IBM Desktop Linux Pledge, One Year Later

Blue writes "It's been more than a year since the bold announcement from IBM that they planned on dumping Windows for Linux throughout the company. InfoWorld is reporting that not all is well with IBM's desktop Linux push. What went wrong?"

Comments

It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

The average user doesn't want Linux. THey want the familiar Windows.

Re:It just won't work.

[tibike77]

For a "FP attempt", the poster sure hit the right spot (by accident?)

If you read the article, the main problem is that some frequently used internal IBM applications only run (so far) on IE. So the users end up using Wine or VMWare (heh, sounds like my apartment mate here).

So, the problem it's not that it won't work at all, it's just that *somebody* lacked the foresight to migrate all day-to-day applications to that "customised Red Hat Linux distribution" IBM uses. And now, the problems finally hit the fan.

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't care whether it's Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, or whatever. They just want to get work done. If they OS enables them to do so, they'll take it.

Therefore, it's just the GUI, and you can make it to as close to Explorer as you want.

Re:It just won't work.

[Locke2005]

Slightly inaccurate. The average user wants whatever they are accustomed to using; forcing 60,000 keyboard-pounders to learn a new user shell IS a difficult, expensive task. The only long-term solution is to make sure users get trained on KDE and/or Gnome first!

Oops! My 3-year old is already reasonably proficient in Windows98! Unfortunately, thats what all of her game and educational software is written for... has anybody succeeded in getting "Barbie's Horse Adventure" running in Wine? ;-)

Re:It just won't work.

[fm6]

The average user doesn't even know what Linux is. What the average user wants is to do his or her job with a minimum of hassle. The hassle of making the transition to Linux is enormous.

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

The average user doesn't need to learn a new user shell, because they still haven't grasped the current one they are supposed to know.

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't remember being asked what I wanted to use at work. I was given Windows. I wanted OS X.

Re:It just won't work.

[dmaxwell]

"Do it like this or get out." When you hold the paycheck and the performance review what the users that is employees want isn't truly the problem. The problem is nobody thought about migrating the internal apps.

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, a friend of mine has often seen me using knoppix to fix his fragged windows machine.

Now he has inherited an old comp to use for printing invoices etc (a basic spreadsheet). I said, yeah no probs with that, you will have to keep the windows 98 it came with, it cannot take win2000. He went a little pale, and said - I dont mind that one of yours.. It looks quite simple to use.

He is so pissed with general windowisms that the only reason he hasnt switched is because he is a gamer...

People just need to over the 'oh my god i need to LEARN something AGAIN' problem with users, then they are grow to love their new upgraded desktop.

That is unless there is a crucial business app that needs windows and doesnt run in wine. Im sure that isnt the case here though...

Re:It just won't work.

[ndogg]

Sure, but we're talking about IBM here. That comment is like saying that most people prefer Coke over Pepsi in an article explaining that a lot of Pepsi employees drink Coke.

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

The average user doesn't need to learn a new user shell, because they still haven't grasped the current one they are supposed to know.

Wait---I'm supposed to know about... what?

Re:It just won't work.

[Sloppy]

THey want the familiar Windows.

No, actually the average user simply doesn't give a damn, either way. To them, it's like asking what shape and size they want their car's air filter to be.

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit! The problem is that people need re-education. It's a boldfaced lie to say 'Linux can't do.....". For example, Linux is wildly more capable than some poor pathetic excuse, such as Microsoft Windows XP. The CD's that XP comes with could be useful for drink coasters perhaps, but nothing else. That there is inertia over at IBM (and some people who apparently cannot code web server software to W3 standards) is somewhat pathetic. To say Firefox (which is the current OSS browser) does not get along with wierd one-off software coded exclusively to one system (and not even IBM's) is sad commentary. I for one have advocated banning web sites that do not conform to W3 standards. It might be hard to make intranets conform, but at least the public internet can remove the stain. As for those who utter 'you can't get Linux to work like', theirs is utter stupidity. Hint: read carefully on the topic of Turing Machines, and the Church-Turing thesis. Try to understand it before uttering "What one system can do another can't" sort of rubbish (oh, and you silly Mickeysoft fanbois and flame-baiters can go have yourselves a nice virus filled day! Happy Crashing!

Re:It just won't work.

[mboverload]

1.) Remove all file extensions
2.) Export registry into 40374 files and scatter them around hard drive for no reason.
3.) Remember to name those files random things, like trontabs
4.) Use a program to then scrable those letters
4.1) Remember to make all folders in the root only 3 characters long with no thought to human organization what-so-ever
5.) Downgrade to Windows 3.1 to get that box window feel (and jaggy-font feel)
6.) Get rid of your printer driver and use the standard linux one. All your ~ are now @'s
7.) Remember to type in lowercase
8.) Create batch commands JUST to copy a file!
9.) Run only text games because your graphics card doesn't have a driver for Linux
10.) Oops! You can't use the backspace key without editing a file in VI, which you dont know how to use anyway
11.) Realize Windows is easier and get your XP cd from trash.

You get my problem.

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor planning makes piss poor performance.
In Y2K they did an inventory to take stock of what actions would be needed. Sounds like IBM has no clue as to what and how much legacy stuff needs fixing.
Web pages and documents have to be made *Open* compliant. Time for them to offer staff 'pay bonuses' to those who do the right thing.

Start the weaning process.
Install OpenOffice, Firefox and the GIMP and a few other apps to start the ball rolling.

Every desktop should be dual bootable. If that can't be managed, they have core competency issues.

If you want to take a stick to MS, let em know you have other capabilities, and your staff are OS agnostic.

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeat after me: Linux is not ready for prime time.

Sure, the average propeller head can dd and modprobe to their hearts content and made linux work well. But the rest of us just can't. And like it or not - many very useful apps are not Open Source and therefore must be ported to linux and that is just an awful proposition for any company. Which distro? How do you get drivers to work, especially when they need to be recompiled and rereleased for each kernel release and each distro release.

Let me describe kernel-hell: You install Linux, the latest kernel 2.6.9. You spend ages getting just the right mix of drivers and apps. You make it stable. Beautiful. Then you need to install a driver for a TV card you just bought. You know the driver existed and worked because you did the research. Comes time to install the driver and the kernel has ticked over to 2.6.10. Suddenly all instances of drivers and kernel modules for 2.6.9 are *gone*. You have no choice but to upgrade your kernel. ick.

The propeller head answer is 'always install from SRPMS (source)'. Users just dont want to do that.

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the problem it's not that it won't work at all, it's just that *somebody* lacked the foresight to migrate all day-to-day applications to that "customised Red Hat Linux distribution" IBM uses.

The problem started before then. It's that *somebody* lacked the foresight to procure software that didn't lock them into a particular vendor.

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

"You get my problem."

That you exagerate?

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

How did this get modded insightful? It is obvious that poster didn't even read the article!

And the article: what a lot of fluff! From the article, I find that:
1. Internal web apps are supportd only on IE. Well, duh! if the help desk is not going to help you with anything except IE, what do you think people will run?
2. Lotus Notes is run under Wine. Well? Are there any problems with that? Article doesn't say.
3. From the article: "Our chairman has challenged the IT organization, and indeed all of IBM to move to a Linux based desktop by the end of 2005," C'mon, people, they still got a full year left!

Lame article; lame FP wrongly modded insightful. Moronic moderators!

Re:It just won't work.

[jdhutchins]

A troll, but I'll bite:
You've either never used linux, used it a *long* time ago, or expected it to be exactly like your favorite windows machine so you wouldn't have to relearn anything.

1.) Remove all file extensions- Most linux programs use file extensions, and with a graphical file manager, you can double-click files to get them to open with the "right" application.


2.) Export registry into 40374 files and scatter them around hard drive for no reason.- They're not scattered around the file system, they're in /etc. The registry is a horrible idea- editing it is not simple, and if you screw it up, there goes your system. Files are easy to edit.

3.) Remember to name those files random things, like trontabs- No one said you had to use the commands, if you don't like a cli, you can use gui programs to do the same time.

4.) Use a program to then scrable those letters,
4.1) Remember to make all folders in the root only 3 characters long with no thought to human organization what-so-ever
- Root directories are well-organized, and what goes into them each is well-definied.

5.) Downgrade to Windows 3.1 to get that box window feel (and jaggy-font feel)- Or use KDE or Gnome, which is probably the default on your distro.

6.) Get rid of your printer driver and use the standard linux one. All your ~ are now @'s- Use the basic CUPS install interface, difficult to screw up.

7.) Remember to type in lowercase- If you don't like the cli, don't use it.
8.) Create batch commands JUST to copy a file!- Or use one of the many graphical file managers that exist.

9.) Run only text games because your graphics card doesn't have a driver for Linux
- Very few graphics cards don't work in linux. Not all games run in linux, but that's a completely different issue

10.) Oops! You can't use the backspace key without editing a file in VI, which you dont know how to use anyway- If you don't know how to use VI, don't use it. There are plenty of graphical text editors that work like you think it will

11.) Realize Windows is easier and get your XP cd from trash.- Or realize that linux is different form windows, and things are usually set up to help you get started on the right foot.

It seems like you installed Linux because you wanted it to work exactly like Windows. Just becuase you were a Windows power user, doesn't mean you automatically know everything about linux. If you had used the graphical configuration tools, you wouldn't have had any of those problems, and you could eventually learn to use a command-line interface if you wanted to.

Re:It just won't work.

[Mr. KFM]

1.) Remove all file extensions

That's an exaggeration.

2.) Export registry into 40374 files and scatter them around hard drive for no reason.

A _major_ exaggeration.

3.) Remember to name those files random things, like trontabs

Well, yeah, but you'll get that on any OS.

4.) Use a program to then scrable those letters

uhhh...

4.1) Remember to make all folders in the root only 3 characters long with no thought to human organization what-so-ever

Well how hard is 'bin' and 'usr' and 'etc' to decipher? Even the dreaded four-letter 'boot.'

5.) Downgrade to Windows 3.1 to get that box window feel (and jaggy-font feel)

Uhhh, there are much nicer-looking *nix boxes than Windows boxes, considering you have several different WM's to choose from, even supporting transparency & translucency.

The fonts are antialiased. >__>

6.) Get rid of your printer driver and use the standard linux one. All your ~ are now @'s

Well that's a fault/laziness on your part.

7.) Remember to type in lowercase

Nonsense.

8.) Create batch commands JUST to copy a file!

More nonsense.

9.) Run only text games because your graphics card doesn't have a driver for Linux

Depends on if your graphics card.

10.) Oops! You can't use the backspace key without editing a file in VI, which you dont know how to use anyway

Well, I have to admit, VI isn't exactly my favorite. That's why there is alternatives, dozens of them.

11.) Realize Windows is easier and get your XP cd from trash.

Well, some people just are.. better equipped for Windows.

Re:It just won't work.

[Allnighterking]

Along the same lines I was talking one day with my wife about switching from windows to Linux .... While she was working on the computer. No problem. She didn't want to do it, and then forbid me from changing what she had. So Along those lines she is still running a heavily updated Mandrake 9.0 ....

Go figure.......

I also did this in an office I worked in. I copied the "splash screen" from windows ME to a number of Win98 and NT boxes. I then spent the following week listening to people complain about how they didn't like ME as well as what they had and wanted to switch back. So I changed the splash screens again.

Finally ... when installing Open Office.org on a users box (especially if they are not a "power point ranger" type.). Never call it a "switch" Refer to it as upgrading their Office software. The reception of the new product will be much higher.

Re:It just won't work.

[nofx_3]

The average user doesn't realize that linux is just a kernel and most of those don't even know what a kernel is even if you were to tell them. The actual system is GNU/Linux becuase the kernel is kinda useless without the application layer. This is a problem with GNU/Linux in my opinion, most users just want stuff to work they don't want to have to learn a whole new language and philosophy just to understand the basics of the system they are using.

-kaplanfx

Re:It just won't work.

[koko775]

I believe you mean "it's just the software" -- gui and familiarity are second to functionality, though a good program is never without both.

Re:It just won't work.

[b17bmbr]

the average user doesn't give $0.02 whether it's linux, windows, os x, or (___________) OS. they just want to do a few things, like, oh, i don't know: surf the net, chat with friends, look at their dig photos, listen to music, email, type a letter or two, balance their checkbooks, etc. if they buy a printer or a scanner or something else, they wnat it to just work. that's all they want to do. and as for a business desktop, they want even less: to do their work. as for windows, as long as crappy web developers use front page or vbscript, or activeX, or what ever the hell is IE specific, then the onus is on the shitty specs. i hardly imagine someone really says, "hey, let's really fuck with those firefox users, we'll make it IE only!!! mooahahahahaha!!!"

as for linux, it handles about 90-95% of 90-95% of users needs. for example my wife is almost all open source (firefox, mozilla mail, even OO.org) on her XP box, excpet she is a semi-pro photographer and needs photoshop CS. (no gimp is not a replacement. for me, yes, for her, no.) so that leaves about 10% of users who need windows. the problem comes in as that 10% is not always the same 10%. so, most linux users are going to have a gap somewhere, a digi camera, scanner, printer, or worse, some stupid small app, probably that came with the scanner, etc. or that bridge game that aunt gertrude sent that you gotta play. so linux is always in the red zone and has to settle for a field goal, which usually goes just wide right (football terms).

what users don't want, however, are 6 million viruses, hackers accessing their CC#'s, spyware, and all the assorted maladies that windows is oh so famous for. but, they put up with the cow shit to get the roses. linux might not have the shit, but it doesn't always give you roses.

wtf was i smoking. i'm on a metaphor high or something. anyways, users want a hammer, whatever the brand, and they want it to hammer nails. that's all.

Re:It just won't work.

[ChatHuant]

"Do it like this or get out." When you hold the paycheck and the performance review what the users that is employees want isn't truly the problem. The problem is nobody thought about migrating the internal apps.

That's rather naive. In real life a company usually has other reasons for existence than running Linux. The productivity of the workers is the most important thing managers worry about. Management will think long and hard about the benefits of forcing employees to switch and destroying their productivity in the process (even if it's only temporary).

Re:It just won't work.

[acebone]

Mod this one up - FP is just slush spouted from a bovine rectum

Re:It just won't work.

[mboverload]

That was a joke, based on a flash movie I once saw. lol, you guys are too serious =)

Re:It just won't work.

[dmaxwell]

True but let's get real. If you move a menu item two positions down in the dropdown you'll get people bitching. --whiny voice --But I want my Windows back! -- end whiny voice-- is no more reason to run Windows than fanboyism is to run Linux.

The problem isn't that Linux can't do the job or that people don't want it. The problem is that this was a politcal mandate from the top without sufficient technical and financial backing and planning. They already tolerate Domino and Notes internally. Just how bad can Linux truly be for productivity if they already have to live with those turds?

Even if the transistion was well planned and executed the cover-the-monitor-with-post-its crowd will still bitch. They've already had to be threatened when Windows was deployed and they had to be threatened when different apps were deployed on Windows. With these people, the fact that Linux is the subject of transistion is immaterial. Hence, what they want is immaterial.

Re:It just won't work.

[kefentse]

I must first begin by saying that I am probably less experienced with Linux than most in this forum, I have been an on and off Linux user for about 4 years now. First Red Hat, then Mandrake, then Susue, then Ubuntu...But I am a business guy and partime geek. From a business perspective, what I see mostly missing from this entire equation is a company, or team to step up to the plate and say: "Linux has potential...why don't we offer high quality linux hardware and software products?" I am still not sure why this has not happened. Is there not enough of a market? Why is there still not an easy way to install software like people are used to in windows? How can you expect hardware manufactuers to have their products come out with ALL of the distributions on a daily basis? I installed Mepis on my sister's computer about 3 months ago and she has had relatively few problems, but when she calls me up to tell me she cant play a WMV file embedded in a webpage, and I have no answer for her, then there is still a ways to go. When there is still no gui wireless roaming client for laptops, linux will still be a second class OS. I say this not to bash Linux, but let's be honest, there is ALOT of work to be done in the Linux for this OS to be ready for everyday people. Now, I am no Linux developer, but I would DEFINITELY be inetersted in seeing how many Linux developers understand the average user. Until I find a linux developer that actually cares about what the "average user" really needs and, instead of pretending that Linux is already a real alternative, is dedicated to bringing a usable alternative about, then I do not see the Linux desktop stepping into primetime. Just my humble opinion... :)

Re:It just won't work.

[kefentse]

I must first begin by saying that I am probably less experienced with Linux than most in this forum, I have been an on and off Linux user for about 4 years now. First Red Hat, then Mandrake, then Susue, then Ubuntu...But I am a business guy and partime geek.
From a business perspective, what I see mostly missing from this entire equation is a company, or team to step up to the plate and say: "Linux has potential...why don't we offer high quality linux hardware and software products?"
I am still not sure why this has not happened. Is there not enough of a market?
Why is there still not an easy way to install software like people are used to in windows? How can you expect hardware manufactuers to have their products come out with ALL of the distributions on a daily basis?
I installed Mepis on my sister's computer about 3 months ago and she has had relatively few problems, but when she calls me up to tell me she cant play a WMV file embedded in a webpage, and I have no answer for her, then there is still a ways to go.
When there is still no gui wireless roaming client for laptops, linux will still be a second class OS.
I say this not to bash Linux, but let's be honest, there is ALOT of work to be done in the Linux for this OS to be ready for everyday people.
Now, I am no Linux developer, but I would DEFINITELY be inetersted in seeing how many Linux developers understand the average user. Until I find a linux developer that actually cares about what the "average user" really needs and, instead of pretending that Linux is already a real alternative, is dedicated to bringing a usable alternative about, then I do not see the Linux desktop stepping into primetime. Just my humble opinion... :)

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not simply the transition - attempting to run Linux as a desktop day-to-day is an enormous hassle for the "average user".

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds more like somebody took the most cost-effective option available that did the job at hand. You would do the same, or else perish along with IBM's competitors.
note that zealots aren't the most successful in any field except religion. Think about that before posting about 'foresight' and vendor lock-in. There aren't always options to choose from.

Re:It just won't work.

[darthdavid]

In a similar (but meaner spirited) vein, I once took a screen shot of my mom's desktop, removed all the icons, minimized the start bar and then set the screen shot as the desktop background. Ahhh good times.

Re:It just won't work.

[Ogerman]

sounds more like somebody took the most cost-effective option available that did the job at hand

Designing with web standards is the cost effective option. Obviously they hired the wrong people to write their internal apps (or had nobody to give them proper guidance) and now they're paying the price. It is almost always more cost effective long-term to maximize your future options. Flexibility yields efficiency. In the case of web standards, it's cheaper even in the short term to develop with strict conformance because this methodology gives you a way to test the results. "It looks right in IE" works until something breaks or IE gets updated.

And cut the crap about "zealots." If you don't know what you're talking about, don't even bother posting.

Re:It just won't work.

[1u3hr]

The productivity of the workers is the most important thing managers worry about. Management will think long and hard about the benefits of forcing employees to switch and destroying their productivity in the process (even if it's only temporary).

If switching reduced productivity, of course no one would do it. In the medium term no more viruses and very little if any malware. (I.E., increased productivity.) In the short term, no greater discomfort than any upgrade (DOS->Win 3->Win95->Win98...; WordStar -> WinWord; version x -> version x+1).

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or perhaps its because *somebody* besides Microsoft lacked the forsight to create a desktop operating system which didnt tie people to one specific network platform, and would also allow developers an easy and standardized platform to write software for.

Last I checked, one program written for linux probably wouldnt install properly across all the various distros. That issue alone is stunting Linux's acceptance as a serious OS, but there are many more such issues.

And, of course, is the always-ignored (at least by the linux community) issue of a higher TCO, since you are then required to retrain each and every staff member on how to use their new computer, how to use their new programs, etc. 99% of people enter into corporate America knowing how to use Windows- retraining them to use something new is just, from a resource standpoint (both time and money), plain stupid.

Re:It just won't work.

[sumdumass]

Thier goal wss to have this done by 2005. I'm not sure this is a bug setback.

IBM is a large enought company to start throwing money at the problems onc ethey get it worked out. The article did nothign to mention if there is active develpment on the aplications that only run in IE or VMware. It almost seems to be a "you cannot do it article. As the ending stated, acording to IBM, using wine it just a patch and not a solution.

I guess in about a year we will know for sure.

Re:It just won't work.

[sumdumass]

umm there are some parellels between what you say and the microsoft upgrades being dramticaly different fomr oprevious versions too. Users going from 98 or 2000 still needed some training for XP.

I don't think it is too much of an issue. Or at least it isn't near as bad as you make it out to be. BTW, the only things thta change on the different software platforms is were the config directories are store and maybe one or two other things. I can easily jump from a redhat/fedroa box to a mandrake, or a SuSE box on both pc and ppc. The only thinng i need it $locate , $propos and webmin and and verry little escapes being done.

Re:It just won't work.

[ignorant_newbie]

>gui and familiarity are second to
> functionality, though a good program is never
>without both

a good program is never without gui? wtf? let's see...
squid
apache
postgres ...

Re:It just won't work.

[cofaboy]

Can't help it have to bite sorry folks.

How many different desktop distributions would you use across an enterprise? Oh just the ONE, oh look that means all the apps that you need will just work!

Retraining for the desktop is not that big an issue, a quick class with every body in that building section and hey presto one week later they'll have forgotten about that, sorry whats that other office suite called?

Retraining costs = done once.
License costs = forEVER

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds more like somebody took the most cost-effective option available that did the job at hand.

It's not cost-effective if it causes problems down the line, is it? Lock-in is a business risk, pure and simple.

note that zealots aren't the most successful in any field except religion.

It's not zealotry to want to avoid business risk! If anything, it's zealotry to accuse others of being zealots for not automatically acquiesing to Microsoft.

Re:It just won't work.

[Sneeka2]

that some frequently used internal IBM applications only run (so far) on IE.

What I want to know here is, whether they're using some ActiveX stuff, or if they simply coded their websites bad enough to only make them work in IE. That's a problem I have where I work: I prefer using Firefox, but some Intranet code is so messed up it simply does not render correctly, because it was developed for IE...

Re:It just won't work.

[gilesjuk]

The average office user has to use what the company decides on.

But anyway, IBM shouldn't make the mistake of using their own software simply because they want to. They should choose what is right for the job. Given the lack of a Linux Lotus Notes client it seems like they have made the wrong choice for now.

Re:It just won't work.

[Gordonjcp]

To them, it's like asking what shape and size they want their car's air filter to be.

