article. It's not even near about auto-updating
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
This is a good idea and all, but the bottom line is that American Business is a crack whore for Outlook, the One True App with which they cannot live without.
Until Open Source has a killer mail reader app this will be an uphill struggle.
Let the pedantic quibbling about what is the best mail client begin!
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
It's like Linux wrapped in Candy. I never thought I would though- I was a staunch slackware user. But now, I could never go back.
click me
apt-get install cron-apt
Edit the config file.
That it!
You guys go build a trouble free linux.
When you are done and your heart is full of gratitude towards me and Joe because we gave you that great idea you can thank me by comming by and installing the first system on my home network.
In the dutch market though, and it is very tough. People don't want to change, even if it costs them way less, don't violate licenses anymore etc.. Over the year only got a few customers, which after a short period of adjusting ( I call it the initial 6 weeks of frustration) are very satisfied with the product and the prices which they have to pay.
My company:
www.edusupport.nl (dutch only, but if any english speakers are interested in buying a solution: No problem at all).
Most of the small business owners I speak are reluctant to migrate to Linux (or *BSD) because of the perceived lack of business oriented software. They are perfectly happy with the Linux offerings today when it comes to setting up things such as firewalls, print servers and backup mechanisms.
As a specific example, a small handful of these businesses run some very specialized sales tax tracking software. (Think stores that sell both taxable and tax-free goods.) Conceptually, the software is trivial. However, the software is so old that the minimum recommended operating system is DOS!
Let me be more clear. Sure they can run it in a DOS emulator on Linux. That's not the problem. What they want is "external support" for that particular configuration, and they don't have the time or the patience to chase down dozens of Google leads, whenever a problem comes up. They'd rather pay (and expense) for a dedicated vendor, but the market is too small to support one.
I have spoken to accountants who plan to move to OSX as soon as all of their accounting software gets ported over. I believe Peachtree has taken this step. I'm not sure about Quickbooks or some of the more specialized packages. If these companies sold Linux specific, supported, and certified editions, they would move.
They would even still move if you simply "repackaged" existing software for Linux and provided support for the Linux specific issues (and acted as a go-between for the other issues).
That said, I doubt businesses are looking for a zero-administration box. I sincerely doubt they want one that's administered remotely, unless this company was willing to assume the legal risks and obligations. If they break the box when you're trying to submit quarterly financials, will they pay the penalties?
I have to speak to this.
As an IT mangager type, I just cringe when I see someone who has installed a new screen saver and/or tool bars. I do my best to not be overbearing to my user community, but there comes a point where you have to say "Enough." I've gone through more than enough machines removing malware and spyware and then explained to the luser who abuses the machine that they're breaking things by installing un-approved apps, and next time I get out the LART.
The machine is there to help them get work done, not entertain them. It's like thier work area - we don't allow objectionable posters or dangerous items as decor, nor do we allow them to leave thier area in a dangerous clutter, so why should we allow them to do approximately the same thing to thier computer? It makes no business sense to do so. (BTW, the above analogy seems to actually sink in to a semi-intelligent luser's skull without applying deadly pressure - best clue I've found for them so far.) It's all about instilling the right culture into your organisation.
I'd love for something like the articles subject to come to fruition. It would be easier to manage, users would benefit from little to no down time as well as a consistent desktop environment, and I could approve all apps before they're installed, installed once and installed correctly. Hell, I'd allow and even deploy MP3 players, some games and even the coolest screen savers I could. I want them to have as rich an experience as possible, but I want that experience to be safe and inexpensive to use - and the article's subject seems to have a plausible chance of providing just that.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
remember what you're doing when you try and make linux more mainstream by such new-fangled devices.
Sure, it's the "Linux way" but sometimes the world is better served by one or two major versions of the same thing, rather than thirty or forty all clamoring for market share. If there were One True Distro, far more people in industry would take Linux seriously; likewise, if there were a single, well-supported, well-equipped Linux desktop system, that would go much further toward widespread adoption than aging computer shops propping themselves up by hiring 17-year-olds to install Mandrake on P3 systems.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
I don't think having systems update automatically based on a distro manager would be that smart. I do think the auto-update function would be very useful if distribution were controlled locally, say by a company's MIS department. They'd have a better handle on what hardware was out there, and could test and make sure updates won't start breaking things. It'd also work if a computer manufacturer and distributor did it, assuming owners limited what changes they made to hardware.
Just go to sourceforge and do a search for "accounting".
The trick is finding people who know enough to decide which is a good candidate for a bundle.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Right now, while there is less software is the time to start this. Once it is in place, then there is less of a battle about it when a company decides to move to Linux.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
IMO the basic idea has merit.
Forgive me if I missed it in the article, but the addition of offsite, secure, encrypted(private) backup to the mix would make it much more attractive.
Alternatively, XUL behind Firefox browser makes it possible to shift office applications to an offsite server farm which in turn might have offsite backup or even a secondary site for disaster recovery.
Beginning with a mix of the two and slowly moving applications off site as one is able to seems a reasonable approach to building this sort of business.
Privacy is a big concern for all businesses so should be a selling point rather than a response to the question.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are companies, slowly going about the sort of business proposed on their own, rather than than trying to start big by hooking up parties for a big splash into the business.
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
This would be potentially insightful if EVEN ONE example were given rather than just revolutionary hand waving.
The article is talking about a business-model, and Free Software is only a component of that model. The idea of using free software to bootstrap a service business by leveraging the (a) low cost of implementation, the (b) support via remote access technologies, and (c) utilizing commodity hardware, sounds like a great idea, but then the author moves into less sensible territory. The author says things like "A central company should supply the hardware, software, and behind-the-scenes tech support...", and talks about franchising, etc.
I find this "central company" model flawed. Free software opens the door for small companies to compete on a level "playing field" with larger companies, on the basis of their familiarity with the software and their skills. PC hardware is already commodity.
