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.)
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
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because self-updating works so well for Windows... Does it matter what Windows do? And besides not getting used, I haven't heard of problems with windows update.
I think that will have to be an important argument when speaking of security. Linux isn't 100% reliable, just as no system are. Therefore it's recomended that you keep your system up-to-date, but not many common users actually do that, that would probably pose quite an risk if Linux grew to higher market shares, and an autoupdate system will be neccescary.
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
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
I think the whole "locked-down office PC appliances" concept is the key...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?"
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
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/
Set up your own Yum repository with tested packages, and auto-update from that? Seems like the ridiculously simple solution...