Visit your local IBM plant, or any other large company. Count the number of K&N stickers on the boot lids.

Re:It just won't work.

[sl4shd0rk]

That's not what I see at all. What I see 40,000 to 60,000 employees. I see politics. I see personal agendas. I see a lot of people that do not get along well, and a lot that do. I see a lot of people that do not want or welcome change, or are afraid of anything that makes their enivironment different, and then I see a lot of people that DO want change and are not afraid of it. Is any of this starting to sound familiar? Can you relate? When you have that many people involved, simply changing the brand of asswipe in the loo is going to make some people freeeek the f#ck out. With this many people involved, not much ever gets done efficiently or quickly.

Re:It just won't work.

[Taladar]

Judging by my experiences with users as a sysadmin training when switching from one version of windows to another would be necessary as well. The people having to decide wether they do this just don't train the people because inefficient work is not a hard number while training costs are. Training for Linux would at least be necessary only once because you don't have to change to a new Windowmanager (differences between Windows versions are like two different window managers) every few years.

Re:It just won't work.

[szo]

yes. You're too stupid to use a computer. I bet you have serious problems with windows also.

Szo

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The usual file extensions management in linux distros like red hat is broken and mostly crap.

2) They also clutter up my home directory. And unless you know which file in which of the hundreds of folders in /etc to edit you are stuck.

3) The gui versions dont exist for most of the config files. I have never found the X configurator to work at all

4) Except that each distro has his/her own definitions. Way to go chief!!

5) Have you used kde or gnome? They mostly feel very immature. Cut and paste still does not work across half the apps

6) Cups is not at all easy to configure. Even ESR ( a full time linux enthusiast) had problems with it had wrote a pretty famous rant.

7) Many linux apps/distros assume the presence of a CLI and dont have graphical alternatives that are easy to use.

8) This point is valid enough. KDE has a nice fm. But on the gnome side nautilus will not allow me to cut and paste into another nautilus window.( This was its state last i used it. How much more anti user friendly can you get?)

9) He meant a 3d accelerated driver for use with most games. It is a big issue for most of us who use computers for entertainment.

10)When your x windows does not startup (happens lots of times) you have no other choice than to use vi. Again this ability is assumed by most distros.

11)Oh linux is different from windows?? Then stop trying to tell people to use linux when all they want is a windows that works properly.

Re:It just won't work.

[Donny Smith]

>So, the problem it's not that it won't work at all, it's just that *somebody* lacked the foresight to migrate all day-to-day applications to that "customised Red Hat Linux distribution" IBM uses.

You are so naive!

First, noone said it doesn't work at all.

Second, that somebody did not have the budget to migrate all day-to-day applications.
Are you kidding? That would have cost them more than all Windows client licenses together.

And finally, the grandparent was right - people don't give a shit.
If you've ever worked for a big company, you would have known that instead of fucking around with /etc/Xll/XF86Config options IBM employees are giving 100% to make their goddamn numbers (or you get sent home to take it easy and play with your Gentoo or whatever).
And I don't think any of those folks are really banging their head against the wall and crying over the fact that they can't use Mozilla. Who cares - their first and foremost task is to do their jobs and currently it's Microsoft Windows.

R&D and some other folks use Linux because they don't use sales and other fancy apps, because they can support themselves, because they had used UNIX workstations before so they didn't have much opportunity to get addicted to Windows, and because they like it and as that guy said noone tells them not to use Linux.

In other words, nothing out of what you see in most places elsewhere.

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

" 3.) Remember to name those files random things, like trontabs"

It's "crontab", which is a combination of the "crond", the application daemon name (which has something to do with time scheduling, i.e., chronology), and "tab" (which is short for table, as in table of configuration information for the cron daemon). It all makes a lot of sense, really.

"4.1) Remember to make all folders in the root only 3 characters long with no thought to human organization what-so-ever"

On the contrary, using two and three letter contractions for the most commonly-used commands and top-level directories (they are DIRECTORIES in *nix. "Folders" is as Mac and Windows idiom) was a very intentional design decision for efficency purposes. You obviously never took the time to learn Morse code :), in which the most common letters have the shortest codes so that operator efficiency is maximized.

"You get my problem."

Yes. You're not very bright.

Re:It just won't work.

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Someone made a tradeoff in favor of short-term cost savings that imposed long-term cost burdens on the company. It "did the job at hand", but left the company dependent on Microsoft's tender mercies.

Re:It just won't work.

[andalay]

Changes between window managers aren't that big. There is a standard to follow...

Re:It just won't work.

[SpaceLifeForm]

More likely, *somebody* had the foresight to realize that there would be problems and resistance, but that if they didn't start the process, it would never get done.

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Second, that somebody did not have the budget to migrate all day-to-day applications.
Are you kidding? That would have cost them more than all Windows client licenses together.

Yea, maybe more than the windows licences for a year, or five, or hell, twenty, but on a long enough time line it always saves money.

Re:It just won't work.

[bluefoxlucid]

1) The usual file extensions management in linux distros like red hat is broken and mostly crap.

Take the hint: Red Hat is total shit. They have fake security (smoke and mirrors that can be easily evaded); fake image; and, according to you, fake user friendly. Use a REAL distribution.

Mandrake and SuSE are ridiculed, but guess what? They work, they're nice, they're really really good. SuSE I can't find for download; but mandrake 10.1 is a good looking one.

I say go with Gnome. KDE was always overly flashy but highly immature. Gnome 2.4+ is great; I use 2.8 and am waiting for 2.10. Its WM and traditionally packaged applications seem to be more focused on usability than borguiose, yet still manage to get the prettification in to a usably pleasing level.

Gnome actually is maturing rapidly; they have a new release every few months; and each release is significant in some way, yet at the same time not visibly different on the surface. What I mean is, new features and better packaged applications (gedit and file roller for example) are available, but the environment doesn't seem alien after each upgrade.

2) They also clutter up my home directory. And unless you know which file in which of the hundreds of folders in /etc to edit you are stuck.

The .files are "hidden" files that you don't see without ls -a or tab completion in bash, or special settings in your GUI browser.

Use linuxconf (red hat) or webmin (web based, GUI) or whatever is packaged with your distro to do administration, and worry about /etc/fstab by hand.

I modify several files in there manually, but I've encountered each tool for the jobs. My brain just sucks up tons of trivial information, and it becomes me clicking buttons and visualizing what any GUI tool is doing to the config file; hence it's more efficient FOR ME (not for you) to do it by hand.

If you want to do it by hand, that's a choice you should make; any good distribution should provide you with tools to do it for you though.

3) The gui versions dont exist for most of the config files. I have never found the X configurator to work at all

X -configure (automatic

xorgconfig

xf86config

Mandrake and SuSE and Debian auto-configure X for you.

4) Except that each distro has his/her own definitions. Way to go chief!!

Linux Standard Base and Linux FileSystem Hierarchy standards dictate the organization. /bin /sbin /usr /usr/bin /usr/share /etc and friends were all around in the original UNIX from 1979. You shouldn't CARE; your package manager is supposed to deal with that. You should need to know /etc, /home, /root and that's it; I've never had to manually fiddle with contents of the other directories (I *have* done it, but I'm a hacker, I write my own programs and modify scripts).

5) Have you used kde or gnome? They mostly feel very immature. Cut and paste still does not work across half the apps

I use Gentoo on AMD64. It's broken. It's not ready. Most apps (openoffice) require patches that Gentoo has supplied so thankfully it "works" for me with minimal work. I couldn't even log in to Gnome aside from a failsafe or manual log-in (log into a terminal in X, then run gnome-session).

I STILL had and have working cut-and-paste everywhere. Highlight/middleclick and ctrl-[cx] ctrl-v. Remember with hightlight/mouse3 that you can't highlight, then highlight and paste over.

6) Cups is not at all easy to configure. Even ESR ( a full time linux enthusiast) had problems with it had wrote a pretty famous rant.

Firefox.

http://127.0.0.1:631

Add printer.

Give root/rootpw

Follow the simple onscree

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

But there is irony here, because IBM is the COMPANY that deployed dual sourcing for CPUs, which is why INTEL isn't quite as dominant in the CPU market as Microsoft is in software.

IBM used sensible buying strategies for many things, and also had it's own PC OS, and now they have lockin to MS's.

Well I think it is ironic. I bet their is a REXX hacker in the basement, typing away happily in OS2, managing half the worlds financial databases, who hasn't even heard of Microsoft, or Linux, or GNU.

Re:It just won't work.

[mikefe]

I work at a small company (less than 200 employees, but only 50 desktops), and I know what it is like to train some people.

Some people just do not get it. It has taken them years to get to their rudamentary skill level with their current apps and any change will have them going to their superiors.

An equation that has worked the best (but not always) is to work with the people who are intuitive with the computer and are well liked within the company first. You teach them, and they inevitably show it to others and teach them. After that goes well, you show your results to my and their superiors to try wider adoption.

This process also surrounds the people who learn at a slower rate (talk about an understatement) with others who have already learned the new program.

I have done this with Mozilla (suite), Thunderbird and Firefox. I'm in the process of doing this with the GIMP, OpenOffice, PDF Creator and GAIM.

Any and all change needs to be done in baby steps. There may be a few exceptions, but then there are for all rules and sayings.

Re:It just won't work.

[henleg]

Isn't it a bit ironic that you aim what you wrote to a company like IBM that is making their daily bread on selling services like you talk about to other companies?! *yikes*

IBM wrote a redbook on the topic

[Dancin_Santa]

The redbook is about 200 pages, but it talks mostly about the migration of desktops by discussing server administration techniques rather than focusing on enabling users to upgrade painlessly.

Linux (nay, any OS) migration is tough work for the administrators *and* the users whom it affects.

It's not a surprise that they weren't able to do it.

Re:IBM wrote a redbook on the topic

[aztektum]

Weren't able to do it?

From the article: "Our chairman has challenged the IT organization, and indeed all of IBM to move to a Linux based desktop by the end of 2005," Greenberg wrote in a November 2003 memo.

By my calendar they still have 11 months to "do it." The article never said they "gave up."

Re:IBM wrote a redbook on the topic

[arivanov]

And they will fail.

There are two main sticking points: Lotus Notes and Web base tools that work only with IE.

They have not dedicated any resources towards getting the first work natively and the goatse.cx called Wine is not a solution. It is a workaround until the solution is there. At least for an IBM application such as Lotus Notes. And with the investment into LN for an organization of their size switching away from LN (if there was anything to switch to) is not an option.

They have not dedicated any resources towards making their tools work with multiple browsers.

Why should they expect that it will just work then?

To add to that especially as far as the LN is concerned they are being outright idiotic. The abcense of an LN client is what prevents the rollout in many large corps which are not entirely locked into MSFT. If they want to sell Linux they should actually bite the bullet and remove one of the main sticking points to selling it into a large enterprise instead of talking marketing bullshit.

Basically, they should put their money where their mouth is.

Re:IBM wrote a redbook on the topic

[torpor]

It's not a surprise that they weren't able to do it.

WHERE DOES IT SAY THEY *WEREN'T ABLE TO DO IT*????

it doesn't. the goal is, end of 2005.

this 'story' is really a case of a reporter having had the story written for him before he even starts his word processor .. lets get some "BIG PLAYER" (IBM) and "FOMENT CONTROVERSY" by looking at their "OLD PR" and bringing it into the 'HEADLINES' again ...

the news is: IBM has converted thousands of its desktops to Linux. it is still doing that.

Re:IBM wrote a redbook on the topic

[Fallus Shempus]

While they're at it do you think they could actually make the Lotus Notes client vaguely pleasant to use? There is a Web based version of the client, but I've not used it under Linux ... yet.

Re:IBM wrote a redbook on the topic

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a Web based version of the client, but I've not used it under Linux ... yet.

There's a web-based version of the Notes mail client, but it only handles that one application. It actually works quite well under Linux. Not nearly as useful and painless as gmail, but it works. The Lotus Notes full client (including admin and developer) is a much larger issue. IBM, I think, is hoping to sunset LN and replace it with something else rather than port it. A hopelessly optimistic strategy.

Re:IBM wrote a redbook on the topic

[Red_Harvest]

I work for IBM Norway and I have found exactly _zero_ web-based applications that require IE.

Lotus Notes is a different matter, but with the coming (hopefully soon) switch to IBM Workplace, this shouldn't be a too much of a problem either.

Re:IBM wrote a redbook on the topic

[jallen02]

Many internal, or administrative, web applications target Internet explorer to do fancier DHTML etc. without worrying about writing standard compliant code ;)

Get it done ;) Its just an internal application, what does it matter?

Jeremy

Re:IBM wrote a redbook on the topic

[Profane MuthaFucka]

The IBM travel website in the US will refuse to work with Firefox on Linux. It has a message saying that it wants IE.

Re:IBM wrote a redbook on the topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Can people clarify the LN issue, been away from Notes for too long (thank goodness!).

I've run Lotus Notes on lots of platforms, I assume this is applications within Lotus Notes that rely on Windows. I thought it had gone Java?

That said Lotus Notes use to have crappy printing support in HP-UX, it would lock files, until the easiest fix was a reboot, not the kind of effect a Unix admin expects from software.

Re:IBM wrote a redbook on the topic

[ken_devon]

I use Lotus Notes on Linux all the time (I shelled out for Crossover Office, but wine works too - it's just more work to set up). I runs find to - well, just as good as on Windows anyway.

I know I know!!

[rainman_bc]

IBM Users have been complaining they cannot install those fabulous search toolbars they've come to enjoy on their windowz boxen!

=D

How Disappointing

[bigtallmofo]

If IBM of all companies is developing their internal applications to require Internet-Explorer dependent technologies like ActiveX... What does this say about their commitment to Linux?

Hopefully this is just a case of a huge company's left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. But still, this is very disappointing.

Re:How Disappointing

[fm6]

It's not so much right hand not communicating with left hand. The Linux mandate came from the very top, and all hands are supposed to say, "Sir! Yes Sir!" But many hands (this metaphor is out of control, but you know what I mean) resisted, and either managment lacked the will to overcome resistance or (and this is my guess) couldn't face the necessary disruption that a total retooling would cause.

Re:How Disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

If IBM of all companies is developing their internal applications to require Internet-Explorer dependent technologies like ActiveX... What does this say about their commitment to Linux?

It's not necessarily about using technologies such as ActiveX - the organisation I work for had a dependency on Netscape 4 (and only certain versions of that) because of the Javascript and HTML it used. It was developed when NS4 was our standard browser, and the system was too critical to be "fixed" to work in IE (Mozilla has only recently become a viable option). IBM could well be in the same boat.

Re:How Disappointing

[Greyfox]

I never saw any ActiveX components in the company. Mind you, I was a contractor and didn't have to access the assorted things that the regulars had to use. However, the internal development platform seems to be either Lotus Notes or Websphere/JSP. A couple of the more necessary apps were implemented in Java and ran just fine on Linux.

Lotus Notes seems to be by far the biggest thorn in everyone's side. While it does run(ish) on Wine, most people who would be adopting Linux early prefer to handle their E-Mail themselves, and no one could ever convince IT to enable the imap servers on the Notes servers.

The thing no one seems to understand about IBM is that they tend to work in 5 year cycles. All the platform planning that's going on now won't be deployed for 4 or 5 more years. That means that the Linux push, which is only a year or two old, still has some time to go before it reaches maturity. Getting a company of 200,000+ people to change course is not a quick process. I would not be surprised to see a huge deployment of Linux company-wide in about 3 years. They'll probably still be running Notes using Wine then, though.

Re:How Disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, my personal experience in running Linux exclusively at IBM is different. I haven't had any issues running Firefox for well over a year for all of my internal intranet stuff (POs, boss reviews, web classes, web certification, training, etc.).

The problem is that as far as I can tell, none (or very few) of the stand-alone apps I use* have been ported to Linux. I run Notes on Wine (which is fine -- it's slower but not enough to be a problem on my work machine, a 1.8 Ghz PC), but occasionally have to run one Java (ironic! should be easy to port, right?) IBM custom application that doesn't have a Linux client. So, I have to boot Windows to run this app, maybe once or twice a month for ten minutes.

But the web has never been a problem for me. The closest thing is a news service we have from another company that complains about possible problems since I'm not using IE. It was especially ironic once, as I was reading an article posted on the front page of our intranet portal complaing about IE security, urging people to switch to Firefox, and I had to click on that stupid button for the "you're not using IE" warning to go away. The web page, however, has always renderd 100% ok though. I'm annoyed that IBM doesn't slap this vendor around for stupidity -- all the articles are presented in plain text anyways and render fine on non IE browsers.

* Big company, I guess they haven't gotten to porting the specific stand alone apps *I* use, anyways, to Linux.

Re:How Disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they do, you can run IE and ActiveX with Wine.

Not sure about the licencing issue though

Re:How Disappointing

[The_Mystic_For_Real]

They're only committment to linux is a revenge fantasy against MS. Open source has definite potential for long term profit, but in the current environment, waiting not only for sales but for support contracts to come in for profit to be made would be a very risky move for any company to make. All the promises of future earnings won't make a big difference to the invesors that will leave when quarterly earnings reports slip below expectations.

Re:How Disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

If IBM of all companies is developing their internal applications to require Internet-Explorer dependent technologies like ActiveX... What does this say about their commitment to Linux?

Is developing? Nope.

How about legacy apps and small internal projects that grew beyond their original scope? Some of it might be IE-only, but most of the intranet works fine with Firefox -- I use it every day. The only problems I have are with applets and that's because I don't want to install Sun's JVM. When I hit an applet, I just fire up IE. If I didn't have IE, I'd get Java working in Firefox.

BTW: All of our webapps are required to be cross-browser compatible and fully accessible.

Re:How Disappointing

[Directrix1]

Or maybe retooling actually takes time, and they are in the progress of retooling. IBM is a very large company. The fact that they have not migrated 100% to Linux yet does not surprise me at all. I think they just gave a grossly overzealous estimate of when they could have this done.

Re:How Disappointing

[Sloppy]

If IBM of all companies is developing their internal applications to require Internet-Explorer dependent technologies like ActiveX... What does this say about their commitment to Linux?

Forget that, what does it say about their overall sanity? Linux isn't the only platform that ActiveX doesn't run on -- it hardly runs on anything at all. They could have been trying to upgrade to MacOS or BSD or (heh) AIX or anything, and they would have trouble. They could have tried to eat their own dog food on hardware, by say, switching to PPC 970 machines or something like that, and even if they got a MS Windows port to that hardware, the ActiveX crap would have given them grief. When you lock yourself into this kind of shit, you're saying No to all possible futures, where Linux is just one little face in the crowd.

The really sad thing is that ActiveX has only been around about 10 years. It's not like this used to be a good idea that fell out of fashion, but then it was too late because they were trapped in a legacy -- it was always dumb, from day 1. This story isn't about Linux, it's about how IBM fucked themselves by not thinking. It's about how they didn't fire some idiot in time to prevent long-lasting damage.

Re:How Disappointing

[Scott7477]

I have been using Lotus Notes as an email client for about seven months now since I came to a new job and as far as I am concerned it is a steaming pile of horse manure. I'll have four or five other programs running just fine and as soon as I fire up Lotus the whole works slows down to a crawl

Re:How Disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

I never saw any ActiveX components in the company. Mind you, I was a contractor and didn't have to access the assorted things that the regulars had to use.

As a contractor, you didn't use the one thing that is really the only thing that requires a Windows machine--the online travel tool. That's the only thing that is commonly used that requires ActiveX. I end up having to make my travel arrangements within VMware or via the travel agency. Real PITA.

Re:How Disappointing

[johnlcallaway]

Writing web pages for specific browsers is asking for problems. Writing simple web pages, and being able to not have to use all the javascript/ active-X/ embedded objects/ flash the marketing department wanted meant the pages loaded fast and always worked. (by flash I don't mean Macromedia, I man snazzle, pop, eye-candy.)

Our site didn't have flashy menus that rolled down or snazzy Macromedia flash presentations, but they did what they were supposed to do cleanly, efficiently, and with far less user support and maintenance headaches than the fancy ones. All the glitz and glammer was limited to animated gifs and well selected colors schemes. I have seen web pages that were over 100K of text because of all the javascript and css included in them, pages that are more code than content.

Javascript can be a great tool to help a user (calendar pop-ups, form field validation, etc.), but does one really need all the overhead for roll-over buttons and menus when a well designed navigation scheme would eliminate it? It's one thing to add a few lines of code to a drop-down box to auto-load the next page, it's another to do it at the expense of taking off the submit button (my personal pet peeve).

My opinion is that using the fancy features is driven by lack of creativity or by marketing types that are focused on sales rather than usage. It's easy to use fancy menus to make navigation easy, it's a lot tougher to design a web site so that the fewest clicks get you to the most used pages. Flash on a movie trailer site?? Go ahead, you want gimmicks there. Flash on a data entry site, I don't think so.

All the fancy gimmicks and such are cool the first time, but for the users that actually use a web site and come back often, they fade into the background about the third time and they just want to get work done.

Re:How Disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

If IBM of all companies is developing their internal applications to require Internet-Explorer dependent technologies like ActiveX.

Where did you get that idea? The article only says that the help desk only answers questions about IE. Stupid, but nothing like you said.

Re:How Disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

There *is* a Linux Sametime client available. Two of them, in fact. Notes runs well enough under WINE that I use it for Domino development work.

As for the internal applications, we're mostly talking about legacy applications written years ago. The current web standards absolutely require that applications work with any web browser, not just Internet Explorer. In fact, web applications have to work with screen readers too, and there are lengthy conformance tests applications go through. Failure to pass means you need a special exemption for your application, and you can only get that if you have a written plan for how you're going to fix its compliance.

Re:How Disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not. But IGS, like most big IS departments, has a nasty habit of bringing in third-party applications written by lazy companies who use the MS tools to produce applications that just so happen to only work under IE due to dependence on such wonderfully secure technologies as ActiveX. That's where the breakdown is.

The stupid thing is that IBM is a large enough customer to actually have an impact here. If they turned round and told vendors that any web-based applications that exclusively use ActiveX or other proprietary and non-portable "technologies" would be immediately disqualified from consideration, it just might make a few of them wake up and take notice. Or not. Sigh.

Re:How Disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats all well and good, but then why did the CEO claim a 1-year migration?

Re:How Disappointing

[hbo]

Time and money.