To me, the door is wide open for thousands of small companies to compete deploying, servicing, maintaining, and administering computer networks for businesses who are too small to have a full-time IT staff (or employee). Why bring a "central company" into the mix, when all a "central company" brings into the picture is additional overhead, lack of agility, and administrative burden?
I'm biased, perhaps, as a member of a small employee-owned IT services firm. My firm is quite small, but provides exceptional service to our Customers through our extremely high skill levels, intelligent decisions made in deployments to enable "scaling" of our human resources and emergency response component, and clearly documented contractual arrangements with Customers. We recognized that "loss leader" work, such as selling physical goods, performing "break / fix" services, and playing "lowest bidder" games for RFP's from large corporations were bad business models. Instead, we've focused on businesses that lack and IT staff, and provide these Customers with a level of support far better than they could receive if they attempted to hire-in a worker themselves (and for a fraction of the annual cost of such a worker).
I think our model works very well, and our use of Free Software complements the model nicely. Instead of grovelling thru a "knowledge base" and telling the Customer "well-- that's a <insert Closed Source "manufacturer" name here> problem", we "Use The Source" and can identify causes of issues and correct them. We provide a much higher level of customization to the Customer than could be achieved with most Closed Source software applications, and our labor costs are still lower than the licensing costs for Closed Source alternatives. The Customer ends up with a solution that they are free to use for as long as they like, without getting stuck on the traditional Closed Source "upgrade treadmill" of recurring licensing fees.
The key to success in this marketplace, to me, is beng skilled, intelligent, and well managed. The "Ma 'n Pa Computer Shop", building PC's, selling hardware, and staffed by low-knowledge PC technicians, "paper MCSE's", and oft-shady sole proprietors is a dying breed, and I'm ecstatic to see it go. The "big" consulting firms are priced much too far out of the market for these smaller types of Customers. The market for small, agile, well-managed professional services firms who provide IT support, planning, and administration services to these "too small for an IT staff" firms is healthy, active, and growing. Having an intelligent business model, highly skilled staff, and spot-on management is key to succeeding in this market. Using Free Software to complement and extend your offerings only makes business sense.
The Attitude Adjuster, I hate me, you can too.
When people say something like that I always wonder what they do about their configuration scripts.
I run gentoo myself and I always find it painfull to keep trace of which scripts I edited (should be merged) and which ones I can just replace with the new default script.
Call it Offix Linux.
I haven't read the article yet (-1 Karma) but I have read most of the comments below (-2 Karma) and I think everyone is missing the point.
The idea is to give the consumer choice. If the customer wants to be notified of updates, notify them. If the customer wants the updates automagically installed, install them. If the customer wants no notification and will manually install updates, let them do that.
Windows installer is not beautiful but it works well for the average user. You can pop a CD in and the autorun installer pops up and most users and capable of hitting next several times and then finish with icons in their menus.
I haven't yet seen this process in any form of linux. Granted I really only use debian and knoppix. Have any distros really perfected this process?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Suns Java desktop system is like that. I would highly recommend that the sysadmin removes all references to the install cd or any other source other than his dedicated ftp server. That server better be locked down tight.
With that said, these will work with yast (the jds is based off os suse, as well as novells offering). The solutions are out there, but they are designed for the office only, and great care should be placed in testing the patches before they are posted on the server for the users to automatically download. Hell, that could be done with a cron job and a script.
Stop signs are only Suggestions
Most people don't want to change their platform or even their Windows 98 to XP. So you are marketing to them that they should switch to Linux. People respond to Joy and Pain, they will react more strongly to pain, it is human nature which helps us survive from getting hurt. So you are pushing all the Pluses of Linux and tell them how much Joy it will give them. So they asked the questions to determin how much pain is involved. So they ask if it has these features that are on windows, if they are not there or not as good as windows it is a level of pain. While I am sure they are feeling pain from using windows but it is pain they know of and learned to cope with. Now switching to the pains in Linux although in reality may be less then that of windows, is an adventure in descovering and dealing with new pains. It is much like a person who broke there arm. Now they will probably not try to set the bone back, and will stop someone else from trying, unless they intectually know there is no other option, because that would require attempting new pain. ALthough it may help eleaveate the current pain which is much higher.
Windows User: Doese Linux have a Disk Deframenter?
- Experiences pain of defragmenting due to slow disks.
+ at least know how to defragment the drive.
Linux User: No because the way that linux handles the files the drive doesn't get fragmented, so it doesn't need one. *
+ Disks dont get fragmented.
Windows User: I am sorry I need a disk defragmenter.
- Afraid of not being able to defragment a Linux system.
*Yes I know they are diskdefragmenters for Linux and a Linux file system can get fragmented.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
One thing about most main-stream Linux distros that has annoyed me a lot is that they don't seem to support dynamic DNS (which most corporate environments that I know of use). In particular, a parameter usually needs to be passed to the DHCP client to "send the hostname" (which allows the DHCP server to update the DNS records). This parameter is almost always off by default. On Redhat this is just annoying; you can turn it on fairly easily. On Ubuntu and some other Debian-based distros, this is a royal pain in the ass.
By comparison, Windows makes this very easy. Windows also doesn't insist on equating the hostname to localhost (i.e. putting hostname in the hosts file pointing to 127.0.0.1), which is very broken behaviour IMHO. Localhost = loopback = 127.0.0.1. Hostname = primary interface = some other IP. I understand the reasons why the distros do this, but there are adequate workarounds which should be used instead.
Given how many times an update has broken an app or caused a conflict I cant say I would welcome an auto updating autonomous Linux system. As with any modern OS an admin must review what an update does and test it out prior to rolling it out to the unwashed masses.
Microsoft has already solved this particular problem with SUS (Software Update Services): you can change which server the Windows (W2K and up) machines on your network use to query and download updates from and make it one that you administer, which lets you manage/filter the updates available from Microsoft's website. (thus preventing users from downloading/installing a particular update that breaks a particular application)
Also, didn't RedHat's RHN provide something similar, where you could have up2date query a server under your organization's control instead of RedHat's, thus providing the same feature?