In a company the size of IBM, with many, many years of technology legacy, a conversion to any set of standards, open, closed or half ajar is bound to be fabulously expensive. I mean, there are still app front-ends running on the mainframes, although I haven't had to use many since I started two years ago. Not Firefox, not IE, tn3270 . 8)

Re:How Disappointing

[fm6]

Linux isn't the only platform that ActiveX doesn't run on -- it hardly runs on anything at all.

Except that "hardly anything" is 95% of the users!

This story isn't about Linux, it's about how IBM fucked themselves by not thinking.

Sure, they've done stupid shit in the past. Before Gerstner, upper management even refused to use email. But that's kind of beside the point. We're all stuck with an overdependence of Microsoft products. IBM, at least, is trying to make the change. And the difficulty of doing that is what we should focus on, not pointing fingers for past mistakes.

Re:How Disappointing

[afidel]

Yes, yes it does. In fact I most often refered to it as blows goats.

Re:How Disappointing

[afidel]

Ugh, the travel app sucks horribly, and of course Amex Travel upped their teleop fees a ton about a year back which made my supervisor demand that everyone use it. No longer employed with IBM but glad I worked there, if nothing else than seeing how a HUGE company operates.

Re:How Disappointing

[Rob_Bryerton]

>>and didn't have to access the assorted things that the regulars had to use.

Please use the correct terminology when referring to "normals" Thank you.

Re:How Disappointing

[zcat_NZ]

zcat@fluffy:~$ apt-cache search tn3270
hercules - System/370, ESA/390 and z/Architecture Emulator

And the problem is??

Re:How Disappointing

[hbo]

There was this little revolution that started really taking off about 20 years ago. It had to do with this thing called the "inner-net," or something. Anyhow, I can't get on the inner-net with a hercules. It has this odd idea that computers like to get information in "botches," so it sends and receives a botch at a time. The inner-net thingie sends info in "pockets," which are much smaller than "botches," I think. Anyhow, that's the problem.

Re:How Disappointing

[jbolden]

Lotus notes offers a complex client which allows you to tie together for a wide variety of custom group ware databases. One of these is email. If you are thinking of Notes as simply an email client either you or your company isn't using Notes properly. Its like using Oracle to manage your address book, of course its overkill and thus a poor fit.

Re:How Disappointing

[Greyfox]

No, my group wasn't using Notes properly. We didn't need to make use of all the features that I'm always hearing about. We needed E-mail. And for all its strengths, Notes sucks as an E-Mail client. Profs was a better mail client than Notes, and profs kinda sucked.

And no matter how much they want it to, Notes will never provide the performance necessary to replace RETAIN either. I take a certain sadistic pleasure in knowing that the IBM support groups will never completely be able to eliminate the 3270 emulator from their desktops.

Re:How Disappointing

[Greyfox]

Yeah, and for the brief period of time that I was an actual employee of the company all that crap was still done on S390 machines running VM/CMS or MVS/TSO.

For a while there they had a complete unified business platform on the mainframes. All you needed was a 3270 emulator to access everything you needed. Aaah those were the days...

Re:How Disappointing

[16K Ram Pack]

And, the biggest and best sites just don't seem to do all this shit.

Look at Amazon, Ebay, BBC and Google - they just work. They hardly have any gizmos or surprises, they are very simple (even the background as white is simple).

The thing I think (and I've seen this with GUI programmers as well) as CV/skill chasing - I know people who've rewritten code to use some feature that was unneccessary, just to play around with a programming feature.

Re:How Disappointing

[jbolden]

Notes is an excellent email client if a reasonable percentage of your emails involve integrated groupware featurs. If you are all I don't know RETAIN. Not sure what you mean in terms of performance, the client is a pig but....

As for profs those integrated mainframe solutions were years ahead. There were features of all-in-one that you still can't get on PCs.

Re:How Disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think that IBM used activeX for flashy menus or something, on their internal web apps of all things?

Perhaps you can suggest to MS you will rewrite windows update for them, get rid of any javascript/ active-X/ embedded objects/ flash etc, I'd be interested to see your windows update in plain html. Oh whats that, maybe they used activeX to actually, you know, do things.

I don't know what the activeX in question actually does, maybe java applets could have been used instead, and in hindsight, maybe that would have been a better choice, but your post on the virtues of simple web pages probably misses the point.

Re:How Disappointing

[bit01]

This isn't only about short term profits. Strategically, it is bad news for IBM to be paying millions of dollars per year in licensing fees to their main competitor which their competitor can then use to "compete" back at them.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Re:How Disappointing

[Andrewkov]

I have been using Lotus Notes as an email client for about seven months now since I came to a new job and as far as I am concerned it is a steaming pile of horse manure. I'll have four or five other programs running just fine and as soon as I fire up Lotus the whole works slows down to a crawl

Somethings configured wrong on your PC .. I've been using Notes for years and never had problems like you describe. Do you have a reliable network connection? Are you using replication? (you should be for any server that is not local) Are your replicated databases on your local PC or on a network share? Do you have enough RAM?

Re:How Disappointing

[stephandahl]

I've been in IBM for 11 years, and have yet to see an ActiveX app. The problem is web applications that rely on IE-specific stuff, and (worse!) checks for browser version. We have policies against that sort of idiocy now, but old habits (and old apps) die hard.

Re:How Disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

> how they didn't fire some idiot

Having just finished a contract w/ a large corporation, let me assure you said idiot was promoted up to were they could cause less damage.

Re:How Disappointing

[Hal_Porter]

They don't use ActiveX for eye candy, they use it to make a Windows application look like a web application.

Where I work we have a bunch of web application sites which are completely ActiveX, but that's because they are basically Windows applications sitting in a browser window - imagine a bunch of Windows GUI controls in the browser talking to a back end running as an .exe that talks to Java application running on the server.

Originally I think it the client started off being a Windows App, but it was migrated to ActiveX so the users don't need to install/update it and (probably) to cash on the fashion for web applications.

But they irony is that the main benefit of web apps was that they were OS neutral, but ActiveX/Exe combo is actually even more tied to Windows a standalone exe, which might have worked on Wine.

Re:How Disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

You weren't a real IBMer. Real IBMers know to type it as PR*FS because it isn't nice to swear in polite company. Unfortunately that tradition left with Notes.

Remember the only redeeming quality to PR*FS was it's message logs busted Ollie North.

Re:How Disappointing

[p3d0]

Uh, I work at IBM and use Firefox for everything, as do several others on my team. I have yet to encounter an internal app I can't use. (Though I don't really use that many...)

Re:How Disappointing

[Switchback]

The article is clearly quite incorrect about many things, especially regarding IBM's web based tools.

Most web apps inside IBM work just fine on all browsers. There are a few that don't, primarily because they use Java Applets that require the MS JVM. There are a few sites that just have really poorly written HTML, but all in all, the IBM intranet is very friendly to all browsers. Almost all of these "broken" sites were written before IBMs directive came out or they are tools managed by a 3rd party (e.g. Amex) IBM has very strict rules regarding intranet sites. In summary, they must be XHTML compliant, work on all XHMTL compliant browsers, and pass accessibility guidelines. There is an exception process if you have valid reasons for violating these rules. Part of that exception process is a plan to fix the problem. That doesn't mean it'll be fixed immediately. Everything costs time and money and everything has a priority. I think most people don't grasp the breadth of IBM's intranet and the amount of tools that run on it.

having worked for IBM

[HBI]

I can honestly say that a lot would have to be done with their own internal applications to bring them to Linux. Domino client won't run. Neither is a Sametime client available. Both were in heavy use in IBM Global Services, at least.

I don't understand the unwillingness to port these two desktop pieces (both being on Linux would be handy where I am now), but between that and the web apps, they have a lot of work ahead if they want to fulfill a Linux desktop.

There are alternatives - Wine as depicted in the article. Crossover Office supports the Domino client. Meanwhile, the extension for Gaim, works okay as a Sametime integrator. Still, none of those solutions would lend themselves to correcting the internal issues at IBM. They have control of the apps - porting them natively is logical.

Re:having worked for IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

Sametime has largely been replaced by ICT. It runs fine on Linux. There's also a sametime plugin for gaim. I'm not sure what's happening on the Notes front though.

Re:having worked for IBM

[EchoMirage]

Domino client won't run. Neither is a Sametime client available. Both were in heavy use in IBM Global Services, at least.

That's assuming that IBM intends to keep up development of Domino; rumors have circulated for a while that there isn't going to be a Domino 7 (6.5.x is the latest). I've also gotten the impression from other IBM workers that Domino and Notes are as hated at IBM as they are everywhere else in the world; and Domino is definetely a monolithic, ugly beast. Sametime is perhaps its one redeeming feature.

Ideally, IBM would take what they learned from Domino and develop an open source groupware platform (badly needed) for Linux. I've never quite figured out why nobody has bothered to challenge the groupware market more. Currently, you can choose from Exchange, GroupWare, or Domino - all equally awful in their own unique ways. Surely IBM could lend some sanity to this mess?

Re:having worked for IBM

[Greyfox]

There's a sametime client available (internally) on opensource.ibm.com, if I recall correctly. Search for "sanity" or "st-perl." Dude's got some nifty stuff about trapping the events in perl, which would be handy for implementing services on sametime if anyone was interested in that sort of thing.

Little known is the fact that an AIX Lotus Notes client was actually dropped from production some years ago. Back around 1999 or 2000 if I recall correctly. It was a crappy motif app, but they actually had everything they needed to do a better UNIX port at one point. Personally I view Notes as an atrocitity against mankind which should never have been allowed to have been born. Ok, it's not that bad, but it's a pretty crappy mail client, no matter what its other strengths may be.

Re:having worked for IBM

[Amiga Trombone]

I can honestly say that a lot would have to be done with their own internal applications to bring them to Linux. Domino client won't run. Neither is a Sametime client available. Both were in heavy use in IBM Global Services, at least.

I don't understand the unwillingness to port these two desktop pieces (both being on Linux would be handy where I am now), but between that and the web apps, they have a lot of work ahead if they want to fulfill a Linux desktop.

When the original story was posted about a year ago I got into a long discussion with another IBMer about why this just wasn't gonna fly. Not only are there not suitable versions of all of IBM's internal applications available, if you work in Global Services at a customer site, chances are pretty good that the customer is going to be using application that you can't easily replace, either.

Anyway, things have changed a little since the original initiative. For one, IBM no longer owns a desktop PC company, and has little incentive for pushing Intel-based Linux boxes on the desktop anymore.

And considering that these days, a Macintosh has more IBM parts in it than most so-called "IBM compatibles", you can't help but wonder if that might be The Next Big Thing they choose to push. It's certainly a friendlier desktop, it's got MS Office (and IBM has a licensing arrangement for the Mac version as well as Windows) and a Notes client available for it, and if worse comes to worse, you can run your Windows software on Virtual PC (which they also have a licensing arrangement for). Considering IBM has nothing to gain by pushing Intel desktops anymore, you can only wonder what might be in the works behind the scenes.

Re:having worked for IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

Not officially. I notice that few people use ICT - most stick to the "official" client, or the NotesBuddy client if they're looking for a change.

There are even a few people don't *gasp* like ICT (though they're few and far between).

Re:having worked for IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work for Lotus tech support. LOTUS IS NOT AN EMAIL CLIENT! :)

At least that's what we were supposed to tell people that called and complained about email funkiness.

Re:having worked for IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

Domino 7 is alive and well... Beta 3 is just coming out, and it is being demoed in many sessions at Lotusphere this week.

Re:having worked for IBM

[burns210]

Along those lines, I read an article where IBM was consolidating its entire computer line (mainframe, all servers, etc) to a single processor line based on the Power5. This makes it easy to admin, I assume, and lets IBM consolidate on a single line/design for processor so their engineers aren't competing against each other.

Re:having worked for IBM

[rshimizu12]

It's rather ironic since Activex was based on OLE. OLE was invented orginally by IBM. ActiveX shoud have been abandoned years ago it's a protocol that's long outlived original purpose and usefulness. Let's remember that OLE was originally envisioned as application connectivity technology. The big problem was that for many years IBM let the Lotus division be too independent. Until IBM re-integrated Lotus they would do their own thing and ignore corporate initiatives. For some time Lotus supported the IE browser only. This is rather ironic since the internal document "IBM Network Computing Software Division Strategy" http://www.scripting.com/misc/ibmStrategy.html" stated that maintaining Netscapes market share was critical to IBM. Let's also remeber that Lotus still sells market suite and is Windows only (Lotus Smartsuite code is frozen).Personally Id don't understand why IBM has not ported it to Linux and has not open sourced the product. Another factor was that PC division was so Windows oriented for so many years. This another good reason to see the PC division leave. So it will take IBM some time to migrate it's desktops to Linux. So as a result Lotus developed a lot of IE ActiveX windows only apps like Sametime and Quickplace. On the otherhand Lotus and IBM have been shedding the last vestiges of Windows IE dependencies. But I supposed IBM could use Mono.net to help overcome some of ActiveX dependencices. I am not certain if Mono.net has implemented a full policy based .net security framework as of yet.

Re:having worked for IBM

[ilithiiri]

Neither is a Sametime client available.

unfortunately, Gaim with Meanwhile does the job: voilà, sametime for Gaim.
Tried, tested, works.
cheers ;)

Re:having worked for IBM

[jbolden]

They aren't moving the Z-Series (mainframes) -- or at least there has been no announcement. The p-Series (Workstations) used the power 4, their blades are the 970s (power 4 derivitive) and the i-Series (AS/400 mini computers) will be on the power 5 (which I think is what you though was the main idea).

Re:having worked for IBM

[sidb]

The day you can walk into IBM and see row upon row of gleaming Mac minis... ahhhhhhhh POW! (head explodes)

Re:having worked for IBM

[Amiga Trombone]

They aren't moving the Z-Series (mainframes) -- or at least there has been no announcement.

I don't think they're going to be moving the Z-series to Power5, but I've been hearing for a couple of years that the plan was to eventually move them over to the Power architecture with the Power6.

http://msn-cnet.com.com/2100-1001-919579.html

Obviously it makes sense for them to converge their server lines to the greatest extent they can. But I have no idea how true this is or how much progress they've made.

Re:having worked for IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

You can now buy Linux-only POWER5 systems. I work for IBM and I will be pestering my manager to replace my crappy old netvista with an OpenPower 710. For me this would be WAAAAY better than a Mac, since I run Linux exclusively. The only problem I need to figure out is how to run my Intel-specific apps. Is there something like VMWare for Linux/PPC to emulate Linux/Intel?

Re:having worked for IBM

[jbolden]

Excellent link explaining the problems with moving the Z-Series over to the power line. I agree that IBM is going to make the move. But given that they haven't even really set this as a goal yet I don't see Power-6 as likely. Perhaps by Power-6 they might be able to do the protype work which makes Power-7 possible...?

Re:having worked for IBM

[rshimizu12]

Not certain, but I do know that IBM is concentrating most of it's efforts on Lotus Workplace messaging.

what went wrong?

[alizard]

The Open Source development community hasn't solved the usability problems, particularly software and hardware installation.

Yum and apt-get are largely superior software installation solutions to anything MS has, why isn't the last step in releasing a new software package to put it on the yum / apt-get / urpmi repositories?

Why hasn't a method for using Windows installation information directly been found for scanners and printers?

IMHO, this is in part because the community is still in denial that this problem exists.

While Linux is a superior server solution, IBM's best desktop move would probably be remarketing the Mac-mini, which is a *nix environment on which even end users can install hardware and software NOW, not hopefully next year.

Re:what went wrong?

[Stevyn]

Well, the article talked about problems of trying to convert people used to IE and Lotus over to a platform that doesn't run that software well.

What they should have done first is switch everyone over to firefox/mozilla and find an alternative to lotus that runs on windows and linux. Then after people are comfortable with that, try to switch to linux.

I think a switch of this magnitude must be done slowly, or else tech support isn't going to know what to do or be able to handle the "where's my icon" problems for tens of thousands of people.

Re:what went wrong?

[avalys]

find an alternative to lotus that runs on windows and linux
What are you, nuts? Do you know who makes Lotus?

Re:what went wrong?

[El Gordo Motoneta]

Have you even read the article?

Do you REALLY believe that a *corporate desktop* computer
needs to "easily install software" or "configure printers"?

I, for one, would cut off your fingers if i caught you installing
crap on one of my company's workstations.

Having seen more than one medium-sized company deploy desktops,
I'm positive that all computers are already configured to run
anything they need to run and print anywhere they need to print
*before* they are presented to the user.

No. The problem is (as you might have learned if you R the FA)
is at the application level. They are running into problem with
web-based applications that were geared towards Internet Explorer.
They are running applications on Wine (which they list as a
temporary workaround themselves).

So, you are right in that there are problems yet to be fixed,
but completely failed to put your finger on what it is that needs
fixing.

Re:what went wrong?

[Wesley Felter]

The Open Source development community hasn't solved the usability problems, particularly software and hardware installation.

This is not a problem in large companies, because they have full-time professional IT staff who can install and configure Linux.

Yum and apt-get are largely superior software installation solutions to anything MS has, why isn't the last step in releasing a new software package to put it on the yum / apt-get / urpmi repositories?

Because building and testing packages for every Linux distro is a lot of work, so volunteers just don't do it.

Re:what went wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I, for one, would cut off your fingers if i caught you installing crap on one of my company's workstations."

And _I_ would have you fired for getting in the way of doing my fucking job.

Re:what went wrong?

[drinkypoo]

Running scanner TWAIN drivers under Linux is a reasonable job for Wine. Of course, most of them are garbage. I have never used even a microsoft application that crashes as much as even ostensibly high-quality scanner drivers, such as those from umax, canon, and hp. (I do love my Canon lide scanner, though.) It's probably pretty hard to get most of them to work under any circumstances :P Also, you would have to be able to load actual windows drivers for USB scanners, although I imagine that emulating enough of it to do that would be one of the easier driver-related tasks. Perhaps parts of ReactOS could help here?

I think that MacOS is too closed for IBM to be interested in reselling it, especially given their investment in Linux and the fact that they own several Operating Systems of their own. There is not a compelling set of software for it for most non-home uses, unless you include classic - which I certainly wouldn't want to have to support.

Re:what went wrong?

[freemacmini]

When was the last time you installled the operating system on your work pc? Most corporations don't want their users to install stuff on their computers.

Re:what went wrong?

[El Gordo Motoneta]

"And _I_ would have you fired for getting in the way of doing my fucking job." Each company has it's ways, i guess. But where i live, if you need a program installed, you ask the admins for it. If we catch you installing stuff without permission, you are the one in trouble.

Re:what went wrong?

[swv3752]

Hence, why didn't IBM port it?

Re:what went wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, would cut off your fingers if i caught you installing crap on one of my company's workstations.

Since the Yaks make you cut off the finger yourself I'm guessing you work for the mob. Can I send you a resume? I'm looking for a forward thinking company with a good future - and dental.

Re:what went wrong?

[El Gordo Motoneta]

"I'm guessing you work for the mob. Can I send you a resume?" No need, billy. We already know stuff about you. Our Senior manager, Vinnie, who works at the casino, knows your two brothers. Tell Tim we're sorry about his leg, but maybe that eMule download was not such a good idea after all...

Re:what went wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Open Source development community hasn't solved the usability problems, particularly software and hardware installation.

Do you know this because you were part of the IBM migration team, or are you just talking out of your arse?

Re:what went wrong?

[DissidentHere]

Just a 'BTW', (in general I think you are quite correct) - but IBM will port Lotus products to Linux long before finding an alternative.

The key reason for this is that IBM owns Lotus. There is already a version of the Notes client for OS X, so I imagine its getting close. Lotus Domino and most other IBM products do run on Linux already. Simple fact is that there has not been a market (i.e. big business) demand for Linux based client software.

They should have modified thier internal apps to work with non-IE browsers before making any big push for Linux on the desktop.

I did attend a (free) IBM seminar on desktop Linux, migration and getting Linux to play nice with Windows. It was very informative and IBM has some good people working on these things, and I would expect them to continue.

Re:what went wrong?

[Stevyn]

I'm aware that IBM makes lotus. I have no idea the costs or time to port it to linux, but my point was IBM would have been better off if they looked at that more closely before trying to switch to linux.

A bonus, if successful, would be to sell that to other companies as part of a way for them to help in their linux migration. It would set a good example that their customers can trust the software works well because IBM themselves use it. Again, I don't want to assume anything and I don't want to say IBM made a poor decision. However, they themselves admit things didn't go smoothly. And from the reasons they gave, it looks like they can learn from these mistakes and hopefully migrate to linux after the applications they depend on are available to run well on linux.

Re:what went wrong?

[ZorinLynx]

This is one reason I like UNIX; you can easily have a software repository in your home directory without messing up the rest of the system at all. And it follows you around on various UNIX systems if your home directory is networked. }:)

-Z

Re:what went wrong?

[alizard]

I do love my Canon lide scanner, though

You can run it under Linux WITHOUT using WINE, and I do.

Re:what went wrong?

[drinkypoo]

That's cool, and I'm glad I can always find a use for it until it breaks, but since I'm a gamer I've found ways to make windows livable. I use Linux for server-type stuff though.

Re:what went wrong?

[eraserewind]

why isn't the last step in releasing a new software package to put it on the yum / apt-get / urpmi repositories?

Why should it have to be? apt-get, etc.. are solutions to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.

Re:what went wrong?

[CrackHappy]

Oh man, you brought a tear to my eye.

You sound EXACTLY like my network admin, it's pretty damned creepy.

I'm a web developer, he's the network admin, it's like the Odd Couple. He gives me funny looks when he walks by and briefly looks at my code - "Is that n-tier??".

He's sure I'm out to blow up his servers.

Re:what went wrong?

[kefentse]

I must first begin by saying that I am probably less experienced with Linux than most in this forum, I have been an on and off Linux user for about 4 years now. First Red Hat, then Mandrake, then Susue, then Ubuntu...But I am a business guy and partime geek.
From a business perspective, what I see mostly missing from this entire equation is a company, or team to step up to the plate and say: "Linux has potential...why don't we offer high quality linux hardware and software products?"
I am still not sure why this has not happened. Is there not enough of a market?
Why is there still not an easy way to install software like people are used to in windows? How can you expect hardware manufactuers to have their products come out with ALL of the distributions on a daily basis?
I installed Mepis on my sister's computer about 3 months ago and she has had relatively few problems, but when she calls me up to tell me she cant play a WMV file embedded in a webpage, and I have no answer for her, then there is still a ways to go.
When there is still no gui wireless roaming client for laptops, linux will still be a second class OS.
I say this not to bash Linux, but let's be honest, there is ALOT of work to be done in the Linux for this OS to be ready for everyday people.
Now, I am no Linux developer, but I would DEFINITELY be inetersted in seeing how many Linux developers understand the average user. Until I find a linux developer that actually cares about what the "average user" really needs and, instead of pretending that Linux is already a real alternative, is dedicated to bringing a usable alternative about, then I do not see the Linux desktop stepping into primetime. Just my humble opinion... :)

Re:what went wrong?

[spylee]

That's the gap between developers and internal users... developers may be developing new internal applications as linux-compliant, or migrate them, but existing users still only use the old versions.

Re:what went wrong?

[scottme]

IBM will not port the Notes client to Linux. The strategic direction for the "thick" client that is Notes today, is something based on Eclipse, which has been announced as the IBM Workplace Client. That is what the Lotus division is selling now, and it's what IBM's internal users will get, sooner or later, to replace the Notes client.
And of course it will run on Linux.

Re:what went wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having seen more than one medium-sized company deploy desktops, I'm positive that all computers are already configured to run anything they need to run and print anywhere they need to print *before* they are presented to the user.

Blowing off my mod points on this article, simply to challenge this crap.

Can you even begin to guess how many printers (and printer varieties) IBM's own offices contain? And how many printers client sites contain? And how many combinations of 'printers I use' exist?

IBM gives a very high number of its users rights to install and manage printers and other peripherals on their laptops. Without which we'd be royally screwed every time we go to a different office, or start on a different client site.

It's a similar story for software - many users need to install specific stuff for specific clients in a fairly unpredictable manner because our business is unpredictable. Without autonomy to do this, we'd have to wait on visiting an IBM site and scheduling an install while there. Last time I was on our premises with time to spare? June.

Sonny, you may know about managing a desktop infrastructure in medium sized companies with primarily desk-bound employees. But you have absolutely no idea of the challenges faced by enormous services-based company with a mobile workforce.

Re:what went wrong?

[zerblat]

What problem is that? Installing software?

Re:what went wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

And _I_ would have you fired for getting in the way of doing my fucking job.

If your job is to install things and make sure they don't break, then you are an admin. Otherwise you get admins to do it for you. Too much stuff is liable to break when you let any Tom, Dick & Harry mess around with the configurations.

Re:what went wrong?

[wazzzup]

Typical attitude of an IT worker. All of you seem to forget that you serve the company you work for, the company doesn't serve you.

Why do we have to sacrifice a cow and lick your toes to get the tools we need 3 months from the time we need it? If you even listen at all.

I work for a 12,000 person company and they give us all administrator accounts for our machines (Windows, of course) and we haven't seen the sky fall yet.

Re:what went wrong?

[mailtomomo]

I own a (old) paragon 600 II N and Sane is the only way to use it nowadays (i gained a networking ability for it but lost some image quality : the backend for it doesn't seem to be updated anymore)
Windows is (was ?) easier to set up but (GNU/)Linux is better in the long run.

Re:what went wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical attitude of a worker in a company that has an IT department. WE ARE NOT YOUR SERVANTS!!

We justify our decisions to upper management. Not beancounters or secretaries. If management understands our reasons, you are going to have to take your complaint to them, not us. I don't care what you do for a living, if in your company they let you
install software on your computer, all i can say is "good for you".

But wait, if you install some program that breaks your system, it's the IT people's job to fix it, right?
So don't complain if there are a gazillion companies in which the IT staff decides not to let you install your useful browser toolbars. I bet that your twelve-thousand person company consists 90% of computer-illiterate people, and while the sky will not fall down, fixing your screwups is PROBABLY costing your company *a lot* of money.

Re:what went wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GP obviously doesn't know a damn thing. He seems to think that the discussion is about computers that IBM is selling.

Re:what went wrong?

[sibtrag]

Having seen more than one medium-sized company deploy desktops,
I'm positive that all computers are already configured to run
anything they need to run and print anywhere they need to print
*before* they are presented to the user.

You don't know what you're talking about. I did a quick search and found about 2500 public printers in IBM's US offices. And that doesn't include printers in private locations, on isolated sub-networks, etc. I would not want my laptop to have come pre-configured for all of these...and have to scroll through them whenever I want to print.

But, when I travel next week with my new laptop, I will be able to look at a printer, read its ID and configure my laptop to print there by downloading & installing the appropriate software from a web form.

This is a base requirement in large companies.

Similarly, the job families within IBM have tremendous variety. We can't provision new laptops with all the software someone might need. In my job I absolutely need software to communicate with my pSeries box using X11. I wouldn't want IBM to have to purchase 320,000 licenses so that everyone else could have yet another program to clutter up their box. Likewise, I don't want to have to deal with all of the configuration/pricing/etc support software that the sales force has or the troubleshooting/etc software that our repair folks need.

Re:what went wrong?

[El Gordo Motoneta]

"You don't know what you're talking about."

Yes, i do.

"I did a quick search and found about 2500 public printers in IBM's US offices."

Being a 40000 desktop migration, i would expect the number to approach then thousand printers. I've done a small security consulting job for Carrefour (not known in the USA, but it's the second largest retailer in the world after wal-mart) and
In the network corresponding to my country alone (class B ipv4 network, ppp links connecting every shop with each other) I found over 1000 print servers for something like 2500 office desktops.

Now, everyone who bothered to reply to my post keeps whining about mobile computers. Where does the article say they are migrating the laptops? Of course
Carrefour doesn't configure all 1000 printers (may be more) on every machine.
The users get access to whatever printers his office/division/dept. needs to print to. Which can be as much as 6 or 7 printers *at most* (people hit the wrong button and end up printing in the wrong printer so often that it would be crazy to believe they can handle more than that).

Again, a *Desktop* (NOT a laptop) should -- and probably IS -- installed and configured __before __ the user even gets to boot the machine for the first time. If configuring laptops is such a big problem (which probably isn't), then i guess the 40000 thousand migrations would not include laptops and be done with it.

Re:what went wrong?

[sibtrag]

Since I am not involved with IBM's workstation rollout, I cannot offer details. But, I can say this: in my dealings with IBMers the only folks I have seen with desktop machines are administrative assistants. Everyone else (mostly technical folks in CPU design & throughout IBM Research, but also HR people, web-site maintainers, global services project leaders, managers, executives, etc) have laptops as their personal workstations. That includes folks in the US, Europe & Israel. There are many fixed "deskside" machines which are used to control equipment, act as small servers, test software, etc.

I would expect that a large percentage of the 40k "desktops" quoted are really laptop computers.

Now, I have seen some folks with dual-boot laptops who attempt to run Linux most of the time, so ther e is some progress being made there.

"You don't know what you're talking about."

Yes, i do.

I apologize. My remark was offensive and inappropriate.

Re:SLASHDOT'S DESTRUCTION IS FORSEEABLE...

[randallpowell]

I need marshmellows.

Is Slashdot burning in fire for it's sins against Linux or it's sins against EA? I'm not sure anymore. All I know is that we make mistakes and we need to learn from them. The know we learn, the better we become. It's time for forgiveness for our mistakes and come to terms about our differences. We're each special. AMD, Linux, Nintendo, et al are special and deserve respect. We must love each other in unity while tolerating our differences.

Simple solution

[tomhudson]

FTA:

users may experience problems running IBM's internal Web applications. Most of those applications are written for the Internet Explorer browser, which has not been ported to Linux. Internet Explorer is the only browser supported by IBM's internal support desk, according to another IBMer.

"If you don't use Internet Explorer, you might not get very far with them helping you with the problem," he said.

IBM has lots of friends and goodwill here. All they have to do is "ask slashdot" :-)

IE!!!???

[sensate_mass]

OMFG. The only thing they use is IE. That's the only thing their help desk is, uh, helpful with. I'm sure that's not where all their problems are coming from, but it speaks of an organization that isn't at all agile.

I love a lot of the things that IBM does and comes up with, but if your organization isn't flexible enough to work with more than one browser, you've got some serious problems.

Sounds like the Microsoft Lifetime Employment Program has deep roots at IBM.

Re:IE!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an IBM employee. Didn't ask to be, but was assimilated. Global Services. Work on a .gov contract.

Every IBM employee, AFAIK, gets an IBM Thinkpad. Excuse me, that should be an IBM Thinkpad laptop. Frickin' TM is supposed to be an adjective.

I dual boot. I use the Windoze side so I can get my Lotus Notes email and to fill out my online timesheet (thru a VPN). The only time I use IE is to upgrade the W2K POS. All other web stuff on the windoze side I used mozilla and now firefox, including online classes and the other BS they put us thru. I've never had to call support.

Otherwise I boot FC3 and do any productive work there. If IBM ports Notes to linux and uses a VPN that runs on linux, then I would never have to boot Windoze.

Re:IE!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly internal applications were outsourced. No, not offshored but outsourced to third party vendors. These vendors unfortunately choose to use ActiveX.

IBM is actively trying to negotiate rewrites of these tools but it's a process that takes time (and paying for something again that's already paid for is not exactly easy to sell).

Re:IE!!!???

[powerlinekid]

I actually am IBM Help Desk. All of my co-workers use Firefox.

Just because the default image (XP or 2000) doesn't include it, doesn't mean we don't on our own.

Re:IE!!!???

[Long-EZ]

...and uses a VPN that runs on linux

Xandros Linux 3.0 handles VPN very well. Easy to set up, easy to use, and rock solid.

Xandros has many high end features that make it more than competitive with Windows XP. For example, Xandros 3.0 has drag and drop CD and DVD burning. Do any other distros have that in their default installation? And the deluxe versions of Xandros ship with CrossOver, so many legacy Windows programs can be run until suitable native Linux versions are produced.

Re:IE!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing they use is IE

And remember, friends, you can't spell "AIIIIIEEEEE!" without I.E.!

Re:IE!!!???

[metamatic]

The IBM VPN solution does work on Linux. I run Debian with the IBM VPN, Notes via WINE, and VMware for the two applications I need to access that don't work without IE.

Re:IE!!!???

[div_2n]

There was a time when IE was the best browser (sort of). It was during that time or on the tail end of that time that many organizations developed IE only websites. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but it has happened.

There is a tremendous amount of inertia to try to rectify that. You are talking about a complete overhaul of code to move to a standards based solution. That means expense. It is difficult to cost justify fixing something that technically isn't broken. No, being IE only doesn't make a web page broken, only short sighted and very limited.

Re:IE!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM plans to replace the current VPN solution (ATT Net Client) with its own WebSphere Everyplace Connection Manager product over the next 12-18 months. WECM has clients for Linux, PalmOS, Symbian, WinCE, and Win32.

Re:IE!!!???

[bigirondawg]

As someone who's worked in IBM, I can say the only thing that kept me from going to a Linux desktop is the complete and utter reliance on IE. (That, and not having a week or more to spend with no computer access while I install linux, vmware, windows under vmware, and the IBM client for e-business on both.) Most internal applications simply don't work with anything except IE, which makes Windoze unreplacable. If they could get away from IE, it would be a lot easier. That would require a lot of application redesign, apparently, though, so it probably won't happen anytime soon.

Re:IE!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM also plans to replace the current VPN solution with a standards-compliant SSL solution that works with anything with no special software. It was in beta this time last year. So it'll be interesting to see what actually happens.

Re:IE!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

Plenty of IBM employees use Firefox, just not the ones who need to call for help in order to open up a pdf file.

People don't fear change

[Kipsaysso]

People fear loss. What is stopping people from making the switch is the fear of losing the control of their computer that they have taken so very long to cultivate. Not to mention all the internal documents that probably have been created over the last few years using the .doc extention. Who wants to go through years of porting old files?

Re:People don't fear change

[Mynorrrr]

You open the documents with Open Office, you save as am Open Office document. Two thesis (thesee?) multiple journal papers no problem! What's the issue???

Re:People don't fear change

[LearnToSpell]

Theses.

Re:People don't fear change

[Anonymous Coward]

Try .lwp. One of my biggest challenges being a Linux using IBMer is opening up documents created with Lotus Smartsuite. Open Office says it'll do .123 files, but in reality that only works less than half the time. It doesn't even have an lwp (Lotus WordPro) converter.

Re:People don't fear change

[chris_sawtell]

But a little bird tells me that IBM have created an OpenOffice filter which imports MSWord files absolutely perfectly. Without doubt IBM could set up a server to do the conversion of the .doc files everybody has on their PCs. The same bird tells that they are terrified of releasing the filter, because the full flight of Redmond leagles would come screaming out of their eyrie. One war at a time is sufficient to keep any organization on its toes.

Re:People don't fear change

[acebone]

Sounds like an urban legend in the making...

Re:People don't fear change

[Anonymous Coward]

Who wants to go through years of porting old files?

Closing eyes pretending not to see the problem is not going to help either.

Someday, sooner or later, somebody is going to port them.

Re:People don't fear change

[chris_sawtell]

No, honest, this was told to me by a fairly senior IBM employee, but I feel I must protect his identity.

Re:People don't fear change

[jbolden]

SCO is barely a fight for IBM. Slashdot considers it a big deal since its important from a Linux perspective. I'm sure today IBM has a dozen lawsuits each of which consume more resources than the SCO one.

Re:People don't fear change

[jbolden]

About two years ago Open Office blew extended ASCII from an RTF document. It doesn't get any easier than that. Maybe that's fixed now but I'm sure macros and VBA are a long way off.

Re:People don't fear change

[Anonymous Coward]

A "fairly senior" IBM employee knows about OOo filters? *snicker*

Re:People don't fear change

[yamla]

Yeah right. Microsoft Word cannot itself open MSWord files absolutely perfectly. You can be seriously hosed if you have a different printer (or even just a different DRIVER for the same printer) than the one set up when the word document was first created. Forget trying to open the document on Word for Mac, you'll run into way more problems there. And what if the document links to an object you don't happen to have installed?

No, I can say with absolute certainty that IBM does not have a filter for OO that opens MSWord documents perfectly. There's simply no way. Microsoft cannot do it and they wrote MS Word.

Posting this from IBM now...

[powerlinekid]

Hmm... computer is an IBM Netvista. Thats pretty much expected.

Now for the OS... Windows XP Professional. Damnit.

Novell's Migration May Go Better

[Radical Rad]

Two of the drawbacks mentioned were having to run Lotus Notes under Wine and IBM Web services only supporting IE. But Novell has a Groupwise client that runs very nicely under Linux and most of their recent web apps work well with Mozilla and Firefox under both Windows and Linux. They also have NetWare file services running on Linux (I think its in open beta now). There is a good open source NCP client as well as rumours of an official Novell client for Linux.

Re:Novell's Migration May Go Better

[massimiliano]

Yes, it is going better (disclaimer: I am a Novell employee).

Besides what the parent said, there are two other advantages here:

- The NLD distribution, which has been thought exactly for this kind of use.

- Evolution works as a groupwise client itself (for IM you can just use Gaim, it works with groupwise as well).

Pin your hopes on Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

This doesn't appear to have been because the user's had any trouble. It isn't related to availability of Linux desktop, applications, etc. It sounds instead as if the IBM internal web based applications are IE specific.

My experience is that this is common across other organizations as well. Call it lazy or whatever, Microsoft is laughing all the way to the bank. They won the browser wars and this is their paypack. IF a standards compliant browser was the 'common' platform this wouldn't be an issue. Based on this I highly doubt IE will drift toward any standards anytime soon. Most likely it'll drift _away_ from standards. Heck, if I worked at MS that's what I'd recommend for them to do.

Everybody who wants Linux out there better work harder at getting corporate acceptance of Firefox and other non-platform specific browsers.

Re:Pin your hopes on Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

The bank I work at is absolutely, crack-ho, addicted to IE as a platform.

It's like they went out of the way to be grautitously microsoft-locked-in.

If you ask about replacing the hundreds of crufty web servers, most of which are from Bombay BTW, with linux, then you obviously don't understand the extreme levels of blame-avoidance at any big company.

Because any project to replace a couple hundred goofy stupid poorly understood crufty web pages is bound to fail.

Re:Pin your hopes on Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

To follow up on my own comment, the lock-in is even worse when it comes to excel, which is a demonstrably crappy application.

=normsinv(1e-7)

has been broken for how many years now?

Re:Pin your hopes on Firefox

[Glonoinha]

The bank I work at is absolutely, crack-ho, addicted to IE as a platform.

This seems to be the biggest recurring issue.
How about we just port IE to Linux and be fucking done with it.

Re:Pin your hopes on Firefox

[smokebomb2]

How about we just forget about IE?

Complex Problems......

[tdhillman]

Complex problems have complex answers- more complex than IBM is going to answer quickly.

Deployment of open source software is one thing, success at doing so is another. Even for IBM, the challenge is daunting. The number of individuals that just don't get the "why" of open source is simply overwhelming.

There is too much hype surrounding Linux- we want the answer too fast. Windows dominates, and knocking it off its tower its no small task.

Only when there is a more facile solution than Windows will the tower be toppled. But topple it will.

Re:Complex Problems......

[einhverfr]

Deployment of open source software is one thing, success at doing so is another. Even for IBM, the challenge is daunting. The number of individuals that just don't get the "why" of open source is simply overwhelming.

I would actually say "especially for IBM." In general, the larger the business is, the harder the migration is. You just have so much more legacy crap you have to deal with. In general, for a new business, Linux on the desktop works quite well. For a small business, there may be some migration pain, but it is still something which can be managed. (Figure a month to migrate the servers on a small business and work out the issues.) For a larger business, each migration problem builds on another, and it takes a *long* time to do this. If IBM migrated to Linux entirely within 2 years, they would be out of business in my estimation. Or at least they would be at a complete standstill.

I figure, for IBM, a 5 year goal is still ambitious.

Re:Complex Problems......

[Anonymous Coward]

Facile means easy in French. In English it means simplistic, superficial, lacking depth.

All is not lost!

[Wayne247]

IBM probably just miscalculated the complexity of such a project. Like the article states, a good portion of the problem is not "windows vs linux" itself, it'S that they've written quite a bunch of essential web based apps that run, possibly, as ActiveX components in IE.

If such is the case, they might want to take a look at the Mozilla ActiveX project, which might help them fix their IE modules to work in Mozilla, while they rewrite it with something better than ActiveX (like, Java possibly).

Replacing Windows with Linux was a very ambitious idea to begin with; hats off to IBM for having set themselves such a high goal, instead of just trailing with the crowd and keeping windows boxes forever.

After all, isn't a big part of the reason why corporations keep windows is because it's just less painful than to actually *work* on a migration to anything else? Sure the windows problems are huge, but companies like to see short term. And in the short term, fixing windows is easier. IBM is seeing long-term.

Let them the time to migrate what they didn't really think of when they called the project, and then we'll see.

Re:All is not lost!

[Anonymous Coward]

...they've written quite a bunch of essential web based apps that run, possibly, as ActiveX components in IE.

Nope. There are a couple of tools (the main one being expense reimbursement) which are written in Java for the Microsoft VM. These only work in IE, but they ain't ActiveX.

Is it a story yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and if so isn't it more of a cautionary tale about the dangers of using IE as a platform than proof that Linux is not ready for corporate desktops?

Notes...

[darth_pepsi]

Yeah it's one of the reasons that we slowed our migration to linux and are actually going to citrix instead.

Sure notes has a web client, but having tried to optimize it, I can say that it's not really polished and ready to be used like that. Notes has been bloating since v4 and it's gotten progressively slower. A complete rewrite for linux would be nice =-)

I guess with the advent of notes being able to use db2 as a backend, all will be possible in the future. The should really get cracking on a port...lots of places use lotus notes (but won't admit it)

Good luck with the move IBM, you'll sure need it!

Re:Notes...

[HBI]

The Domino web interface is ungainly and not standard. Furthermore, it's not Section 508 compliant which means US Government sites using it are being converted to other technologies rapidly.

You wouldn't tolerate it on your own web site, I suspect, and users never have liked it.

Re:Notes...

[metamatic]

That's a misleading comment. There's nothing stopping you from using Domino to build Section 508 compliant web sites. You don't *have* to use the sample Java applets provided with Domino.

Re:Notes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking from the inside, I can see that Lotus is the only major IBM brand that doesn't get linux right. That's surely a showstopper as it controls the whole company e-communication infrastructure.

A native communications suite is mandatory for a succesful large scale linux desktop roll-out.

IBM linux strategy is being laid out for some time now and ideally Lotus should have rewritten the Notes client using some cross-platform toolkit.

Yes they should, but they can't, Lotus Notes is such a huge, distorted, freaking bloated, ugly piece of software, and it's also deeply rooted in windows technologies. I'm afraid it cannot be done.

But just wait for the new Lotus Workplace products, you'll surely miss Notes...

--
Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job?
A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.

Re:Notes...

[HBI]

Take 5.0.12 out of the box and is it compliant? Is the webmail compliant?

I don't think that's misleading. Government sites are going off of Domino rapidly due to the failure to validate Section 508 compliance. I am aware of several large sites which are working off a waiver because it just can't be fixed without tossing the majority of the code. Sure, the developers were stupid about it, but the fact is that it wasn't designed for same.

Re:Notes...

[Ratso Baggins]

Personally I would have thought that IBM was big enough that a company wide migration to linux would have enough clout with the people who write Notes to port and support a native Linux client? Who are these fools behind such ignorances?

I Bet Microsoft.

Re:Notes...

[brokenvoice]

I spent 3.5 years working in an IBM/Lotus shop as a web designer and I can tell you that trying to get Domino to create anything like decent webpages is a fucking nightmare.

It generates a whole bunch of garbage HTML and it isn't easy to stop if from doing so, immediately negating the "ease of use" bullshit so consistently spouted by Notes devs.

No, Notes/Domino is a piece of shit as a web development paltform. Perhaps if IBM had got Garnet right and actually released it with R6, then it would have made a really useful datastore with good JSP support, but as it stands, it's still firmly rooted in 1998.

Re:Notes...

[metamatic]

Take most web tools "out of the box" and they're not compliant with section 508. Dreamweaver, for example. In fact, I've yet to see a decent web editing tool that complies automatically with XHTML and section 508 requirements.

I maintain that the problem is the developers, not the tools. For a decade web standards folks have been screaming style sheets and clean markup, but a lot of semi-competent developers in the .com bubble just weren't interested. Well, now the companies who bought into their crap are getting what they deserve.

Except that for some reason, people would rather blame the tools than admit that they hired a bunch of know-nothing fly-by-night "web design gurus".