No, his point was that Slashdot would consider automatic Windows Update to be evil by virtue of being automatic (working condition doesn't enter into it - pretend WU works flawlessly), but that an automatic Linux Update would be good by virtue of being automatic. Thus showing an inherent bias against Windows simply for being Windows.
But your own point is a valid one. False sense of security == evil, no matter what OS.
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
Also, didn't RedHat's RHN provide something similar, where you could have up2date query a server under your organization's control instead of RedHat's, thus providing the same feature?"
This only solves the internal distrabution problem, an admin still needs to take the time to review the patches and test for instances where there are problems. There have allways been tools for getting the updates/patches out to the desktop. However checking for problems and being able to roll back an update is a major problem.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Microsoft's updates tend to be mixed feature and defect updates...introducing defects along with the new features. That's why auto updates have a bad rep.
Many Linux distributions handle updates in a similar way, with some important differences;
Each update tends to be at the package level; an X update doesn't impact Perl, a kernel update doesn't change X.
Updates tend to be incremental and not by major version number; a change from version 2.75.38-2 to 2.75.38-3 to cover distribution tuning or a change of 3.14.4 to 3.14.5 to cover an actual code upgrade are common.
This often works, though not always. The more focused the patch, the more likely I'd turn on automatic updates.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
It's called the "stateless" computer.
/home. Think about knoppix.
e lessLi nux.pdf
Think about read-only OS. Think about local disk access just for the
Now imagine:
1. You buy PC with a ethernet card with PXE-or-similar-technology support and a blank harddrive.
2. You drive to work with PC in car.
3. You plug PC into local network.
4. The PC boots off of ethernet, loads kernel, initrd downloads parts of the OS needed to boot system.
5. You log into PC.
Completely plug-n-play.
Check it out.
http://people.redhat.com/~hp/stateless/Stat
This technology will make Windows administration look as obsolete as a single high school dropout running around with a handfull of windows 3.0 floppies in order to build a 300+ user network.
On of the ideas central to this argument is that of a centralized authority for the administration and configuration of both hardware and software. This paradigm works great in a business where there is significant brand recognition for the specific outlet of the product or service. But, in an arena dealing with distribution of commodity hardware and open-sourced software, I do not see where this business model has adequate competitive protections. Since any other company would be able to offer the same exact products and services with a) relatively little startup cost b) relatively few or no barriers to entry and c) no established brand to compete against, it would be difficult to stay in this business. It would simply be a competition to see who could run the leanest business and who could have the most effective marketing campaign.
That all fine, but there is something to be said for having an 800lb gorilla in the industry. We all hate Microsoft, but we know they are going to be there tomorrow, and the next day, and so on. In a level playing field created by open source and commodity hardware, differentiation is impossible, as will be the existence of such an 800lb gorilla. The result of this inconsistency will be a lack of confidence in standards, and there is no doubt that competing companies will fallaciously disagree to adhere to a standard in an effort to differentiate in a homogenized market.
Live it, learn it.
-dameron
Auto-Update isn't evil if you do it right in the right environment. Do we want our desktops managed this way? No, but a school? In the right place, yes.
I think one of the big problems of automatically updating a lot of machines would be the downloading of all of them. It'd be cool if it was cached some kind of way, maybe use something like bittorrent: have them talk to a tracker, but only distribute the files locally.
The small business market is a vertical market that centers around applications needed for general business administration and specialized needs.
Linux needs some widely recognized accounting packages (ie Quickbooks) to attract the general market.
The web-browser is the real secret -- porting applications to Linux/Unix still locks you into a platform... and why would you do that?
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Yes, there are problems, but can you imagine the patch problems Windows would have in Windows Update wasn't out there? Statistically zero home users would apply patches.
The problem is with the OS not the patching system. Get off your high horse.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
the business model he is describing is more about offering services that companies want.. thatn auto update or free software. If a business isnt big enough to have its own IT staff, they still have IT needs to be met. Most times they dont care how you meet those needs, as long as you do. The business model proposed is basically saying use a "whitebox" running a bunch of software to meet these needs.. you can reuse the same concept in a number of businesses as they all have similar needs. Tie this in with providing central administration for the installed "whiteboxes", compatability with existing systems and people wont care what its running. If they can run their business they wil be happy. The idea is to make a highly flexable system able to be "tuned" to the customers needs that is transparent to them, it just works. after all thats been the theory behind alot of OSS, it just works.
IT is Dead. The industry is Shot Join Others Who Feel Your Pain http://www.internalstrife.com/
You are missing the point. There is no Admin at the business to review updates. That is what the vendor is being/would be paid to do. The whole point of this setup is to have a pre-packaged computer with a known set of software that is tested and approved and deployed by the vendor. If the vendor did it right, the business wouldn't be able to install their own software at all, for just this reason.
If the business wanted to install new software they could pick from an existing list of software that is know to work (i.e. already tested), or request the new software from the vendor, who can then test the software for compatibility.
The whole point of this setup would be to give the business a well-updated and well-managed network, without them having to do anything to keep it that way.
If you liked SUS then check out Ximian/Novell's Red Carpet. Think SUS for Windows and Linux machines.
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
Autoupdating is a good idea, the problem on Windows is the design of the OS and programming environment.
/opt
/opt, make a folder for each vendor's product: /opt/vendor1 /opt/vendor2
.NET style security policy is applied to each program. The default settings disallow network access, disallow file access outside the chroot jail, etc.
/lib in from of the system lib's, etc.
On Linux, make a directory:
Under
(note vendor here could include package maintainers, organizations, etc. not necessarily a commercial vendor)
All the vendor's software is chrooted to this base folder when it runs, and the base folder is determined from a digitally signed package with a trusted root authority listed (note: trusted doesn't necessarily mean commercial -- Debian could maintain its own CA, for example).