It's possible to build dynamic web sites in Domino that comply fully with Section 508. I know this because I do it, at IBM. With the templates I have, I can bring up a web site with IBM look and feel in an afternoon.

Re:Notes...

[metamatic]

I still build sites with Domino, and whilst I agree that Domino's HTML is a mess, the unfortunate fact is that the market doesn't give a shit about whether HTML validates or not. Sure, I'd love Domino to generate valid XHTML with style sheets, but that's not what's stopping badly-designed Domino sites from complying with Section 508.

Domino is fast to deploy. You lose something in maintainability and cleanliness, but there are always tradeoffs in web development. Sure, I could build a site in J2EE in a month or two, and it would produce nice clean XHTML... or, I could build it in Domino, and you can have it tomorrow. Lots of times, tomorrow wins.

Re:Notes...

[autiger]

The Domino web interface is only what a developer makes of it. It can be Section 508 compliant, Bobby compliant or anything else you want. I can show you Domino websites that wouldn't know from Pagemaker/IIS, or Websphere or ColdFusion by looking.

Legacy documents? Training?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about years and years of legacy windows office documents?

Training. Not everyone at IBM is a software/hardware hacker -- actualy I would guess the business people out number the technical people. They have to 'unlearn' windows while simultaneously learning linux.

I also imagine a fairly large group would naturaly resist a change of this magnitude.

Imagine your a business professional that has worked there for years. All your document templates -- poof gone (at least requiring reviewing for formatting correctness). All your windows 'tricks' (VBA form documents, Excel macros) -- useless. The list goes on.

The upside is once they develop a process for switching they can then sell this valuable expereince along with support to assist others with the switch.

Here's the book, read it for yourself

[Dancin_Santa]

http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg246380.htm l

Re:Here's the book, read it for yourself

[lamber45]

Netscape Navigator 6 running under Solaris crashes when viewing that page.

Re:Here's the book, read it for yourself

[Darren Winsper]

Netscape 6 crashes when viewing most pages.

Their problem is obvious

[Locke2005]

users may experience problems running IBM's internal Web applications. Most of those applications are written for the Internet Explorer browser, which has not been ported to Linux. Internet Explorer is the only browser supported by IBM's internal support desk, according to another IBMer.

Like most large corporations, they were short sighted enough to fall for M$ lock-in, and wrote their web apps to Microsoft Standards(TM) instead of Internet Standards...

Re:Their problem is obvious

[YrWrstNtmr]

Like most large corporations, they were short sighted enough to fall for M$ lock-in, and wrote their web apps to Microsoft Standards(TM) instead of Internet Standards...

Short sighted? No. I expect a lot of these problem things were written and in production before there was a viable alternative. My company has spreadsheets, currently in Excel2000, with beginnings going back 10+ yrs. Spreadsheets with huge formulae and calculations. WE are now beginning to port those calculations into something else, but dropping those into OOo or a non-MS browser is not a trivial task.

IE and Office docs: the biggest challenge

[Luminary Crush]

The two biggest issues holding back desktop Linux migrations are the compatability with MS-proprietary formats: MS Office docs (.doc, .xls, .ppt, etc) and IE's slightly non-standard take on HTML. Linux doesn't offer very good compatability.

I run into this all the time at work: OO does a pretty good job of opening simple documents, but has problems with those containing embedded tables, hyperlinks, custom header/footer, etc. How many legacy documents in the IBM repositories contain complex format MS Office documents? Probably alot.

As for IE - lots of sites just won't function without the viral vector ActiveX in place, or just simply don't look right in Mozilla - the format is off, the buttons don't appear aligned, etc. Some interactive web sites simply don't work.

How much of this stuff is present at a huge organization like IBM? How many "legacy" web apps and docs are running which were produced before IBM's love affair with Linux began?

That was a bold statement (migrate to Linux desktops by the end of 2005), but like so much that comes from upper management, motivated in politics and reflective of leadership slightly out of touch with reality. I doubt their project budget included the funds to rewrite IE-only web sites and modify all the company's documentation.

Re:IE and Office docs: the biggest challenge

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not Office docs. MS-Office has only been available internally for a couple of years. It's Lotus Smart Suite documents that are the problem. WordPro, 1,2,3 , and Freelance documents are a nightmare to Linux users inside of IBM.

Re:IE and Office docs: the biggest challenge

[Anonymous Coward]

IE's slightly non-standard take on HTML. Linux doesn't offer very good compatability.

Ha! Blaming Linux for not being compatible with Internet Explorer is like blaming your wife for "making you" beat her up.

I doubt their project budget included the funds to rewrite IE-only web sites

If it's Internet Explorer-only, then it's a proprietary application, not a website.

Me not techie.... why me worry?

[astebbin]

"The majority of IBM's Linux users to date are technical users in the company's product development and research and development groups -- users who are technical enough to support themselves, the sources said."

Eh... I'm no Sysadmin, but I still use Debian just fine without any problems or issues of usability. Metacity in particular is so much like Windows in its GUI that anyone can use it without much prior training or *nix experience, which is one of the many things that I love about Linux.

Kaplan

[Omniscientist]

"There are people using Linux and nobody is telling them to stop," she [Nancy Kaplan] said.

She almost sounds a little dismayed, perhaps even slightly frightened, by that fact.

Re:Kaplan

[shird]

Id say she sounds a little turned on by that fact.

How the hell do you know how she sounds? I think she is just saying that people are free to use Linux, even if the switch to linux didnt take.

Re:Kaplan

[Omniscientist]

I really don't know...sarcastic intuition I suppose is the reason.

more than insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

... parent should have said more ... I like Linux, but, I don't USE it, I play with it.

Matter of fact, playing's all that it's good for, for me. Takes too much effort to make stuff do anything useful. If I was a college student, with lots of spare time on my hands, and no wife and kids ... well, maybe I'd consider running Linux as my daily iron.

When I want to get WORK done, I boot XP.

Work, that place where I do stuff and get paid for it ... that's why they call it ... work.

As long as the boss expects to make money off my efforts, we'll be using what we know works and isn't a time sink.

Case in point: I just wasted three days trying to make Debian work on a BRAND-NEW Dell. I gave up.

The sooner the Linux community can come up with a foolproof and user-friendly UI, support for ALL hardware without going through endless hoops and asking on onscure newsgroups for the "uber geek who has THE code" ... etr cetera ... the better.

Re:more than insightful

[Mad Merlin]

Interesting... I find myself exponentially more productive with Linux than I am with Windows. Unfortunately I'm forced to use Windows at work, and I'm just about always sshed back home so I can keep my sanity. I of course use Linux on all of the computers I own.

Re:more than insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like a noob... but you tried Debian first? Try something easier like xandros or mandrake. Then maybe your dell-ms-conspiracy computer might work better.

Re:more than insightful

[novakyu]

Case in point: I just wasted three days trying to make Debian work on a BRAND-NEW Dell. I gave up.

Well, if you are trying to do something with a BRAND-NEW computer, about which you know nothing (most likely, you don't know by heart what video card it has, what ethernet card (if not integrated into motherboard, and in that case, the drivers for motherboard) or what sound card it has---and these are basic things), you are going to struggle. For me, the first-time formatting my computers was always a pain (and yes, I was installing "user-friendly" Windows), because I never knew what hardware I had until then...

Actually, do you know what I do when I can't figure out what video card, etc. I have and I don't really want to open up the computer to look up the serial number? I boot up my computer with Knoppix---except for that one time when I was booting my roommate's computer with a gigabit ethernet card ("cutting edge" so to speak), it found all the hardwares correctly, and I just look at the system message (which, as it happens, is more informative than Windows system messages are) so that I can figure out what to do.

Re:more than insightful

[AlanWay]

When I want to get WORK done, I boot XP.

Depends what work you do, I guess.

I work for a living and use Linux all day, every day. I'm much more productive now than 3 years ago when I was forced to use Windows. (Unix sysadmin for 15 years)

I work in a very Windows oriented office, IIS based Intranet (ntlm auth reqd), Exchange, Windows shared directories etc, but there's NOTHING I cant do on my Linux box.

A GUI should be a personal choice. Personally I use a very minimal FluxBox, because it suits the way I work. (To me a GUI is a way to have lots of command line windows open at once :-) Others prefer the full Start Button, System Tray thing, good on em. If thats what you need to be productive, go for it.

Oh, and when I want to get WORK done, I don't boot linux. It's alwaysi running. (Barring unfortunate UPS issues :)

Re:more than insightful

[burySCO]

It took me 35m to put slackware on this machine and then about another hour to tweak it & get the applications I need on it that don't come with the distro. This was after struggling for 3 weeks putting Windows on /dev/hda1, and I never did get XP to work; finally settled with 98. I know Windows usually ain't that bad, it's just luck of the draw. But it can happen to any OS. Please don't assume that Linux sucks just from one bad experience.

Re:more than insightful

[Long-EZ]

parent should have said more ... I like Linux, but, I don't USE it, I play with it.

Not even close. I've been running my small business with Xandros Linux for over two years. I was more productive in year one than I ever was with previous versions of Windows. I just installed Xandros 3.0, and it just keeps getting better.

The Linux learning curve and occasional issues are less hassle than maintaining Windows anti-virus software and still getting the occasional brand new virus. This happened to an IT friend at work (several hundred employees). Or maintaining anti-spyware software and still having all the jacking around to the registry result in an unstable system every 6-12 months, requiring a fresh installation of Windows and all applications. If your OS is secure, you don't need a bunch of crappy bandaid solutions layered on top.

The fact is, there are excellent versions of Linux available right now that are beating Windows in stability, security AND usability, which is quite feat considering hardware and software is Windows compatible by definition. Make your life easier and check for Linux compatibiliy before buying new hardware. When I do that, it's usually easier and faster to install new hardware on Linux. No plug-n-pray, no reboot.

Most PC users only want a browser, email, and maybe word processing and spreadsheet. Most are VERY happy with Mozilla and OpenOffice.

The only issue I've had in using Linux in a very PC-intensive engineering business is QuickBooks. It runs well under CrossOver (Windows emulation), but the user interface is a bit ugly. A native Linux version or better CrossOver support for QuickBooks would be nice.

About the only PC users who can't use Linux are serious gamers. I think they should be playing dedicated game consoles instead of Windows games, but they're free to do what they want. However, we'll all be a lot better off when people stop using Windows and we can finally get away from the nonstop Outlook worms and spam spewed from zombied Windows machines. Owned Windows boxes send over 80% of all spam.

Xandros is based on Debian, but it's very easy to use. You should try it. I couldn't believe how much better it felt to use open source applications. Xandros Networks is an online repository of popular open source software, and most RPM and DEB packages can also be installed. No crappy licensing agreements, copy protection, registration hassles, EULAs, or product key codes. Pretty much, click the install button and a minute later you're running the new application. It's much easier than Windows software installation, and removing software is MUCH MUCH easier than Windows. The Xandros package manager tracks all library dependencies. Compare that with Windows, where uninstalling works right about 30% of the time, and usually leaves a lot of crap in the registry. Besides, how should I know if another application might be using a shared DLL? Can't Windows keep track of that?

Bottom line: If you can't install one of the new GUI Linux desktop operating systems, you should give up on reading Slashdot and go back to something better suited to your skilzs.

Re:more than insightful

[Allnighterking]

When I want to get WORK done, I boot XP.

Good for you. In fact when I want work to be done ... I boot XP, right out the door even. In my case where I work there are 2 very real choices. Linux and MAC. Why you may ask? I/O, the amount and speed with which I can (or rather the people who do the bit pushing .. I just put the networks together.) push bits runs substantially higher per box when XP is out of the way (or any other Win product)
So I still say. If! OS ABC is what you need to work go for it. But if you use ABC because you can't work on XYZ (lack of knowledge etc) .. hey ABC isn't better, you my fiend are the problem.

Oh yes... and by the time you got your XP box booted. I was done. (open laptop, hit switch, type, close laptop. and this one is Linux)

Re:more than insightful

[aichpvee]

As an animator I can safely say that Linux is the most productive operating system (it's not the computer, moron) that I have ever used. I think the main reason you don't find lots of people in those fields using Linux is because they are either a) stupid (lots of artists are not so very bright), b) told how big and bad and scary it is, or c) there is a particular piece of software or niche category of software that is not available.

The first isn't really going to be able to be solved. Just look how many "artists" can barely run their macs which are supposed to be so "user friendly" though I have never found them so.

The second is fixed by dingbats like you keeping your holes shut when you're too ignorant to talk from experience.

And the third will get there sooner or later, though there really is very little with any market size that isn't available.

If the software is available (which for the vast majority of people who aren't playing games, it is), Linux beats both mac and windows for productivity by huge margins.

Though feel free to flame and troll about how much Linux sucks and has no software, it's just so precious when you windows and mac kids get all defensive.

Re:more than insightful

[siplus]

What about a high school student, college student, 'normal family', and myself, who is a pre-med student? Linux is much more productive. take a look around; this is slashdot. Not every linux user goes to slashdot, many don't even care about computing news, they just want to WORK, which is what linux lets them do.

Re:more than insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try asshole. I don't believe you for a second. NEWS FLASH! MASTURBATING IS NOT AN ART!

Re:more than insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

...they just want to WORK, which is what linux lets them do.

No. Linux makes them use 1970s technology to waste ungodly amount of time trying to do anything useful. Most of these people usually work in a University which are infested by braindead weenix dingbats that waste a lot of talented people's time. Search google for the "Unix Haters Handbook" and mailing list. Read it and you will understand how much damage the unix peanut gallery has done to the field of Computer Science.

Re:more than insightful

[Zontar The Mindless]

I had my current desktop system built for me in November. Came with Windows XP, which I promptly got rid of in favour of Windows 2000 Pro. In spite of the fact that all the hardware is commodity stuff, and the integrator had thoughtfully supplied me with nearly all the necessary drivers for Win9x/NT/2K/XP, it took me about a full day to install Win2K from scratch, run Windows Update, install drivers, configure hardware, *reboot about 35 times*, install software, etc.

This past weekend, I ditched Windows for SuSE 9.2. The installation itself, including time for running the SuSE Online Update to get their latest patches, was somewhere between 90 minutes and two hours. Number of reboots: *1*. (Yes, that's a "one".) At the end of this time I had a completely functional system, and all hardware had been autodetected and configured correctly. Number of drivers I had to load manually: *zero*. Number of trips to vendor websites to obtain drivers: *zero*. Number of apps I had to install separately before I could get any useful work done: *one* (BitKeeper). Number of apps that came with the distribution whose Windows equivalents either cost bucketloads or simply don't exist: *dozens*.

In fact, it wasn't until a day or two later that I printed out something, then realised that I'd not ever installed the printer. It was just there and ready to use. On Windows, installing that same printer took about an hour of loading drivers and fussing with the configuration to get it working properly.

I had/have exactly three issues:

1. KsCD didn't produce audible output until I told it to use direct access mode.

2. I had to change permissions on a bunch of email and other working files that I copied over from the Windows partition before Mozilla Mail and other apps could access them properly.

3. BitKeeper's not sending commit emails to our developer list. I'll probably have to get a bit of help configuring it and/or sendmail.

Executive summary:

1. "Everything just worked" rating >= 99%.

2. Anybody who says that Linux isn't ready for the desktop is misinformed, or a liar.

BTW, I still have two Windows boxes on my LAN (at least one of them will be getting converted to Linux as soon as I have time for it). When something goes wrong with one of them, I drop in a Knoppix CD to find out what's wrong and fix it. And when I use one of them remotely, the interface already seems clunky and counterintuitive, in spite of the fact that my reflexes aren't yet properly trained for the Linux desktop.

How much do I miss Windows? Well... I'll probably finish copying some miscellaneous files over from the the Windows partition and reformat it this weekend.

Re:more than insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is supposed to somehow convince people that want to USE computers - not tinker with them, not piddle around trying to get X started or run modprobe for the 75th time... People that want computers to DO WORK as opposed to the other way around... That Linux is somehow better?

No, I'd rather do my work (you know, real, like when you graduate college and get a job) with a system that's mature enough to use without *having* to dink around with recompiling the kernel to connect a new Firewire drive, hacking unforgiving shell scrips just to get apps to run/install

As a user, I should ***not NEED to know what version of automake is on my system, for any reason whatsover***. Learning how to change the oil on my car and do general maintenance is one thing, and jeeze, it'd be good to understand how to change sparkplugs, hook up jumper cables correctly, maybe even change my own oil. But I should not need to know how my hybrid induction intake system works, or know how to use a carburetor synchrometer, just so I can drive back and forth to friggin' work every day!

I like having a system that works when I need it to, but gives me the power to do the advanced stuff if I need to, or simply want to (hobby hacker). For me that system is OS X, though even *ptheh* Windows is light-years beyond Linux in the usability department.

Is Linux a Hacker's OS? Absolutely. Good for servers/embedded systems? It's a dream system. As a workstation for *certain* dedicated situations? Sure. But as a general usage desktop, no way...Sorry fanboys.

Re:more than insightful

[carlislematthew]

Yeah! I totally agree! The "idiot" poster should have read pages of documentation and educated themselves for hours before attempting to install the OS.

Debian, Knoppix, schnoppix, blue hat. WTF?!

Your post is a prime example of how the Linux community just doesn't understand normal users and what it is they want to do with their computers.

Re:more than insightful

[rainman_bc]

Admittedly, setting up many wireless cards can be a real PITA.

I run FC3 right now. I have to use ndiswrapper to setup my wireless card, and every time I get a kernel update I need to reinstall ndiswrapper.

Tell me, wouldn't we all bitch if windows update made you reinstall your NIC drivers?

Re:more than insightful

[darthdavid]

LINUX IS NOT UNIX NUMBNUTS!!! ARE YOU MENTALLY FUCKING RETARDED? Linux was inspired by Minix which was inspired by Unix. It uses the same/similar commands and shares alot of software but they're not the same thing. Saying they are is like saying Windows is the Xerox GUI 'cause they copied shit off it. Hell it's also like saying DOS is unix because they copied alot of ideas from it (and alot of commands are very similar in function/name with only slight tweaks). Beyond that, UNIX is not a time waster. It's just as efficient if not more so than windows. Have you ever even ran something off a command line? It can be alot easier that fucking around with a sluggish, poorly written and retarded GUI (IE windows).

Re:more than insightful

[MightyMartian]

Then contact your wireless NIC manufacturer and tell them to release the f*cking specs. It's not the Open Source community's fault that chipset manufacturers are in bed with Microsoft.

Re:more than insightful

[CrackerJack9]

Speaking of ignorant numbnuts...have you ever tried to design any sort of graphic from the command line? (Not counting ASCII-art, of course) Do you really think that everyone can do everything they need to do from any platform? Try to be a little less retarded and think before you try to make a point that should be made much better.

Oh, and Windows isn't necessarily bloat-ware only because of the GUI aspect of it...if you knew more about the operating system itself (how all that 'magic' stuff makes your little commands work) you might realize where the bulk of the problem is and may even realize a thing or two about yourself. Good day.

Re:more than insightful

[DarkTempes]

when i want to really game, i prefer to use a gentoo LiveCD made specificially for a game...basically just the kernel and whatever is needed to run the game (you can make your own using catalyst) and i'm sure you could do the same thing with guides out there without gentoo's catalyst you get the bloatlessness of the typical 'dedicated console' with the serious hardware of a computer =) though wine is still a hassle if the game doesn't have linux binaries, maybe more people will stop using DirectX and start using more OpenGL, or maybe microsoft could be nice and support directx under linux

Re:more than insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, you don't have to use anything from an outside supplier, do you? If you want to interact with the insurance portals in Canada (I mean official web based applications insurance companies need to use, not a site that'll hook you up with an insurance quote) you MUST use Internet Explorer. Many industries require proprietary third party applications that may not run on Linux, regardless of how easy it is to use.

Re:more than insightful

[merdark]

If the software is available (which for the vast majority of people who aren't playing games, it is), Linux beats both mac and windows for productivity by huge margins.

Nice troll. And we are supposed to take your word for it? I guess my word is just as good then, because I use Linux as work all day too?

Well, I use Mac and Windows at home... and guess what? Mac is more usable for me. It runs all my geeky unix programs, plus it *just works* for regular user stuff. I can't say the same about my work linux box.

But in all honesty, if Linux is beating other operating systems by huge margins for you, then I think there is something wrong with YOU. See, most people can get work done on any system. And considering that Mac runs nearly all your linux software, how Linux can be hugely more productive for you is a big mystery.

Unless of course you are just massively biased.

Re:more than insightful

[rainman_bc]

Yes, but in order to succeed on the desktop, this is part of the uphill battle Linux faces.

I can deal with it. My mom cannot.

Re:more than insightful

[Tim C]

If the software is available (which for the vast majority of people who aren't playing games, it is), Linux beats both mac and windows for productivity by huge margins.

How so? I've used both XP and Mandrake as my primary work OS, and can honestly say that I saw absolutely no change in my productivity when I switched between them. I'm as comfortable using one as the other, but neither increased my typing speed, shortened my compile times, or reduced the number of bugs in my code.

Could you explain to me how "Linux beats both mac and windows for productivity by huge margins"?

Re:more than insightful

[aichpvee]

Nice try at flamebait. Unfortunately for you (who there is obviously something wrong with) you don't seem to be able to read. I never make claims that you can't "get work done" on any system. It's all about work flow. It's the same argument I make against 3DS Max, that it's clunkier and more annoying to use than it has to be.

But feel free to continue trying to flamebait if it makes you feel better about paying all that money for your mac. I'm sure it makes you feel very superior.

Re:more than insightful

[j.blechert]

good point of the parent (as anyone already noticed), however, I think that abiword (together with gnumeric) is far better suited for most users needs than openoffice.org. The interface fits right into the gnome desktop and it really works like a charm. Gnumerics support for openoffice.org files is at the moment not as good as it should be but I'm sure this will get better very soon. Of course this is only a real solution for gnome desktops. (as featured in the great ubuntu, ubuntulinux.org)
KOffice, koffice.org, is not my taste so I would recommend openoffice.org for kde users (especially the version featuring native widgets).
But as always the user is free in his choice, the only thing I want to do is get the alternatives to be known, because some of them really kick ass.

for gamers a view at happypenguin.org is worth it, the site brings many great linux and linux compatible games to the public. for example frozen bubble, planeshift, wesnoth, neverwinter nights, quake3, ut2004 and of course the popular mods like truecombat for quake3. Gaming on linux is not as bad as most users tend to believe. with emulators like wine or cedega most linux games (kotor, baldurs gate series, jedi knight, etc.) work well at a constant and good frame rate (hardly 2 frames less than native on windows)

and of course there are those sites like gnome-apps.org gnome-look.org or kde-apps and kde-look that feature brandnew apps for the DEs in an organized way without any unwanted ads or clutter that I've never seen on any site for windows apps.