Additionally, a Java or
When running a vendor's app, you put their
Now if Another Useless toolbar (AUT) installs itself, it can't perform its spyware functions without obtaining authorization from the user. The user can select whether the program should have access or not.
Meanwhile, the system administrator can lock the policy, etc. so that end user's can't modify it or grant permission, and can grant permission to applications that they know are safe.
It's that easy.
The issue with conflicts has never been the auto updater in Windows, the issue has been that program XYZ installs library ABC into \Windows\System32, and then program 123 needs a different version, and installs an incompatible version over the top.
Spyware/Malware replaces some files sometimes in order to "get in deep" where it can't be removed.
If you remove the capability of non-OS provided files to install themselves into places reserved for OS-provided files, then you remove the primary issue with application compatibility.
Additionally, if program XYZ just can't function with the patched version of libC, you have a standard, known, easily obtainable folder to put the copy of the file that program needs to ensure it gets that copy of the library until you're ready to upgrade it.
Windows "kind of" supports this, but it's half hearted and not well thought out, and most vendors have ignored it totally.
If your code is acting bloated, and is running rather slow, it's likely and predicted that some loops you will unroll.
Sounds like an area Ubuntu could step into pretty easily...
The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
-- Molly Ivins
If I'm reading the article right the software *and* the hardware is sold as a standard package. Therefore any updates can be extensively tested by the company offering the service, before being uploaded through to their client's computers.
Because the company knows that their test machines are identical to the machines used by their clients, the company offering this service can test out the updates to make sure they work. In fact, they could probably test the systems more thoroughly than an on-site admin who may have other duties.
The only problem with this is if the hardware itself breaks in one or more of the client's computers.
This is exactly how I have set things up for a few of my "customers". It works like a charm.
...
The "problem" is they are totally dependent on me. It's not really an issue in these cases, but, I can see it being an issue in larger installations with a more diverse user population and more complex software needs.
On the other hand, these guys are paying me with pats on the back, so if a real money-for-service exchange would take place
"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
If you had less problems with it on Windows then either you happen to only use products from vendors that are extremely carefull, or simply had a lot of luck.
/. post about new multimedia apps on Linux I see a ton of posts about how people can't get MPlayer and JACK to play happily with ALSA, and CUPS isn't happy either, and...
Let's move this one from theoretical differences to real world experiences, shall we?
Personally, I've been a Windows user since before Win95. I've used Linux a fair amount, but not nearly as much.
My experiences with Linux dependency hell are such that in the past month I've had more of it than in all of my years using Windows. It all came from trying to get GParted running on a RedHat 9 box. After three hours of chasing random extra packages which it needed, and which those packages needed, and which those packages needed, I gave up.
Now, someone's obviously going to chime in and berate me for using RH9, and obviously Debian - no wait Gentoo - no, hang on - Slackware does it better. Well, please don't tell me that unless you've had no problems at all, ever. On the lists I'm on I continually hear users of those distributions complaining as well. Not saying they're not better than RH/Fedora, but dammit, they're a long way off perfect. Every time there's a
In other words, I want users of yum/apt/portage to tell me they've never encountered dependency problems if they've been using them for more than a couple of years. (No, seriously. I would really like to hear, because then I would know which dist to choose)
Sod that. Wanna know how many experiences with DLL hell I've had? None. Zero. In ten years. And that's with me being a heat-seeking beta bunny half the time. The most I've ever had to do is drag a DLL into WINDOWS\SYSTEM32. Never had to go to a command line, ever. I'm not allergic to the CLI by any means, but I do object to being forced to use it because a system's designed badly.
You want to know why I sound so angry about this? Because this is the ONE THING REMAINING that keeps me on Windows. Otherwise, I'm pretty sick of it, and am relishing the chance to move to an OS that's fast, free, and will let me do what I want.
Okay, I may well be the one lucky Windows user, but I doubt it. I know I'm not the one unlucky Linux user. And I do genuinely want to hear experiences or tips that contradict mine, so that I can move to an OS where I can actually see what's going on.
It all came from trying to get GParted running on a RedHat 9 box. After three hours of chasing random extra packages which it needed, and which those packages needed, and which those packages needed, I gave up.
.so's working either. It's that after I did all that, there was still stuff that refused to install, and gave me such arcane reasons that I gave up.
I should clarify that had I not eventually hit some bizarre brick wall that stopped me getting GParted installed and working, you wouldn't be seeing this complaint. But I did. In other words, it's not just that I had to follow dependencies that were not installed and get those too; nor is it just that I had to do a bunch of renaming and symlinking in order to get new versions of
In other words - there is only so much that I should have to know about a system's internals in order to install software. Once I have to understand C and edit header files of packages which I didn't write, that's already way too much.
Sounds like somebody never heard about ClarkConnect. Their distribution is awsome and requires very little user intervention. Everything is done through a web interface.
I highly recommend it!
Cheap storage VM.
Just wait 'til Microsoft redoes Office for .Net. Then run it on Mono or DotGNU.
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
put that into your weekly cron job
me fail english? thats unpossible
> In other words, I want users of yum/apt/portage to tell me they've never encountered dependency problems if they've been using them for more than a couple of years. (No, seriously. I would really like to hear, because then I would know which dist to choose)
.dll hell better then Linux handles dependency hell
.dll hell at all.
If you read my post actually, you'd see that I never claimed them to be perfect to begin with.
That said, despite my relatively low use of windows, I have had more then a fair share of dll hell. It just shows itself in a different way (random crashes, apps just no longer starting etc) instead of by complainign about missing libraries.
At any rate, the issue you describe is a problem of Linux distributions, not of Linux itself. Sadly enough it affects the usability of Linux for many people. Sad because it is quite solvable, unlike on Windows.
Your claim was that Windows handles
Well, Windows has no clue whatsoever about which version of which library it has and where, and as a result does not handle
Dependency hell is a distribution issue, not a Linux issue, so Linux does not handle dependencies at all.
However, some Linux distributions do handle dependency hell, and even if they don't, at least itgives information on what is wrong that could be dealt with by a knowledgable enough user.
The issue here is that there is only a small number of businesses that really want trouble-free basic computing. Most of them want to go down to BestBuy with and buy the printer that's on sale for $65 and print marketing material. Or they want plug in their iPod for doing medical dictations. Or something else that we won't be able to predict.
The main reason the world hasn't switched to stable software is that they value new technology above stable software. The US had increased productivity at a rate of 3% per year for nearly 10 years now. Much of that came from IT innovations. Giving a company a fixed system and expecting them to live with it for 5 years is stagnating them and will be a competetive disadvantage. The support costs for today's buggy system don't outweigh the benefits.
Make a Linux distro that you can easily plug as much crap into it as a Windows box and you'll finally get over 10% market share. Of course then the system will be a buggy and unstable as Windows.
My partner and I are in the process of developing a self-updating system designed for use as a business-class server. It will provide VPN, DNS, Email, Web, and MySQL Services for small to medium-sized businesses. It will be capable of communicating with other servers (ours of course) to share the services (think of Replication and Load Balancing on Demand).
The purpose being a plug-it-in and let-it-play system to provide IT Solutions to company's without the desire to create an IT Department or IT Budget.
If X is the new Y, and Y is "X is the new Y", solve for X.
Every Sunday night all systems do an emerge sync via a cron job. Monday morning I'll take my system and do an emerge -uD world world on it. If everything goes ok with the system on Monday, I'll allow the cron to run Monday night on the rest of the machines doing it to them as well.
Granted it's not the perfect solution, but I've had no issues so far in about 2 months using the systems, and those who use them have had no issues . Literally this takes me maybe 2 hours a week to maintain, and most of that time is just my computer compiling the week's updates while I'm busy doing other things, so its hard to count that as "Time" I could cron my system to run Sunday night, and just check the logs when I get in Monday, but for whatever reason I just like to be there when the first machine compiles the week's updates.
There's still a lot of things I'd love to improve, but judging by how many people keep asking when they can get that "leeenicks thingie" on their system, using the Gentoo portage system in this way seems to work pretty darn well.
Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
Dick. Now I have that sucky song stuck in my head. Fuck you.
I actually got it to work the other day on one of my machines- it usually hangs on the "resolving dependecies" step, requiring a force quit. It's been months since I updated either of my Linux machines, but I keep hoping, and I got "lucky". Happy that I could actually update, I did the whole hog, and xemacs now dumps core complaining that font resources aren't available. An auto-mounted share is totally corrupted as well- trying to go to / hangs any shell waiting for /backup to actually respond. No idea what else is broken.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Well, you really need a new and specific distribution for that, as all the currently available distributions must be attended while updating. An auto-update feature should include neither versions that require changes to configuration files nor those with new features -- only patches and bugfixes. There should be a separate update method for all packages that do not adhere to the mentioned requirements.
;>
Otherwise it is not advisable to update at all. I think
Sun has offered SunRay technology for years. Each SunRay device is a thin client with smart card authentication. Your session follows your smart card so you can use any device on the network. The server software currently runs on Solaris, which is not Linux. but Solaris 10 has the ability to run Linux software, and a Linux version of the SunRay server software is in the works. Solaris runs Mozilla/FireFox/Thunderbird, StarOffice/OpenOffice, and many other apps natively anyway.
The server software has cluster support, so you can add as much hardware as you need. The clients need nothing more than a fast ethernet connection to the server, and a low-bandwidth version for home use is in the works.
DLL Hell? I've seen that. Of course with Windows it manifests itself differently than the Linux/dependancy hell. With Windows, sometimes applications install old DLLs over new ones, breaking several other applications at once. It's rare, and it's not supposed to happen, but it does.
Oh, and urpmi rocks. Takes care of dependancies for you, and it is rare that it's dependancy resolution fails. Not unheard of, but rare.
The bottom line is that operating systems are complex and sometimes fail, no matter which operating system it is. Personally, and for too many reasons to list here, I find Linux much more pleasant to use than Windows.
(Score: -1, Stupid)
Here's a question: How is Groupwise on Linux?
;)
Here or coming shortly for that package:
* corporate IM
* Evolution compatibility
* Groupware win32 client for scriptvirus free work
* use Outlook via MAPI driver?
* Runs on Linux, Solaris, et al.
Has anyone had success with this? I feel at this point there's a certain level of capability in OSS officeware that's 'good enough' for standalone tasks (such as writing memos/documentation, grinding numbers, doing slideshows) but the integration is lacking (due to, in part, balkanization of WMs and toolkits) and more advanced stuff is still too raw for prime time.
Freedesktop may provide the "LSB" equivalent for this functionality, but there's still a lot of 'quirkiness' that hackers may treasure but scare the living shit out of normals. The question is if someone can earn a living as a Stephensonian tour guide, and who knows, I just quit my job
I'm waiting for the next Debian stable to get released, then I think the updating portion of this will be covered nicely.
#!/
You have used windows much have. It shows itself differently as other have said. Microsoft products are the worse on this front but other do the same. It installes older version on top of newer version. That cause alot of the fun blue screens that people see.
A plug-and-play Linux office computer will be available as soon as there's a plug-and-play business. SAP tried this once, and look what it became.
Dumb question IMHO.
As a debian user, I'm a big fan of apt-get. And as far as most things go, it's fairly easy to automate. Perhaps a script that does that apt-get update every night at a given time, and then an apt-get upgrade (but only downloads packages). Next time a privilaged user logs in, it could let you know that new updates are available and let you choose to install them (or choose which ones).
Alternately, Synaptic (screenshot is a bit dated) does a good job of this itself. You have to run the app, but if your packages list is too out-of-date the newer versions will tell you so, at which point you can update and upgrade.