Re:more than insightful

[Mmm coffee]

LINUX IS NOT GNU NUMBNUTS!!! ARE YOU MENTALLY FUCKING RETARDED? Linux was inspired by Minix and is a kernel. The programs you are referring to is the GNU Operating System (coreutils, m4, bash, binutils, gcc, etc.), a Free Software OS that cloned UNIX with many additional improvements. (Do you enjoy --long-flags? I hope you do, POSIX states that all commands should be only one letter ala -w. That's a GNU improvement.) This operating system predates the Linux kernel by just shy of ten years, and runs on top of a little kernel called Linux.

Side note - GNU/Linux is far from a time waster. A couple of months back me and another guy had to fix up a few hundred images for a site we're working on. He's the hardcore Windows user who says that "Linux is faster because you don't run as much stuff as you do in Windows"... well duh. And he doesn't see why this is a good thing.

Meanwhile, I'm a hardcore GNU nut who lives and dies at his commandline. We divided the images up in half and started getting to work, him figuring it would take several days to get it all done. Within two hours I had all the images cropped, and twenty minutes (and a short shell script invoking ImageMagick later) I had everything done. Mr. hardcore Windows point-n-click man had a little less than 75 done.

Never mess with a geek who sits behind a halfway decent shell.

Re:more than insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

When I want to get WORK done, I boot XP.

When I want to play games I boot XP. Otherwise I run Linux. I find that I am much more productive at the kind of work I do (mostly data analysis) with the basic GNU/Linux toolkit and CLI than with any combination of Windows tools that I have found.

With Linux I also don't have to hunt around for those tools: most of the ones I want and all the ones I need are included with almost all distros.

Re:more than insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

Rofl ...

It took my about 40 minutes to install mandrake 10.x and getting it ready for use.

I could even choose wich programs I wanted to have ...

This was on a p4 1,8 Ghz ...

Then I installed XP sp1 on a IBM p4 2,8Ghz. It took a lot longer time before it was ready to use on the internet or use at all ...

And A LOT of reboots ... and windows wasn't able to find the network card OR the graphics card ...

Then install a firewall(Yeah I could have used the internal one in XP ... or maybey not ...). Install a Virusscanner, turning of the services I don't want or need and uninstalling programs that shouldn't be installed.

Then I also needed to installing MS office and upgrade it and upgrade windows, to make sure it works without much problems ...

This articel is also very fun to read ;) ...

http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0, 39 020472,39181945,00.htm

"Before deciding to migrate to the open source OS, Bergen carried out tests at three schools comparing Linux with Windows. The computers were set up with Windows 2000 and MS Office 2000, or with SuSE Linux 8.2, open source desktop KDE 3.1 and OpenOffice.org 1.0.

From these tests Bergen found that both operating systems could be used in the schools, but that there were various advantages to using Linux including lower cost, improved security and usability, according to Tuftedal. He says the software and hardware costs of using Linux on the desktop are "significantly lower" and that it is more secure against vandalism, user errors and virus attacks.

As part of the test comparing Linux and Windows, pupils were challenged to break the set-up of the PCs running either of the two operating systems. A consultancy firm was brought in to harden the Windows desktop by modifying the registry settings, while Linux was used in a standard set-up, says Tuftedal. Despite the more resistant Windows set-up the pupils managed to crack into it while the Linux system proved impervious."

Re:more than insightful

[Fred_A]

Interestingly enough, I do the exact opposite.

I don't really have anything anything against XP, I actually have an XP partition to run Half Life2 and FarCry in, but when I have to work, I run Linux and have done for most of the past ten years. 95% of my workstation's uptime is probably Linux.

So what are those highly technical things I do in Linux ?

Is it programming like I used to do ? Some kind of exotic hacking ? Well, no.

I do a lot of writing, mostly in OOo, translations, image retouching, a bit of DTP for professional printing (mostly brochure kind stuff) with Scribus. And sometimes, yes, I write a few dozen lines of Perl, shell, Python, or whatever when I have a problem that nobody else seems to have had before (rare nowadays).

And of course I enjoy the comfort of a versatile system with dozens^Whundreds^Wthousands of nifty tools that can be hacked in so many ways that I'll never see the end of it.
Whereas in Windows I always feel limited by what checkboxes are available.

I probably could do everything I do in Windows, but it certainly wouldn't be as comfortable for me. And although some tools would be more mature, I certainly would miss the "hackability" of the Unix way.

Generally speaking, using a Unix system for office work is often quite possible for most users (I know, I often set them ou in small companies). The only real exception is when a critical application isn't available (accounting for example).

Of course, as with Windows, an admin is required. If the thing has been setup properly (i.e. by making sure users can't break too much stuff), the workload can be quite low though (this is probably true of Windows NT 5.x too).

Re:more than insightful

[Fred_A]

That's why moms make little geeks :)

Re:more than insightful

[Dr. Shim]

I know what you're saying. Took me long enough to get Debian going on a Compaq computer, even longer to get it half-working on a Sony VAIO.

Just for the sake of curiosity, were you using the 2.4 kernel? I've recently tried using a newer distrobution loaded with the 2.6 kernel, and I was very surprised to see everything work right out of the box. (The distrobution was also Debian-based. Probably attributed to the fact that the newer kernel has better hardware support, although this might be a naive assumption.)

Re:more than insightful

[ykardia]

When I want to get WORK done, I use Unix.

If you had ever worked with lots of data, you would know why. Try concatenating two 100MB data files on Windows and find out what happens - last time I tried that, everything just froze. For certain kinds of work, Windows is just not suited.

Re:more than insightful

[ShieldW0lf]

So do what most people do with windows. Hire someone to set it up, make a ghost of your install, and if everything goes to hell, reinstall from that.

Re:more than insightful

[JabberWokky]

And I am the reverse. I haven't used Windows for work in about seven years now... I use KDE on Linux on a day to day basis. When I bought my current laptop, I booted into XP and couldn't even figure out how to drag windows around using the trackpad (some sort of odd "sticky" drag that seemed to be based on a delay). Every app seemed to have a different, nonintuitive interface. Annoying as hell.

My SO is a scientist. She uses million dollar machines all day, collects data on a *nix box, puts it onto a USB key and processes it with her Powerbook running OSX. She doesn't use Windows either. I don't think she's ever owned a Windows machine.

Now, we'll cross the two. She wanted season five of Angel on her system. I had no idea how to use her system, and finally just opened a command line to scp the files over to her ~/Desktop. She has no idea how to use my system, but I can open a Konqueror window for her to check her email.

But when either of us want to get WORK done, we use... our own system.

Why is it a revelation (like you make it out to be) that you go to the system you're most comfortable with to get work done?

--
Evan

Re:more than insightful

[Taladar]

Or he just doesn't consider Mac an option because of the extra computer he would have to buy to test wether it suits his needs

Re:more than insightful

[blane.bramble]

Do you truly, honestly think that Windows detects all hardware on all machines? Believe me, when it comes to servers I often have to identify SCSI chipsets, network chipsets, RAID controller chipsets in order to download and create a driver install disk so I can get Windows 2000 or 2003 server to install. Sometimes I have to do the same with Linux, but it is less common than with Windows at the moment.

Re:more than insightful

[joeljkp]

You're getting lots of Linux v. Windows replies, so I'll take a different route.

Your problem isn't that Linux doesn't let you be as productive as Windows. It's that installing Linux doesn't let you be as productive as using Windows.

If your Dell had come with Linux preinstalled and configured, it would be more productive to use that than to mess around installing Windows.

Re:more than insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was looking for flamebait I wouldn't look any further than your journal.

http://slashdot.org/~aichpvee/journal/

BTW, referring to users of almost ever operating system as 'fanbois' is the clearest indicator ever that you, infact, are a fanboy (although of a linux distribution you appear to keep close to your chest).

Have a nice day.

Re:more than insightful

[lucason]

The sooner the Linux community can come up with a foolproof and user-friendly UI, support for ALL hardware without going through endless hoops and asking on onscure newsgroups for the "uber geek who has THE code" ... etr cetera ... the better.

This is way off. Totally beside the point. How many people install their own PC in their work environment? 0.001%? Just a guess but I don't think it'll be any more than that in a company the size of IBM. The PCs are installed by the IT department. They image it and duplicate it. The amount of time to install the original PC from which the image is taken is unimportant.

What's much more important is how long it keeps working without maintenance.
Saying Linux is no place to get work done is ridiculous. There is no reason why you couldn't browse just as well with firefox, mail just as fast with evolution and write memo's just as well with open office, and that sums up just about 90% of all PC use.
I get loads of work done on Linux every day. I migrated my wife and mother to Linux 2 years ago. Haven't had a PC-Rebuilding X-mass since.
The only problem is that there still are "Web apps" that need IE for some ridiculous reason. And ofcourse the MSVJM fiasco which tied Java applications written in MS dev env to IE. and some programs like lotus notes (and IBM product no less) that have no version for linux.

Re:more than insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

When I want to get WORK done, I boot XP.

Shouldn't it be "When I want to get WORK done, I REboot XP."

Re:more than insightful

[gottsman]

I am a linux fan as much as the next guy but I think you are comparing apples to oranges in terms of drivers support. You have a brand new system built in late 2004 and are installing an operating system from 1999. Its no wonder there is poor driver support in Windows 2000. The system integrator provided the approriate drivers to make your system usable. Why Windows requires so many reboots is a different story.

I think a better comparision is a Suse distribution from the 1999 era.

Re:more than insightful

[Stepping Razor]

"but neither increased my typing speed, shortened my compile times, or reduced the number of bugs in my code."

nicely put. i use macs at work, windows and linux at home and i can work just as fast on all three. the only thing that ever impedes my productivity is my own laziness and stupidity.

Re:more than insightful

[Stepping Razor]

"have you ever tried to design any sort of graphic from the command line?"

if you reread the post darthdavid didn't recommend doing all tasks on the command line. i think he was just touting one of the benefits of linux, the ability to switch of the gui when it's not required. obviously you do need it for some jobs, but even then you have the option of some pretty fast stripped down guis.

Re:more than insightful

[cayenne8]

"Case in point: I just wasted three days trying to make Debian work on a BRAND-NEW Dell. I gave up. "

Give THIS a try....

It is one of the best written and straightforward installs I've ever done...

Re:more than insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the way you do it.

Re:more than insightful

[ichimunki]

Thank you for the Mac OS X spam.

Re:more than insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a brand new system built in late 2004 and are installing an operating system from 1999. Its no wonder there is poor driver support in Windows 2000.

Hear, hear... Somebody mod this up. Try the test again, using a machine built with 2001 hardware and installing Windows XP. I bet you'll find most everything is discovered and automatically installed by Windows.

Or for that matter, take Red Hat 9.0 and put in on a brand new 2004 Dell and see how far you get.

Any newer operating system (like XP, or Mandrake 10.1) does a better job discovering and installing hardware than it's predecessor. As things get refined, they just get better at doing their job. Simple fact of revisions.

Re:more than insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

Most are VERY happy with Mozilla and OpenOffice.

Come back when the database portion of OpenOffice is up to MS Access standards of design/functionality. Spreadsheets are simple things. Databases are a bit more complex, and I don't think OpenOffice is quite there yet.

Re:more than insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

It would help if you told us what your "work" is. I highly doubt what you do all day involves the same applications I do.

Re:more than insightful

[Grishnakh]

This is a troll, not insightful.

Have you even used a modern Linux distribution, or tried installing one? I just installed SuSE 9.2 and it detected all my hardware automatically. I didn't have to do anything (though I did customize my package choices because I wanted to).

X starting? This is automatically set up.

Modprobe? You only run this if you've installed a custom-compiled kernel. If you're installing a custom kernel, you should know what you're doing. Otherwise, stick with the one which was installed with your distro.

Recompiling the kernel to connect a firewire drive? All modern distros have all the drivers you need pre-compiled, and they'll automatically load as needed. You just have to plug in the firewire drive and it'll work.

Shell scripts for applications to install? This one shows that you have no idea how Linux works, and are just talking out your ass from things you've read elsewhere. Applications are easy to install: "rpm -i appname". The debian version is probably easier: "apt-get appname". With SuSE, you just pick the app you want from the "install software" application within Yast, and it automatically works out dependencies and installs it.

Automake? I've been using Linux since '98, compiling custom kernels etc., and I have no idea what version of automake I have, and never did. This is clearly a sensationalist troll.

Go back under your bridge.

Re:more than insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure all the gamers would love the console that can play HL2 at 1600x1200 on thier tv. I know I would. Care to point me to the store where i can buy that?

The fact is that you can keep your windows boxes safe and stable without alot of effort. I have 2 systems that are over 2 years old, virus free and never had to re-install,recover or any system maintance.

Xandros sounds excellent and I may very well have to give it a try at some point. But honestly people will always bitch about things that arent straight forward to them,for example safely maintaining a XP machine. The good news is that there isnt as much difference between Linux/bsd/osx/windows as there used to be.

Bottom line: Be more tolerant. You'll be happier.

Re:more than insightful

[sumdumgai]

How many "normal users" install windows themselves? Anyone smart enough to prep and install windows can install Linux. It is much easier.

Also, the original poster was troll for trying a Dell computer anyway. Dell's are notorious for not being Linux friendly. So it would take a little work on the part of the installer to make everything work right. But how is this different from trying to figure out what drivers you need and downloading them to install on a windows machine?

Re:more than insightful

[parnasus]

Your post is a prime example of how the Linux community just doesn't understand normal users and what it is they want to do with their computers.

What I think you and the original poster are missing is that "New Dell" system he tried to install GNU/Linux on went through the same process of having someone try to figure out how to get that !#$!%^ onboard sound card to work correctly with that @$#&@&! PCI interrupt with that *(@!^%! driver! They did that at the factory, and when they figured it out, they made a ghost of the system and installed it on 10k just like it.

You, the consumer, got a system that "you just plug in and it works". But woe-betide the user whose system gets hacked by spyware, crapware, and malware. I can't tell you how many PC's I've had to reinstall because they "just wasted three days" trying to get it working themselves.

The average person knew more about their computer in the late 80's early 90's because the average person had to make that struggle to get it all working. Nowadays, you don't have to know about your hardware to use it. Using his car example from earlier, most users treat their computers like they treat their cars: "I put gas in and go, right? That's all there is to it?" No, you do have to do some maintenance to it, treat it with respect, that sort of thing. Hell, an oil change now and then is sorta necessary. How many people defrag the hard drive, for the love of Pete ?!?

Linux on the Desktop is a Mess

[occamboy]

I'd like to use Linux on the desktop, but it's a PITA. I try it and dump it about twice a year 'cos it's non-trivial to manage. And I'm a nerd with a 20+ year pedigree, so I can imagine what a typical user has to put up with....

This is really a shame, as it's so close to being good on the desktop - if someone with a clue and a small workgroup worked on it, within a few months it would be there.

The pay versions (e.g., Xandros) might be good enough, I haven't tried them. But why bother, when I know that Windows is quite good, and inexpensive?

Sigh.

Re:Linux on the Desktop is a Mess

[Anonymous Coward]

1 word. Ubuntu.

Re:Linux on the Desktop is a Mess

[Anonymous Coward]

3 words. Waste of time.

Re:Linux on the Desktop is a Mess

[sydres]

ok I'll bite, what are you talking about? have you even tried a distro like redhat, mandrake, fedora, etc all of these provide good out of the box configuration. meaning you may never have to touch a piece of hardware's driver configs default security is pretty darn good, and 90 percent of what the average user uses is either available or has a clone. the biggest issue with GNU/Linux distros is that their exist too many options most users like to have a desktop preset and never try anything different. sorry enough ranting. you may be right in your situation.

Re:Linux on the Desktop is a Mess

[lachlan76]

I wouldn't have said it was that bad...I switched when I was 13.

I did however find Xandros quite hostile towards me, and ended up switching to Redhat 8, before finally settling on Gentoo.

But why bother, when I know that Windows is quite good, and inexpensive?

The same good and inexpensive Windows, that is full of security holes, has no proper CLI, and costs $600?

Re:Linux on the Desktop is a Mess

[Anonymous Coward]

I use linux on my desktop, and I graduated less than 3 years ago. I don't know where all this stuff is coming from, except from the "zomg! its not windows so it sucks!" camp, so I'll give you the same speech I gave everyone else:

Oh noes! You changed to different software and now its different! Shock, horror! Word does not run here and you'll have to learn another editor. Gasp, the interface is different, and therefore sucks, as if the interface you grew up using and is somehow magically better because you can't remember having to learn it.

The gimp's interface sucks in completely different ways than Photoshop's sucky interface, so the only constructive criticism it gets is 1 part useful feature it should have to every 99 "suck more like photoshop so they sue you out of existance faster!" Meanwhile people whine that there are too many text editors around so its too hard to choose and everyone is wasting time on editors that never get used, yet when someone suggests they stick to vim or emacs, they throw a tantrum because they really just wanted everyone to use the same piece of crap they do. And clearly everyone's install should be as smooth and easy as Gentoo's.

Re:Linux on the Desktop is a Mess

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to use Linux on the desktop, but it's a PITA.

No it isn't.

I try it and dump it about twice a year

You mean you tried it once six months ago?

'cos it's non-trivial to manage.

No, it really isn't.

And I'm a nerd with a 20+ year pedigree

You're a 20-year-old college student, right?

This is really a shame, as it's so close to being good on the desktop - if someone with a clue and a small workgroup worked on it, within a few months it would be there.

You mean like IBM? (This is easily the silliest statement in the parent post)

The pay versions (e.g., Xandros) might be good enough, I haven't tried them.

Now that I believe.

But why bother, when I know that Windows is quite good, and inexpensive?

No, it isn't.

Well, at least it didn't get modded "Insightful" or "Informative" :)

Re:Linux on the Desktop is a Mess

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never ever had any problems running Linux. Mind you, I'm a nerd with 21 years experience, but Linux was simple to install 9 years ago. I've installed Windows in several different ways (cd, over the network, moving software images directly connected from the serial port of one computer to the serial port on another), and have also installed Linux in (very similar) ways (network, cd, serial port). Over all, Linux is easier to install than Windows. Everything just works on Linux. I did a side-by-side comparison of the process. Linux asks fewer questions that Windows when installing, installs faster (and not just the bare OS with a few apps but thousands of applications that come bundled with Linux). Linux also lets you do an automatic software upgrade as soon as you have a network connection, so that your system can be as up to date as possible. Windows does not. I think anyone who says 'Linux is too hard to install" gets the store to install Windows for them. For equal or less money, they could pay to get Linux installed, and they would get all the apps, be virus free, secure, and more reliable than they ever would be with XP, *and* their system performance would be much better. Some day people will learn.

Re:Linux on the Desktop is a Mess

[dalutong]

I switched when I was 13 too. If it is possible for a 13 year old in 1997 to switch then anyone can. Hey -- my parents even switched a couple of years ago!

Re:Linux on the Desktop is a Mess

[burns210]

Ubuntu Linux is coming out with their next release soon. Worth reading up on the features that are in it and that are going to be in it. It is my personal choice for 'desktop' system.

They are a very straightforward and logical desktop layout for maintaining (installing apps, etc) things.

Re:Linux on the Desktop is a Mess

[Baloo Ursidae]

The fact I switched to Debian Linux in 1997, barely computer literate, and never having heard of Linux before puts your skills in grave question. If you've been doing this for 20+ years, what's your hangup? The only thing that can explain it AFAICT is the Californian Complex. Californians tend to move to other states (usually Oregon or Washington) and expect Oregonians and Washingtonians to be as fucked up, ignorant and tasteless as they are, and bitch loudly every time they encounter that this is not the case. Windows users are guilty of the same complex. They go to other operating systems and expect it to be just as cumbersome, difficult, insecure and fragile as where they came from, and bitch loudly when it's not. Get over yourself, Californian!

Re:Linux on the Desktop is a Mess

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently installed Xandros 3 (which is really just Debian under the hood) on several machines, including my IBM thinkpad 42p. Everything auto-magically detected and configured perfectly -- except the atheros-based wireless (I expect because the madwifi drivers would taint the kernel). But one piece was missing -- I couldn't play a dvd movie. Apparently the **AA has scared linux distros bad enough that they won't even include that functionality.

But here's the kicker: Xandros included version 4 of Codeweavers' Crossover office, so users can run MSOffice, IE, Quicken, and TurboTax! I installed a totally 'unsupported' windows app and it ran just fine.

Re:Linux on the Desktop is a Mess

[lachlan76]

Following that logic, because I'm 15 and know C/C++/Java/Perl/python/awk/bash anyone could learn that...well, they should, but they don't.

You're lucky you parents could switch...mine have trouble with the login screen, cos it says 'lachlan login:'. So I leave them on Windows (with Firefox and Thunderbird, and not a trace of MS Office of course) ;)

Re:Linux on the Desktop is a Mess

[Anonymous Coward]

Your scenario only works if you are using older, well established hardware and you get lucky and have everything go right the first time.

Windows has install failures too, but IMHE When linux fails to detect or install a driver for a device, you've got hours to days worth of fscking around to get it to work, if it ever does (Scanners usually have to be about 12 months old for example)

Windows installs work about 10x better still in this regard.

Then there is the selection and quality of software. Yes, Linux loses big on this one. No photoshop, very poor audio apps, the list is almost endless.

Linux is 10 years behind windows and mac WRT end user utility. Note I did not say server or geek usablility, but honest to god, "I actually use my computer to do things" usability.

Re:Linux on the Desktop is a Mess

[dalutong]

I'd say, yes, anyone _could_ learn them. I knew approx that much when I was 15 too (minus python but plus a few others.)

The grandparent was saying that it was too hard for people to learn. I'm saying that they're not too hard -- you just have to have the interest.

Re:Linux on the Desktop is a Mess

[lachlan76]

I know some people that are trying to learn C++, and what I think is that not everyone has the right mindset for programming.

However, changing operating systems shouldn't be to much of a trauma, assuming I have a few hours to compile KDE. You know, being almost a clone of windows and all...

It might be because

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you don't use Internet Explorer, you might not get very far with [tech support] helping you with the problem," he said.