As a Windows consultant for small businesses, the main barrier to Linux for my customers is this: The dominant industry specific packages they use daily that are vital to their business operation, and interoperation w/ customers and partners, aren't supported by the manufacturer if they run on Linux. Sure you could probably get the windows packages running, but my experience is that most of these companies won't even support or understand an even mildly unusual windows install, let alone Linux. Until there is a better collection of Linux compatible industry-specific apps, Linux is a non-starter for the SMB market.
In other words, I want users of yum/apt/portage to tell me they've never encountered dependency problems if they've been using them for more than a couple of years. (No, seriously. I would really like to hear, because then I would know which dist to choose)
/etc/apt/sources.list to the 'testing'-branch and run
Okay, you asked for it so here I am, telling you to give debian a shot.
After installation set your
apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade.
Wait a while, answer a couple interactive questions (most have sane defaults, you shouldn't run into trouble that can't be solved with a bit of googling), now your box is up to date.
Next install the stuff you want but don't have yet,
this might be a good kickstart:
apt-get install kde firefox madman xmms kernel-package abiword pan.
There's a simple rule to avoid breaking debian's package management and that is: don't try to do something that it doesn't want to (don't use the "force"-option) unless you know what you're doing.
The other advice would be to stick with the 'testing'-branch for desktop machines. The packages in 'stable' are pretty outdated (but well, stable!) and 'unstable' can indeed lead to depency hell if, again, you don't know how the the whole thing ticks.
I don't know of anyone who discovered debian and would go back to a RPM based distro.
In fact I'd say that a common route for the linux kids of nowadays is:
1. Knoppix, RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake or similar for the first intro
2. Debian once they're fed up with the little annoyances of the former
3. Gentoo ("Slackware XP")
4. Slack or LFS
You're now on stage 1, insert coin to advance.
Robin Miller asks the question and makes the case for starting a business to sell a self-updating networked Linux system for small business. Any takers?
Yes
It doesn't sound like the author has spent much time trying to get users to switch software. Migrating the software is nowhere near as hard as migrating the users. Just trying to get my clients (almost all small businesses) to switch to Firefox has been a nightmare experience. Any change you make in configuration instantly becomes the cause of any problem that crops up in the next two weeks. If I install Firefox today, and the network printer goes down next week, it will be because I installed Firefox.
Linux, OpenOffice, et al may be great, but users suck.
The other downfall the author suffers from is assuming that small business owners/employees operate inside a small confined set of operations. This is applying enterprise logic to the small business level. At nearly all my small business clients, everyone is an "admin". Apparently it is appropriate for everyone in the company to have decision making capacity when it comes to their computer. I'm their computer tech, not their business consultant. I can tell them that it's a bad idea to run all this crap software, but they'll do what they want, or they'll find a computer guy who will let them.
Many of these small businesses don't run their business consistently enough to survive with a boxed solution. They constantly install new software and experiment with off the wall solutions. It's poor business sense, but they keep paying me to fix the stuff they break, and I keep coming back for another paycheck. The first time the "director of operations" tries to install some shareware bean counting app and it doesn't work, they'll hang me from the nearest tree.
I paint a gloomy picture, but I'm just describing my business. I try to weed out "bad clients", but you've got to make a living. Most of my clients fit the bill for a system like this pretty well... in theory.
The problem with this business model isn't the technology, it's the personnel. And we all know, you can't fix a personnel problem with a technology solution.
Version 4.0 got released not long ago (no version inflation here, we actually used point releases - gasp!) Upgrades are offered through authenticated download, and have to be manually triggered, so you don't need to worry about incompatibilities showing up unexpectedly, but a big notice shows up on your server status page when a new release is available. Patch releases are made to older lines to fix security holes (similar to the Debian security branch) in case you don't want to upgrade for fear of breakage.
Oh, hey, and it even works as a "franchise opportunity", since the small-business sales are done through VARs. Sounds like in 1998, Roblimo had the exact same idea the NITI founders had in 1997, except they went on to actually do it.
The links I listed above are the corporate pages written by marketing - Slashdot geeks will be more interested in the Wiki.
(Disclaimer: I am a former employee.)
I thought that is what all those package managers on the distros were for?
How about a distribution that has a "business desktop" with business-apps pre-installed (something like Knoppix?). I hope to start working on this (probably with Debian as a base). I work with Mandrake Linux their "commercial" distributions, the update process is pretty good.
:)
I like the idea of local franchises helping businesses. Business people have no time or experience to deal with something like "automatic updates". The first they would do is call and complain that "something" has changed
My small company, would be very interested in being a "franchise" but there is no way IT consultants would pay the franchise fee that other people are charging. The Best Buy stores near me have Geek Squads...
The web-browser is the real secret -- porting applications to Linux/Unix still locks you into a platform... and why would you do that?
Have you actually tried using a web application? Give me a traditional application any day.
Auto-updating? Just set it up in YOU. And speaking of YaST, I have yet to find a better tool for managing a Linux system. While I personally prefer Apt to RPM for package management, the simple visual congig panels for just about everything in Linux more than make up for it.
In the movie there's a problem with a new upgrade that creates a backdoor. Robots are getting hacked and creating a mess. The police are worried that their robots will get hacked if they boot them. The sysadmin comes back from vacation and informs the police that he never really installed the upgrade.
Doesn't trust fresh patches...
An entire movie on the dangers of patching. A tale of warning?
227-3517
Thanks for the advice! I'll definitely be trying a Debian dist soon - possibly Ubuntu (since I've heard it's a much easier install than plain Debian)
Java Web Start is pretty cool regarding automatic updating of applications.
For example, I have installed jamp (which is a java based winamp lookalike) and it automaticaly installes a fresh version whenever there is one.
JD4X does what they are asking for.
The commercial spin-off is called Zesktop at zerahstar.com. It's basically Knoppix plus auto-update stuff.