I'm genuinely suprised at this. After all the anti-trust stuff I cannot believe that IBM just blundered into the trap like some dinosaur into a tar pit. Long live mammals I suppose.

The final solution

[SilverspurG]

Webapps suck. Burn them all.

Re:The final solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I stay in Finland house all during 90s, owing to nasty open source, and was unable to go in the streets play football or go to Redmond. I am retired linux developer and pacifist, without doing web app development.

Re:The final solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't burn gmail. It is the ONLY web app worth it's weight in gold. Mutt for the web.

Re:The final solution

[Anonymous Coward]

the nazis made the Jews wear flair you know.

What went wrong is they suck at Linux

[SirFartsAlot]

I went on a linux course at IBM and it took 3 days for them to finally give up on installing Red Hat and use SuSe instead. Even then it took about 20 minutes before I was asking questions the instuctor could not even understand let alone find an answer for. Not impressed.

Re:What went wrong is they suck at Linux

[stanleypane]

If you ask me, it is a product of their environment. Corporate America has no place forcing an OS on anyone, Microsoft included. Most of the folks that choose to use linux do so out of their own interest, not because X Corp. said they have to do it.

I love IBM's choice to back linux from a customer standpoint, but anytime a company forces an in-house change at the OS level, well, they are asking for trouble; All be it, the trouble could have been lessened. When you forces an OS change of 40,000+ users to be made in a year, or less, they are asking for trouble at a magnitude that is going to hit the radars. They'd have been better off adopting a "Use linux if you like it" policy and slowly allowing users support as their staff became more educated and aware of the platforms abilities and/or downfalls.

But, good ol IBM thought it'd be best to use their employees as another rallying point for Linux. It's a shame they didn't put more thought into it. Any high school techie could have told them it wasn't possible in a years time. Sheesh, I love linux at the desktop level, but the last thing I'd do is stand still and let my company switch our entire user base over to linux in a year. We'd probably go out of business due to the loss in productivity alone.

It's a simple problem. Too much, too fast.

We want Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

The average user doesn't want Linux. THey want the familiar Windows.

I work for IBM. Most of the people in my department who have a preference want Linux on our ThinkPads. Some of us dual boot anyway. I use cygwin on XP for now. Once there's a certified Linux C4EB, I'm switching.

Re:We want Linux

[Amiga Trombone]

Once there's a certified Linux C4EB, I'm switching.

The last time I checked, they'd taken the last version of Linux C4EB off of the web site, and left a message that it would be available again after being tweaked based on the feedback they'd received.

That was a few months ago, and it still hadn't made a re-appearance as of about a week ago.

I think this is turning out to be more of a challenge than they anticipated. But assuming they're dedicated to working through all the issues, it could be beneficial to desktop Linux in general.

Re:We want Linux

[einhverfr]

I think this is turning out to be more of a challenge than they anticipated. But assuming they're dedicated to working through all the issues, it could be beneficial to desktop Linux in general.

Completely agree. Linux on the desktop has *great* potential because there is so much more you can do with it than Windows. With the combination of Athena-style network administration and the Coda filesystem (for laptops) you can do amazong things with a small support staff.

Unfortunately, the successful deployments don't really leverage all Linux's strengths, and the result is a cheap imitation of Windows, and it is still a bit rough around the edges for use as a standard enterprise desktop, network administration wise. This is largely because we haven't seen a lot of large deployments which have allowed people to sit down and work through the issues.

So it is natural that IBM will go through a *lot* of problems. Hopefully they have a good system in place to look at these problems and solve them. Then they will be well positioned to help others migrate as well.

Re:We want Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I also work for IBM.

Most of the people in my department want their Thinkpads to just turn on and work. They do not care what OS it runs. If you change their default OS, it had better hit the ground running, and be a SEAMLESS change. When you spend your entire day developing hardware, testing hardware, dealing with manufacturing problems, outside vendors, and internal beauracracy, you really don't have time to futz with equipment that should be there for you, let alone learn everything you know about computers over again. Not everyone in the company is 27 years old with plenty of free time to learn how to make things that used to work, work again.

This is a rollout that the company has to be careful with, and it would appear that is the approach they are taking.

Re:We want Linux

[Random BedHead Ed]

Dual-booting their Thinkpads? I've been trying to set this up on my shiny new T42p, but I've been having problems with the IBM predesktop feature. Basically it seems designed to prevent me from dual-booting - I tried to set it up, and killed XP, but then couldn't reinstall it. I called IBM and had them send me a set of CDs (which should have come with the laptop in the first place, IMHO) so I could rebuild. But I've been having trouble resizing XP's partition. How do you guys do it?

Re:We want Linux

[WindBourne]

I did work for IBM(93,94). I am currently posting on Mandrake on a thinkpad and use several IBM systems at work with Linux. These have been far less painless than having to deal with XP (which I am having to learn for my current position). Quit honestly, go ahead and make the jump. Things work great except for when being forced to use wine with a MS app (not even close to seamless). Also I do not bother with the modem, but have seen postings about it

Oh, and I am 45.

Re:We want Linux

[baka_vic]

Have a look at this.

However, I warn you strongly to back up anything important - I tried using qtparted (from a knoppix disc) to resize a ntfs partition on my laptop, but when I booted to Windows, it said that the partition was not formatted, and wanted to format it. Luckily the partition was empty at that time.

I read somewhere that early versions of ntfsresize (I was using knoppix 3.4) destroyed partitions, but I believe that the newer versions are fine. YMMV.

Re:We want Linux

[carlislematthew]

You sounds like a sysadmin or someone that works in an IT department in some kind of support role. For you, there *is* so much more you can do with Linux. It's amazingly configurable and a wonderful OS from a techinical standpoint.

For the users however, it's all about what they used to run, but now they can't. They'll have less applications and not the ones they are used to.

Re:We want Linux

[carlislematthew]

My company just deployed 150 IBM Thinkpad laptops to our sales force across the US. If the modem doesn't work, they can't do a damn thing.

Linux support for modems is terrible. Software modems, buggy drivers, I've seen it all. Laptops are the worst for support.

Re:We want Linux

[cmacb]

A couple years ago when I observed a mobile IBM user (one who was always on assignment with no permanent desk at IBM) I saw little that they did that depended deeply on Windows. E-mail could have been anything. Timesheet and expenses and other administrative things all seemed to be based around interfacing with MAINFRAME applications written in REXX or some such. The only thing I can think of that would be particularly problematic would be Microsoft Project. Since it has it's own ways of doing things, if you are interacting with a customer that uses Project, you have to too.

Of course, most of the project plans I've seen come out of my IBM friend, or anyone else since MS Project was invented for that matter, are pure science fiction anyway. Along with the project planning tool for air-heads came air-head project planners I guess.

I'm very surprised that one of the big 8 (6 or whatever) accounting firms hasn't come up with their own proprietary methodology that would combine a slick (web based ideally) tool for planning big projects that would go along with the high-power/expensive consulting services that they pawn off^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H sell to big busnesses around the world.

Re:We want Linux

[einhverfr]

You sounds like a sysadmin or someone that works in an IT department in some kind of support role. For you, there *is* so much more you can do with Linux. It's amazingly configurable and a wonderful OS from a techinical standpoint.

Yes. I am a consultant that helps people run whatever they want. I guess that qualifies.

For the users however, it's all about what they used to run, but now they can't. They'll have less applications and not the ones they are used to.

For home users and for certain small businesses, you are certainly right. But for many buisnesses the question is not "can I run all the applications I want" but rather "can I make this computer run things to best operate my buisness." Those are two completely different questions. Yes, it is a lot of work to switch to Linux, and usually, it is better to simply migrate new servers only or on an as-needed basis.

Furthermore, when one does migrate desktops, you ideally migrate the apps first. This means going to Mozilla and OpenOffice on Windows before trying to migrate the OS. This gives people a chance to smoothly transition. I doubt this is what IBM is trying to do, though, so they are actually maximizing the difficulties of transition.

Re:We want Linux

[WindBourne]

Actually, Linux has worked great with all modems except the winmodems. My understanding is that most of those work fine (with the drivers), but that is just what I hear. If nothing else, there are pcmcia cards.

Re:We want Linux

[irgu]

The partition table corruptions are filesystem independent because they are caused by the Linux kernel and Parted, not ntfsresize. Quote from the NTFSResize FAQ

It's not as easy to destroy all data as usually thought. In theory, three things might go wrong during resizing an NTFS partition and setting it up for dual boot,

1. NTFS resizing by ntfsresize.
2. Repartitioning by fdisk, cfdisk, Parted, QTParted, DiskDrake, YaST, etc.
3. Boot manager setup using LILO, GRUB, etc.

In all cases, we have met, the problem was introduced in either step 2 or step 3 and not by the use of ntfsresize. In most cases this means, your data is still intact but you can't access it.

Most often a Windows boot problem occurs if one edited the partition table by Parted version less than 1.6.12 or a libparted based partitioning tool. This is especially true if a Linux 2.6 kernel was used. The Linux 2.6 kernels report different disk geometries as previously for the same disk an incompatible way therefore fooling softwares like Parted. Unluckily many partitioning tools weren't adjusted accordingly thus in some cases they might render Windows unbootable and even your data inaccessible by saving an incorrect partition table. Known major distributions having this problem are but not limited to Mandrake 10, SUSE 9.1, Fedora 2.

If you used a distribution having this problem then please check your vendors errata or see below for possible recovery solutions. We'd like to emphasize again, this is not an NTFS related problem and it is not caused by the usage of ntfsresize.

The problem was fixed in a recent parted what QTParted and most other partitioners use internally.

Re:We want Linux

[Gordonjcp]

Me too!!!

I actually have a desktop machine at work running C4EB on Windows 2000. It's slow as fuck to boot, but pretty stable once it's working. To make it usable, I've installed Firefox and Vim - we're allowed to do stuff like that. Windows 2000 is OK, but fairly crude and clumsy. Going from Slack-current at home to Windows 2000 at work is a bit like going from my Citroen CX to a Ford Mondeo.

The big problem is running Lotus Notes. Until there is a Linux native version of Notes, or we start using something better (all those of you who think Linux apps are clunky and badly-thought-out, try using Notes 6), Linux won't really be particularly usable. Running Notes under Wine is even more painful than running it in Windows.

Re:We want Linux

[Random BedHead Ed]

Hey, this was a huge help - thanks! The problem was that I had been using KNOPPIX 3.7, and being on the cutting edge I had booted using the 2.6 kernel (still an option on KNOPPIX). This was probably the problem, as 2.6 is apparently too smart for its own good and second-guesses the BIOS in its disk geometry reporting. So I booted KNOPPIX with 2.4 and ran QTparted to resized my NTFS partition and add some new partitions, and like magic Windows still boots. You know, for those unlikely scenarios in which I might need it. :)

Problems are normal

[Neo-Rio-101]

Well, they made a bold push to do this by the end of 2005... so they have 1 year left to beat their own goal.

I'd say the problems they are experiencing are due course when migrating to a different platform. Sure, IE wrecked browser standards and many people had to play fiddle to Microsoft and write IE compatible pages. That's going to take a while to fix and there will be problems.
Porting some of their other apps in going to be a long and painful process.

I can't see any transition to another operating system being a smooth transition. For sure there WILL be DIFFICULT problems for them.

This is just part and parcel of development, and not a reason to give up on Linux AT ALL.

Good news is that Linux will be a better platform once their present-day trials are over, and they complete what they set out to do.

Re:Problems are normal

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole 'linux push at IBM' thing is way overblown. Being a member of IT* at the time, I saw leaked copies of internal memos on this. They started with these bold claims of linux by 2005, and quickly tailed off to incomplete (in progress??) powerpoint presentations suggesting that feasibility studies would be completed & presented to senior management some 3-6 months hence.

By the way, those memos didn't have Palmisano's name on them. They looked more like evangelism than policy.

Of course, all the hoopla died within a month or so, and everyone went back to business as usual. We never heard about the results of those feasibility studies. It was a pipe dream from the start; IBM's internal support is very stovepiped and not very responsive, with spotty competence. Add to this the very onerous and labor-intensive security requirements inside IBM and you find that for a lot of people it's a heck of a lot easier to just run Windows update. I was very surprised at the number of naive folks who actually thought the two-year goal was acheivable in the IBM world, but then P.T. Barnum's wisdom always manages to surprise me.

IBM is just plain massive; a change of this magnitude will take them a decade or more to actually implement. I wish them luck, though (I no longer work there).

---
*One of the divisional IT depts, not the mainstream corporate one.

Linux is popular but Windows rules

[Anonymous Coward]

In my little corner of IBM the push for Linux on the desktop is slim to non-existant. It's pretty much limited to the techies who already have a penchant for Linux and most of those who have converted spend a big part of their day in a Windows vmware image. I don't even run Linux on my ThinkPad and I'm a Linux certified geek!

Linux gets tons of lip service, no doubt, and is praised as a server OS. Some of the internal tools run on Linux but much of the intranet (i.e. the expense report tool, the travel tool, etc.) is still tied to Windows, IE (Firefox doesn't even work) and/or the MS JVM (!!!).

On the upside two weeks ago we had a Linux InstallFest where 2,000 lucky individuals got to try their hand at installing Linux -- RedHat or SuSE -- albeit in vmware.

Re:Linux is popular but Windows rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Windowds is dead. We all know how much viruses and spyware is out there and all the inherent problems windows had. My school just decided to completely go Linux and all my friends switched to Linux recently. It doesn't take a fortune teller to predict that 2005 is the year of the Linux desktop.

Re:SLASHDOT'S DESTRUCTION IS FORSEEABLE...

[Anonymous Coward]

(I know it's a stale joke, but...)

I'm intrigued by your ideas, and should like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Emulator

[spac3manspiff]

the company's internal use of the open-source Windows operating system emulator did not translate into a ringing endorsement...

In other new, WINE is now an emulator dispite its name.

Re:Emulator

[Anonymous Coward]

ah, so you agree that all java apps are run under emulation, all .net apps are run under emulation? They are far closer to being emulators than wine, yet we don't call them such, for some reason we call them virtual machines. They perform translation of 1 form of code to another. WINE performs NO translation at all, it implements an interface.

Re:Emulator

[natrius]

In other new, WINE is now an emulator dispite its name.

At least the acronym stays the same.

Re:Emulator

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense! WINE translates Windows API calls to Linux/GNU/X API calls.

Disclaimer

[Ambient_Developer]

Disclaimer (Open Source In A Nutshell): This document is licensed under GPL. You may make modifications to this document, some of which include smiley faces, sqwiggly lines, and other things which have absolutely no bearing on your life yet you do them because you have 30 seconds to waste. If you modify this document you must show it to all your friends, even if they don't want to see it. You must make your modifications to this document publicly available. The most efficient method of making this document available to the public is taping it to your forehead. Although if a strip of tape is unavailable at the moment; other methods will also suffice, such as posting it on the net.

Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[Pedrito]

Here I am using Firefox to TRY to read the comments of other posters, but the comments bleed over into the sections list and comment separator bars are partway over the text above and below and I can't tell what people wrote.

I would think that Slashdot, being such an open-source advocate, would at least make their page render properly with the most popular open source browser.

But if Slashdot can't be bothered to do it to their page, which is their entire business, how can people expect IBM to do their web-based internal help support which isn't really a source of income for them?

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[kamagurka]

and i always thought i was the only one. i thought to myself "no way can slashdot not render correctly on firefox. maybe i'm different. maybe there's something wrong with me."
but now that i know i'm not alone, i, too, can stand up and say it: sometimes, /. does not render correctly for me in firefox.
phew. all better now.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[dmaxwell]

Press ctrl+ then ctrl-. That will reflow the page and all will look correct. The fix is in the current gecko devel tree.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[Roblimo]

Huh?

I *always* read Slashdot with Firefox and it always looks fine to me....

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[Mawbid]

This is not meant to defend Firefox or Slashdot, but to lessen your frustration:

Get the Slashfix extension.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[BWindle]

Hey Pedrito, it isn't a Slashdot problem, its a Firefox problem. To prove this, change the font size (CTRL and plus [+] key) and then change it back (CTRL and minus [-]). Boom, site then renders perfect. Same HTML code, different rendering, means it isn't Slashdot's HTML.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[jodo]

Here I am using Firefox and I have zero problems reading the comments including yours. What os are you on?

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[Abcd1234]

Wow... +5 on a comment that's only vaguely connected with the article and is clearly just the poster bitching about their own favorite pet peave. Well done!

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what you are talking about. I always read /. in Firefox - I don't think I would trust a hacker site like /. in IE. It renders absolutely fine in Firefox.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[big_groo]

C'mon. Editors don't read Slashdot.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[quinto2000]

I've heard a few people say they have this problem, but I've yet to encounter it myself. I use firefox, on Linux at home, and on OS X when I'm at work. I also (obviously) read Slashdot. What threads have you seen it on, what version of Firefox are you using, etc?

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think that Slashdot, being such an open-source advocate, would at least make their page render properly with the most popular open source browser.

But if Slashdot can't be bothered to do it to their page...

How. Many. Fucking. Times?

IT'S A BUG IN FIREFOX!

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21752 7

Note the completely valid HTML testcase that exhibits the same problems as Slashdot.

Yes, we all know Slashdot markup is shit. It was shit back in the 90s, it's shit today. But this particular problem is all Firefox's fault. And yet people persist talking utter bollocks when it comes to this bug. I swear, for every comment that mentions it's a Firefox bug, there's twenty that blame Slashdot. Get a fucking clue, people.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[MP3Chuck]

Well I'm sure it doesn't help that Slashdot's HTML isn't valid HTML 3.2... or even HTML 2.0.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[dedazo]

This is not a Slashdot problem, it's a rendering problem in Firefox. I have the exact same problem you're seeing at work, but not at home - with the same 1.0 build of the browser. Why? I have no friggin' idea. OTOH, Mozilla works fine on both boxes. On my Linux laptop FF 1.0 renders Slashdot just fine.

There are two problems here. One is Slashdot's table-laden circa 1996 crappy HTML, which if nothing else should be fixed. They've already been shown how they can save gigabytes of bandwidth (and ergo, $$$) by moving to a cleaner layout + CSS that looks exactly the same. But they know better than everyone else and they drink gin and tonic, so what do I know.

Second it's the Firefox people's position that there is no bug, because they can't reproduce it. We are all suffering from mass hallucination or we're just trying to "damage FF's reputation", as someone told me on IRC a couple of weeks ago (I shit you not).

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[Sloppy]

You probably have ads turned off. I have noticed that the problem seems to be realted to ads. If I have ads off, I never, ever see the problem. Whenever by sub expires, I see the problem on a very regular basis.

A paranoid person might conclude that the powers-that-be at Slashdot, have figured this out, and deliberately try to make unsubscribed Mozilla users miserable. And since you're one of those powers... quit pretending that you don't know! ;-)

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Well to fix it for Windows just hit this one button, solved.
But for Linux im sorry you'll have to recompile everything, go into this console enter this, 2 hours later you should be good, oh crap wait they updated something repeat over and search for the ansewer at the following 300 different linux sites and be told how to tweak it a thousand ways to get it to WORK...

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[wideangle]

1. Click Preferences.
2. Tick the box [ ] Light (reduce the complexity of Slashdot's HTML ...)
3. Slashdot becomes readable.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[wytcld]

Firefox 1.0 on Linux (Gentoo) has the problem real bad for me. Glad to hear there's a fix in the works.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[QuickFox]

Thanks for the info, but next time please make your links clickable.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21752 7

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't bother making the link clickable because Bugzilla blocks Slashdot visitors, so 99% of people will have to copy & paste anyway.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[skeptic1]

The easiest way is to just reload the page, and it comes up fine.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never understood the nature of this "problem". I have used IE, Firefox, and Konqueror and have never seen it.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[entrigant]

But if Slashdot can't be bothered to do it to their page

Are you sure it is slashdots problem? I was under the impression it was a firefox bug. Isn't one of the supposed advantages of a standards conformant browser that you don't have to design your page around the browser? This is mozilla's problem to fix not slashdots.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[QuickFox]

I didn't know. I agree that it isn't useful then.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess I'll just stay with IE then thanks!

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[Ziviyr]

The fix is in the current gecko devel tree.

I heard that a few revs ago...

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually a Firefox bug (or whatever the rendering engine is).

As you've noticed, the problem appears when the site has to load separate content at different times. So the Slashdot main page loads half of itself, Firefox renders it the best it can, then Slashdot sends the rest of the content which Firefox sticks into the already-made template.

The fix needs to be on the Firefox side so that it will update the layout if further content is received that changes the layout. Slashdot isn't the only site to use separate processing of its pages and on sites that do similar webserving as /., this problem will show up there also.

Unfortunately, this is a Firefox bug. Complaining about it to /. editors isn't going to get them to fix the problem.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[dmaxwell]

The problem is very very well known to the Firefox using regulars. The preferences and sections on the left hand side will often overlap some of the clients. The equally well known workaround is to do Ctrl+ followed by Ctrl-. This forces the text to reflow correctly. Someone even wrote an extension to do this automatically when visiting Slashdot:

http://www.hardgrok.org/blog/item/slashfix-firef ox -extension.html

There is plenty of mud to sling on this. The Firefox devs have to had plenty of reports on it and the Slashdot maintainers have consistently ignored it as well. This has been going on since at least FF's 0.9 days. I'm running 1.0 on Debian and it occasionally happens to me.

NO, we are not imagining it. YES, the problem is real. Search through your own comment database. You'll find plenty of complaints about it going back for months.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[stuuf]

This is getting almost comical. Almost every story about Firefox in the last few weeks has had a few threads related to this issue, and by now they should be getting more off-topic mods, instead of mods saying "Ooh, this guy got 15 replies in half an hour. He must be smart." I've noticed this issue also affects Mozilla 1.7.5 (Yes, I use Mozilla, the "suite" or whatever it's called. I've been using it since the 1.0 release about two years ago, back when what you call Firefox was called Phoenix.) The problem, as far as I can tell (I haven't looked into it that much) lies partly in /. and partly in Gecko. Slashdot uses "ancient and nasty HTML" (FAQ) , and Gecko does a better job with more modern, CSS-based layouts (tricky stuff used on the mozilla and w3c sites, using floats instead of tables, etc.) than older techniques popular when slashdot was first developed. It may also have something to do with the "quirks" mode that breaks some standards compliance to emulate older browsers. A List Apart has already proved that the layout can be upgraded to pure CSS, and I think the slashdot admins should implement this soon. They're probably hesitant to do such a total revamp as it would lead to a few hours of downtime, and the idiots who post on here would never let them hear the end of it.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[dedazo]

Why the lie?