From the site:
Zesktop is our research and development project. Its goal is to achieve a totally automated computing system that is capable of maintaining and fixing itself without any need for human intervention. Other possible features we are working on would include a highly portable and virus free environment. Zesktop is still a project and concept under development and would require your continued support.
It is called MacOS X!
What could be better. You have unix, you have a better MS Office than the PC platform. Built in web, ftp, mail server. No viri.
Auto-update works a treat for Mac OS X. Of the hundreds of updates there have been I can't think of one that has broken an app or created even the most minor problem. Other people's mileage may vary but that's my experience. Perhaps the closed and predictable architecture?
QuickBooks came with my new OS X PowerBook, I've got an installer for it on the hard disk.
I haven't tried it out on Windows so I don't know how well it compares. I have been told that Quicken kinda sucks on the Mac.
The basic problem, as I see it, is the
granularity of the update database,
regardless of the OS (GNU/Linux, OS X,
UNIX, Win32). Shared libraries will
break some code. Given the speed of the
latest crop of computers, and the cheaper
disk storage today, perhaps the answer lies
in the use of static libraries. With static
libraries, so long as an application follows
a specific subdirectory path, the application
could reside anywhere so long as the top level
directory tree includes PATH data to other
resources. (Yes, I know - code bloat.)
With the size of many OS distributions
spanning multiple CDs, or even a DVD,
releasing updated source code for the
BSD equivalent of a "make world" seems
out of the question. Binary patches
offer too many opportunities for rogue
code, especially considering the recent
issues with MD5 hashsums. If Microsoft
cannot provide working binary patches for
their OS, how can anyone expect various
vendors COTS software not to break -- let
alone the wild and wonderful world of
F/OSS?
Bolld will flow, and heads will roll for what I have to say, but it's nowhere.
I mean, today, I got an email attachment from one of the office Linux bigots, AND I HAD TO DO A GIGANTIC DOWNLOAD (OpenOffice) TO READ WHAT HE HAD TO SAY!!!!!!!
OK, I didn't have to pay, but I did have to figure out what application generated the doc (the little twat would supply no clues), then I had to do the rest........, then I could communicate with him on his terms.
I will never hire a Linux bigot.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
For as long as there's been UNIX, there's been arguments that there needs to be a "one true UNIX", often phrased exactly the way parent phrased them. We've even tried it a couple of times. There was an era where it was pretty much all BSD, and another era where SVID compliance was pretty much mandatory.
Oddly, those eras have passed us by. Folks have found that a range of UNIX kernels and application suites, sharing some common function but tuned toward specific niches, is a better match for real work in the long run. Right now, there are a proliferation of Linux distros aimed at a few niches. They are slowly sorting themselves out, though. In the long run (over the next few years) UNIX/Linux as a whole will be strengthened by this competition and differentiation.
As a proud user of 2.9BSD and many of its successors, I'm happy to see the good parts of history repeat themselves once in a while.
Yes http://synapticserver.com/ All linux for small companies. Lots of customers. Just quietly going about our business.
most people don't need the type of box that runs lots of complex software and services that they don't require... employees in most corporations have specific software needs for their job and all would like access to the internet... putting db/cad/cam/graphics aside your basic word processing /spreadsheet bod doesn't need a p4 or an os that has a few dozen different servers and useless apps that ship with it...
Get your torrents...
The Novell Linux Desktop 9 is just what you're asking for. $50/year gets you your updates which can be automatically installed.
Ok, ok, automatic updates have been a disaster on Windows, affirmative. But, the main reason why I think automatic updates will and are succeeding on Linux is that you don't need to reboot every single time you get an update. Everything isn't integrated with the operating system, so just individual packages are updated, thus the difference.
NLD really has the cookie-cutter out of the box corporate desktop available now. OOo is a great product that satisfies 99% of the need, and browsers, e-mail and hardware support are all in there.
I suggest downloading the free 30-day trial package at http://www.novell.com and evaluate it for yourself. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
-m
http://www.invisik.com
I think the part that Linux excels in is how encompassing updates are. With Microsoft you get Windows Update and it takes care of the OS. Then there's Office Update for their Office suite. What about everything else?
I run Debian and all of my software is from the maintained repositories. This means that when I update my system *everything* gets upgraded.
As was stated in another thread, it is very true that there are big business software gaps in the open source realm. This will change in time.
I found the article put into words a lot of what is on my mind and my focus on IT for small companies. I sincerely hope that if this idea flies, that it be with a distribution that is not corporate. Sooner or later the corporation exerts too much power over their customers.
But thats not really a good point. In windows land the tendency to break stuff with updates is more real then in linux. By virtue of the hassles that came come around with automatice updates in one os verses another.
That being said, i'm not a big fan of autoupdating at all. The reason? I think the sys admin should be aware of the software being placed on the computer. Also, i don't want the software licenses to change because i installed some update that now says anythign made with this software is property of someone else or that it cannot be used in a certain way or have a product become disabled because for some reason they think one of the pieces opf software installed is pirated even though i have all the boxes and licenses. There have been more then one time i updated a winxp machine and had to reactivate it. One time it sliped under my radar and was a bitch to get running agian.
Yup, that's probably a good idea. I havent tried other Deb-based distros (except knoppix) myself but they might make installation easier.
:)
Last time I checked the debian installer was still a bit unfriendly.
Just make sure to choose a variant distro that you can upgrade to "real" debian later or you might find yourself stuck with incompatible packages and "locked" into the small distro that doesn't have all the pkgs you want.
I read somewhere that recent knoppix-livecds can optionally drop a Debian installation to your hdd. I have mo expirience with that either but it sounds like it'd be the easiest way to get a base-install going (I imagine you just boot a knoppix and run whatever their disk-installer is called).
Good luck and have fun!
There is nothing inherent in Windows that prevents solving DLL hell. The problem is the same as with Linux: finding compatible capabilities independent of filename or version. DotNET, for example, provides a vastly improved system for dynamically managing versions.
I have spent much time on Windows and DLL hell has become rare because programmers avoid it by linking to DLLs with the version in the filename. Sometimes they even keep all the necessary DLLs in their program's directory, so the application is basically self-contained. This often destroys the principle of reuse, but stability is much more important, and a lot of the libraries that are important to share are standardized by Microsoft and backwards compatible.
The problem is that package management in Linux is so fragmented, as you illustrated. It's not "Linux" (the kernel), it's the distributions -- each creating their own, relatively closed, world of incompatible packages. Of course, if Linus did provide a standard system in the kernel for package management and versioning, it would probably go a long way toward standardizing across all distributions.
Amazingly, in Windows, the world is open: MS doesn't need to maintain a repository of all the properly crafted applications for each version of their distro. Their binary and source APIs are much more stable than Linux, and they tend to maintain backwards compatibility.
I love the idea and heart of Linux, but it seems that a BDFL is required at the distribution level to declare some standards. Installation should be as easy as copying a directory (back to the DOS days). This is the way MS is headed with dotNET. This is why I'm also interested in somewhat similar projects for Linux, such as zero-install. There are some flaws, but even if it were perfect, if it is not widely accepted, it becomes largely meaningless.
> There is nothing inherent in Windows that prevents solving DLL hell. The problem is the same as with Linux: finding compatible capabilities independent of filename or version. DotNET, for example, provides a vastly improved system for dynamically managing versions.
There is nothing that inherently prevents creating a system for handling this. Except for filenames, there is nothing that facilitates managing versions either.
> I have spent much time on Windows and DLL hell has become rare because programmers avoid it by linking to DLLs with the version in the filename. Sometimes they even keep all the necessary DLLs in their program's directory, so the application is basically self-contained. This often destroys the principle of reuse, but stability is much more important, and a lot of the libraries that are important to share are standardized by Microsoft and backwards compatible.
Which helps a bit, and is how this was done in Unix like systems traditionally. elf (and as a result systems that use it, like Linux) has this information as part of the dynamically linked library, and keeps a lot better track of which libraries are where.
Hence the conclusion is still that Windows simply doesn't handle it at all (eventho you can create a workaround) whereas Linux and similar systems have a real system for supporting this.
Windows ocassionally removes functionality and changes licenses during their updates while open source software generally only adds functionality and keeps licenses either the same or very close.
Perhaps Gentoo is less mature that some other distros. I don't know. I do know that after updating I often have to troubleshoot some annoying little problem that occured. I like Gentoo a lot so I am willing to put up with those annoyances but I'm not ready to install it on my parent's computer and I am not ready to configure it to update automatically.
Coding Blog
Linux and the numerous projects born from are great however the diversity and lack of communication between the projects has its issues. I belive the average user will want to cut and paste as it's been done for the last decade before wide adoption. Try copying and pasting an image from GIMP into Openoffice, does it work for you?
On Debian Linux Distro's:
"In a Shell Window Run:
apt-get update
Followed By:
apt-get dist-upgrade
Answer any questions that might come up, and your system will be upgraded."
this was copied from the Debian site: www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-uptodate.en.html
It's been around for years.
I was able to get this using the Google Search Engine to search "Linux update howto". In under 5 minutes, I was able to easily answer this question. I like easy questions.
...Mr. Miller is, of course, purely coincidental.
Ahem....
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
What information does ELF hold that PE doesn't? Note that Windows uses PE and not the old COFF, and that (IIRC) both PE and ELF are based upon COFF. You can certainly store version information in PE. If you're ever in Windows, take a look at the Version tab in the Properties of a modern .exe or .dll.
.so filename and not any supplementary version or capability information provided by the host.
However, AFAIK, that version information is not used when dynamically linking, in either Linux or Windows (other than dotNET) -- they both link solely based upon the filename.
i.e. shared library (.so) resolution in the host program only depends upon the
The package manager is (sadly) independent of this resolution mechanism. I think this is part of why relatively "closed" systems of packages are required by Linux distributions.
The primary advantage that Linux has is that symlinks can be used rather than duplicating files -- i.e. the version is embedded in the filename, but that filename can be resolved to link to a more advanced, but compatible, version. However, this system requires symlink maintenance by someone to determine compatibility and fix it if necessary, which is provided redundantly by each distro and package manager.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Oops. Sorry. After writing my last reply, I noticed that ELF does standardize a SONAME for linking which includes some versioning information, and which can be different from the actual filename it resolves to.
Of course, I suppose it could be argued that the SONAME resolution is not part of Linux since it is up to each executable to implement it. However, since most execs implement it by linking to the standard ld.so, I'm not sure the distinction is that significant.
So if versioning conflicts are not the problem with Linux, why are there still so many incompatibilities and why are packages often restricted to a single version of a single distro?
Having the installer barf if it needs a .DLL that isn't already installed and isn't bundled in the package is better? Than what?
I prefer something that'll search repository sites for the right library parts like apt-get and yum.
The only thing wrong with the automated installers is that only a limited number of apps, mostly system updates are available this way. If the last step of any Open Source development team in a release after making binaries was to get the required info onto apt-get/yum/etc. installer repositories, the only people who would be unhappy with Linux installation would all be working for Microsoft.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I've got a Lexmark printer, USB mass storage camera, and LIDE30 scanner running. I have to unplog and replug my scanner (hotplug problem) so I can run xsane as an ordinery user. Once I've done that, the scanner is recognized immediately. Start xsane and it comes right up. A camera whose name and model is in gphoto or something like that should be picked up immediately.
To get the generic mass storage camera connected (I've got an Aiptex DV3100 supertoy), go http://cyberelk.net/tim/usb-storage.html. You can probably start at Step 4 if you know your camera is doing something (e.g. showing memory access) when plugged into the USB bus.
Tech Public Policy stuff