Spare me the theatrics, I hadn't visited the bug page in a long time. It was first denied, then tacked on Windows (see the other duplicates) and then finally fixed and never merged into the 1.0 release. On irc.mozilla.org the whole thing was even worse.

Too much of Mozilla goes like that. They make a good browser, but sometimes they can be hard to deal with.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny about that, I'm using Firefox with no rendering problems at all ... perhaps you should get your installation sorted out.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there is no guarantee that Slashdot will render at all, because Slashdot is not compliant with any W3C standard. Firefox guesses at how in should be rendered in quirks mode, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Design a website that validates, and then you can talk about FireFox bugs.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[vrt3]

It's true though. On my other computer I run Mozilla 1.8a5 (the suite instead of Firefox), and the problem is solved there. Since Firefox uses the same codebase for Gecko, the problem will be fixed in the next release.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

This issue was a very old FireFox problem (Pre-1.0) and it was solved within the nightly builds some time after the real 1.0 release. So i suggest you just come out of your cave and start updating your FireFox.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[zenyu]

Huh?

I *always* read Slashdot with Firefox and it always looks fine to me....

The problem only occurs when Gecko begins rendering the page before all of it has arrived. Perhaps you have a fast enough connection to slashdot that you always get the full page rather quickly? I've noticed the problem a lot more at home with DSL and a congested ISP than at work with OC-3's and low traffic links to the major POPs.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fixed now, but the fix hasn't made its way into the stable client yet. I believe its in the nightly builds, which is probably what roblimo is using.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I *always* read Slashdot with Firefox and it always looks fine to me...

What you are saying is that you don't read slashdot over a slow or congested link. Either that, or you use an unofficial build that has the workaround already in it. I suspect that in your case it is the former, you probably read slashdot from the same network as the servers with gigabit link between you and them.

The problem is related to firefox guessing the layout of the page before all the elements are loaded. With slashdot, there is a race condition causing firefox to guess wrong and thus the end result often looks like crap. Apparently the problem is at least partly due to slashdot's poor W3C standards compliance.

This problem is long running, as in years long, so it is a bit dismaying to hear that you, and apparently the rest of the people at slashdot are not even aware of the issue. God knows it usually gets posted about and rated up to a 3 at least once per day.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter. Text should never break out of table cells. This is a html rendering problem in Firefox, not a problem with Slashdot. The crap HTML issue is another problem entirely.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[TiggsPanther]

The problem, as far as I can tell (I haven't looked into it that much) lies partly in /. and partly in Gecko.

Y'know I think this is probably one of the first posts I've seen that actually attribute the problem to both sides - which is my guess too. Slashdot's HTML is probably slightly buggy, and the Gecko engine doesn't fail as gracefully as it could.

The other thing (which is more a Slashdot issue than a Gecko/Moz/FF issue in my mind) that really bugs me about this is that the adverts tend to compound the problem.
Running on a rather slow connection here at work the rendering error crops up quite a lot. It seems that the pause whilst it contacts the advert server is at just the wrong critical moment, and the page then lays itself out all screwy.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[bwindle2]

Quickfox, you can't use the link, so why provide it?

Try your link, and you'll get: "Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled."

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[QuickFox]

Indeed I should have tested by clicking the link. It never occurred to me that Mozilla, of all sites, might block Slashdot references. Every day you learn something new.

Re:Maybe 'cause they can't read Slashdot

[handslikesnakes]

While it is a Firefox bug, it's only an issue because of Slashdot's abuse of tables. Neither party is blameless here.

IBM keeps promise: ThinkPad w/o windows shipping

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wanted to purchase an IBM ThinkPad without the proprietory "windows" OS. I failed to see Linux as an option and was not even able to uncheck the "windows" box while trying to place the order online so I called IBM customer service. I spoke to several customer service reps who all told me the following: The only way to buy a ThinkPad without paying for the windows software is to request a "windows refund" check from IBM after placing the order.

Is that how IBM supports Linux? Does this give IBM the rights to brag about supporting Linux on their computers?

I am still holding off on that ThinkPad purchase because the good news is: IBM will begin shipping ThinkPad notebook without windows by February 15. I haven't been able to find out the exact price difference but was told that it will be in the $150 range. There will be no software on those machines and a disclaimer that the harddrive has not been tested. I was also told that an Linux option is being discussed but nothing has been decided yet.

This is finally a step in the right direction. I just wish IBM would have lived up to their word sooner and you would not have to speak to a dozen people first before getting someone on the line who knows what you are talking about.

Average?

[Trejkaz]

The average user doesn't work for IBM, either. If they did, hell... I could easily get a job there.

Re:Average?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I totally forgot... all the clerical workers are leet engineer haxx0rs. Thanks for pointing out our oversight.

Re:Average?

[Trejkaz]

Engineers or not, how many clerical workers do you seriously think have never used computers?

Time for the CEO to...

[MicroBerto]

... put his money where his mouth is. If he wants open standards based computing, then he had better start mandating that all web applications are developed so that all relevant browsers can use them.

Converting everything would take forever, but they ahve to start with the new stuff and work backwards. They shouldn't be using Internet Explorer anyway... companies don't have time or money to dick around with spyware-bloated computers.

It's just a matter of time for them, but it has to come from the top, and he has to make sure it gets done and stop making empty promises.

Re:Time for the CEO to...

[Anonymous Coward]

In a broad sense he is backing up talk with action! He set a short deadline for a difficult task, and challenged the company to make good on it. Some departments adopted quickly, some are going along, and others are dragging their feet with IE (that may prove to be a career-limiting tactic). In all, it doesn't sound different from major strategy changes at any large corp.

Look at it this way: how much linux penetration would there be if he hadn't set an ambitious goal? Would they even know what problems would occur? In the long run, they will have far more experience and credibility when they recommend linux installations for their customers. It's a tough job, but one that is in keeping with IBM's character.

Re:Momentum

[Phil Urich]

" Its difficult to stop a speeding train, even if its heading for a wreck." I suppose I can see why this was moderated "flamebait", but on the other hand, I don't think it should have, that's a bit unfair to the poster; it's an apt analogy, I think.

Three main inhibitors...

[shanen]

First the disclaimer. I'm not IBM, but just sub of a sub. However, my perspective is that there are three major drags.

I think the most important resisting factor is actually the customers. As much as IBM likes to lead, they can't leave the customers behind, and the customers are mostly locked into Microsoft's "tender" embrace. A lot of that could be addressed alternatives that use compatible file formats, but even there Microsoft has a high measure of control.

The drag of support problems has already been mentioned. That actually involves several parts. The easier part creating is installable versions of various programs and the OS itself. The real problem there is that Linux is not so monolithic, whereas defining a set of "official" software is essentially a monolithic task. The other side is help desk support, and IMO no one has that down pat for Linux.

Drag #3 is the migration path. I think there has to be an overlap period, but how to do that is tricky. Give people two machines? Use something like VMware?

So here's the plan...

[nxtr]

We make Linux look like Windows, call it, Winux... no wait, Lindows. Then we wait for the profits to roll in. I'm sure Microsoft won't mind us using a name similar to Windows.

In other words, it's the same old IBM!

[Anita Coney]

Over a decade ago IBM was hyping its OS/2. However, IBM's desktop sales department refused to sell OS/2 preloaded and went with Windows.

Now IBM is hyping Linux, but IBM's support and web development groups are sticking with Windows.

IBM refused to make a choice with OS/2 and lost big times. It's going to have to make a choice with Linux. Let's hope the powers that be at IBM chose wisely.

They all did

[Anonymous Coward]

rm -rf /

admit it IBM!

More than formats

[Anonymous Coward]

compatability with MS-proprietary formats: MS Office docs (.doc, .xls, .ppt, etc) and IE's slightly non-standard take on HTML.

I disagree somewhat - formats are transparant to users, but its users who are refusing to embrace the open desktop. Divide this camp into two parts: leaders and followers. The followers out there will use Windows until they're told otherwise - so they're external to my analysis.

The "leaders" (those who have the ability to actually try out other desktop options in this assessment) are the ones who the opensource world needs to focus on. Why are they balking at Linux on the desktop?

In my case, as an upper level manager who still has considerable technical responsibilities (we can talk about training others and offloading another time), I dumped XP 1.5 years ago and forced Linux to work. As one who's used Linux since 92, I was annoyed that some of my skills were rusty, so I immersed myself back into Linux on my office desktop and laptop. When I was restricted to project management, access to intranet/extranet (Zope systems all), email, web access all was fine.

Then I got promoted to more financial management responsibilities last fall. Good grief does OO suck at *real* Excel work. Besides being clunky, it just does not have the depth required that Excel masters. I've done fine with oowriter for most things, though font handling is ugly and I've yet to have a document go through a clean export to anything and be read on a Windows box. When you have to "play with others" who are Windows users, this is a problem.

And then there's Visio. Come on, open source world. Doesn't anyone ever diagram? I've tried Dia (what's that about not saying anything when you have nothing nice to say) and even had Gimp suggested as a "network diagramming tool." Yea, and I'll cultivate 6,000 acres with a spoon.

Having been Windows free for 18 months, I enjoyed the flexibility of my workstation. But until the basics of office productivity can be handled reliably, it won't happen. Rather than argue or rant with me, put your job on the line and give your CFO OOcalc. See how long that works.

In a Word

[ishmaelflood]

... spreadsheets. OO does not translate xls spreadsheets at all well.

Every macro has to be rewritten, most charts have to rebuilt from scratch, and every calculation should be re-verified.

Re:In a Word

[Abcd1234]

What about Gnumeric? There is more than one major spreadsheet app out there...

Re:In a Word

[Anonymous Coward]

Here here. That is what killed Open Office where I work. One Open Source fanatic started spouting on about how Open Office could do everything that Office did, for free. This got managements very focused attention, and a little demo was ordered. 4 out of 10 Word docs opened incorrectly (mostly minor formatting), and 7 out of 10 Excel sheets failed (badly). None of the programs that expect to export data into Excel worked.
End result? We can't even use OO where it makes sense. Over promising get you nowhere.

Re:In a Word

[Long-EZ]

There are some formatting differences between Word / Excel and the Open Office versions. But there are two bigger issues with OpenOffice compatibility:

1) Microsoft intentionally messes up the file formats with every release of MS Office to keep OpenOffice playing catch up. These aren't improvements. Hell, Word and Excel data files are bloated. These are simply changes made to leverage a monopoly, thus forcing all existing MS Office users to buy an upgrade so they can use the new documents people will be creating, and to keep OpenOffice from gaining a foothold in their lucrative office suite market.

2) OpenOffice intentionally does not implemment the brain-dead features of MS Office. Who wants to receive a word processor document or spreadsheet that can take complete control of your computer, access your address book and start sending email? Worse yet, any 13 year old VB script kiddie can write Windows malware. Who could have EVER thought that was a good idea? So, there are some things that will never be compatible between MS Office and OpenOffice, nor should they be.

Re:In a Word

[ishmaelflood]

I think I was replying to an OO centric parent.

I agree, from a brief perusal, Gnumeric does seem to be a better spreadsheet solution than OO. I will use Gnumeric on my next big spreadsheet exercise to see how it goes.

I can't see it getting around the macro/VBA translation issue, but would accept that that is not a migration killer.

Open source community to the rescue

[PCM2]

Ah, but a community is more than any one organization. Thus, while Slashdot itself may be unwilling to address this problem, other members of the community may already have solved it for you. Try the SlashFix extension for Firefox.

Re:Open source community to the rescue

[Spunk]

Ah, but it doesn't work. At least for me, anyway.

Supposedly, Firefox 1.1 will fix this.

Sametime

[tjwhaynes]

I can honestly say that a lot would have to be done with their own internal applications to bring them to Linux. Domino client won't run. Neither is a Sametime client available. Both were in heavy use in IBM Global Services, at least.

There are several linux Sametime clients available, ranging from Java to the Gaim meanwhile plugin. So that is not a problem (I run a different internal client which I find is superior to the Windows client).

The Windows Lotus Notes client runs fine on standard WINE (as in available from www.winehq.com) and internally packaged versions are available for employees. That is not a problem either - indeed I believe that the almost flawless execution of the windows client running on WINE has removed any immediate need to port the client to Linux natively.

As I still work for IBM, I see active communities of employees moving to Linux. I don't believe that the original pledge said that everyone would instantaneously move to Linux - for the most part, its a quiet revolution for us developers. I can't speak for other parts of the company. I do know that DB2 UDB continues to spread to more and more Linux platforms (x86, x86_64, IA64, PPC, z/OS) and that is clearly an area where IBM is pushing hard for complete coverage. Both my key productivity machines are 100% linux and I do not have to use Windows unless I am debugging Windows problems.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:Sametime

[Anonymous Coward]

The Windows Lotus Notes client runs fine on standard WINE (as in available from www.winehq.com) and internally packaged versions are available for employees. That is not a problem either - indeed I believe that the almost flawless execution of the windows client running on WINE has removed any immediate need to port the client to Linux natively.

The notes team now does testing on Wine and if something doesn't work they fix it in notes. It's no a coincidence that all of the sudden Notes 6.5 started working really well under Wine. If you used Notes5 under Wine the stability difference is remarkable.

Re:Sametime

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know how difficult it'd actually be to create a native port of the Notes client to Linux, and what the reluctance is? I've heard that while porting the object database layer is done, the front end isn't being worked on. I can't recall why, though.

Is it chosing a toolkit for X or something? Kinda curious.

Re:Sametime

[un1xl0ser]

There are several linux Sametime clients available, ranging from Java to the Gaim meanwhile plugin. So that is not a problem (I run a different internal client which I find is superior to the Windows client).

As far as a "solution" for Sametime, most of these don't come close. Sametime meetings don't even work properly without IE on Windows, I can't imagine how they are going to get the same functionality in Linux.

Meanwhile is okay, but only if you use a previously stored list from the server. When I want to add contacts I have to use LDAP DNs, instead of typing a name and clicking search.

If they don't even have a releasable (or even mentionable) NATIVE client for Linux then I doubt they can meet their deadline.

Re:Sametime

[tjwhaynes]

As far as a "solution" for Sametime, most of these don't come close. Sametime meetings don't even work properly without IE on Windows, I can't imagine how they are going to get the same functionality in Linux.

To be honest, Sametime Meetings are generally less stable than VNC, so for any serious cross-site discussion we tend to use VNC (and when I'm needed, I insist upon VNC for obvious reasons). That has the benefit of being usable from any platform around, being a more mature technology and being generally deployed.

I use an internally available Sametime client which does indeed allow searching for people across IBM, also allows the creation of groups based on management structures and a number of other nice pieces. I'd personally like to see it GPL'd and released. Whether that will ever happen I don't know.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:Sametime

[Switchback]

Sametime is not an issue for Linux users. We have several Sametime compliant solutions to choose from. The one most Linux users and many Windows users use is IBM Community Tools (http://community.ngi.ibm.com/). It provides many more features and is much more powerful than basic Sametime. Our internal version is a few steps ahead of the external version listed on the above website. I've been using it everyday for over 2 years now on my Linux system at work.

My opinions are my own until beaten out of me.

Re:Sametime

[Switchback]

As far as a "solution" for Sametime, most of these don't come close. Sametime meetings don't even work properly without IE on Windows, I can't imagine how they are going to get the same functionality in Linux.

This is more FUD. I use Sametime Meetings just fine with Mozilla/Firefox on Windows. It even works on Firefox on Linux (though not quite as pretty).

Re:Sametime

[un1xl0ser]

I downloaded ICT. It looks like you join an online community, and not a local Sametime server.

Similar functionality, but not the same thing. It also doesn't honor my http_proxy variable and won't finish looking for updates.

So this isn't a Sametime solution, which is what we pay IBM for. It looks interesting, just not what lots of corporations use.

Re:Sametime

[un1xl0ser]

I'm not sure that FUD can come from a person posting the problems he has observed. ;-P

It could have to do with an older version of the server. We do use a pretty recent version of a client.

What went wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's linux for Christ sakes! What went wrong?

-1 flaimbait

has anyone heard of Ernie Ball?

[alen]

Someone told me that Microsoft pissed him off with a software audit and a fine. He promised to convert his business to Linux and did it in a few years. Supossedly everything in the company now runs on Linux.

Re:has anyone heard of Ernie Ball?

[Anonymous Coward]

FSCK! It isn't that hard to do!!! It's easy to run everything under the sun on Linux. Database, content management, design, scheduling, flowcharts... It's ALL THERE PEOPLE! The biggest drag on Linux use is dinosaurs who want to remain stuck in the tar pit! There isn't anything else wrong with Linux (and hasn't been anything wrong for 5 years). All the rest of it, the "I CAN"T...." is because you don't want to. If you can't, it's because you can't boldly go where millions have gone before. Many 5 year olds (pre-schoolers) have a simple time using Linux. Why can't you? Ernie Ball (famous for strings on Fender and Gibson Guitars), made the switch after the BSA shook him down, charging him thousands in fines for one old machine in the closet that was shut off and buried under boxes that didn't have a brand new shiny microsoft licence. He made the switch very successfully, saves tens of thousands on licence fees every year, has a system that is wildly more reliable than he ever had running the Microsoft warez, has had 0 viruses, has fewer staff to maintain the system as you can maintain a linux system with fewer staff, and has refocused on his business since he doesn't have to worry about computers anymore.

200 Pages!!?!??!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh hell no... Anyone know where I can get the audio book version of this?

Sounds like a failure after RTFA...

[DraconPern]

From the article

Wine is mentioned only in passing, in a section entitled "What to do if all else fails," and it is called a "temporary workaround" to get an application running on the Linux client.

Ouch, so basically, 'all else' did fail. Are there any other fortune 500 company besides novell that is also trying? How about a list of them that succeeded? May be someone should do interviews to see what works and what doesn't....

Linux is too hard

[mboverload]

Linux is too hard for the average user. no one wants ot compile source or type su all the time just to change some setting.

I dont use Linux because I need a system I can count on. It may not be the most secure, but with a hardware firewall, software firewall, antivirus, and antispyware I am fine. Sure Linux does not have those things but maintaining those programs is alot easier than figuring out what kind of file something is. I mean, jesus, where are the file extensions?

Re:Linux is too hard

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to check out an easy to use Linux distro. There are several great distros here: http://www.distrowatch.com Linux can actually be much easier to use than windows.

Re:Linux is too hard

[lachlan76]

no one wants ot compile source or type su all the time just to change some setting.

You are actually recommending that users run as root? How about no!

Sure Linux does not have those things but maintaining those programs is alot easier than figuring out what kind of file something is. I mean, jesus, where are the file extensions?


For the files that don't have a file extension (most do from my experience), look in nautilus or something, or use the file(1) command.

Re:Linux is too hard

[stanleypane]

Saying "Linux is too hard," is plain BS.

Saying "The transition to linux, after years of using Windows, is too hard," makes a bit more sense.

Saying "Linux is a different world," hits the problem right on the head.

I administer a company full of Windows PC's and a smaller user base of Mac graphics artists. Give the mac users Windows and the have a fit. Give the Windows users a Mac and they throw s**t in your face and complain to your boss (Only because their are more of them, hence they think they can bitch louder).

Transition can be painful when you are set in your ways.

Re:Linux is too hard

[Anonymous Coward]

...but with a hardware firewall, software firewall, antivirus, and antispyware I am fine.

Sure, skippy; I clean off systems all the time for people like you.
1. firewalls only protect you from the flaws in services that never should have been turned on by default in Windows in the first place. Granted, it will protect from MSBlaster, Slammer and the like, but that is sooo yesterday's news.
2. antivirus and antispyware, although always my first line of defense, are always a little behind the curve. By the time they are upgraded to kill the latest virus and spyware threats, you already have them.

...figuring out what kind of file something is. I mean, jesus, where are the file extensions?

Many, many of the problems with IE is the way that IE (and to some extent, Windows itself) determine what format the file is by ignoring the filetype and figuring out what the file is by examining the internal structure. So, jesus, those file extensions are sure handy, aren't they?

Re:Linux is too hard

[MarcQuadra]

Are you trolling or is this for real?

The idea of 'su' or the more modern 'sudo' is that you can let users run as 'users' and still have the ability to escalate to 'admin' rights to do priviliged operations, some users can escalate and others cannot, but all run as 'users' for normal operations. This is demonstrably the best way to implement user rights on the modern desktop, it prevents stuf flike viruses and spyware from being able to proliferate to non-user areas of the disk where they can affect other users. See Mac OS X, which has a well thought-out implementation, out-of-the-box Linux is not exemplary of what you can do with sudo.

As for 'too hard for the average user'...
I've converted two housemates to Linux, these are people who know nothing but email, chat, wordprocessing, and web. After a few days of occasional questions, they're total converts. Linux is NOT hard to use, it's hard to geek on, especially if you've been perverted by a Windows-only experience so far. Windows is really the ugly bastard child of operating systems as far as I'm concerned, it's still trying to reconcile it's past as a permissions free-for-all.

Dammit, Microsoft thinks 'Documents and Settings' is a more intuitive location for user profiles than 'Users' or 'home'! They don't offer a decent CLI shell and SSH-alike for people who need to admin their servers from cellular links on their PDAs! They ship a desktop OS that loads with defaults to prompt 'yes or no' to -execute unsigned binary code- right from a browser window. They ship this same OS with services for file serving, directory services, remote desktop, remote registry access, and lord-knows-what-else listening out of the fscking box, and they rectify it by enabling a software firewall that defaults to 'on' -three years later-.

Where are the file extensions? Good fscking question. Last time I looked Windows just chopped off the dot and the last three letters of the files and presented them that way, it also hides the entire root of your drive and the system folder. All the competitors use this really cool utility and library called 'file' that has the ability to type a file based on it's CONTENT, which is much safer and more sane. Some systems even use the filesystem to store -metadata- about a file, which is superior to both methods but not nearly as easy to work with or support from a developer's POV.

Alright. I've eaten your flamebait, and spat back burning embers. I await a response. I'll be asleep until 6 am EST.

Re:Linux is too hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, yes, this is Jesus speaking. Quit being an idiot. Linux doesn't have anti-virus ware because it doesn't need it. If you need a system you can count on, FOR DAD"S SAKE ,DROP FSCKING WINDOWS! You *CAN* count on Linux. The NSA counts on Linux. The Nuclear bomb testing factories (Livermore, Sandia and others) insist on Linux. It's the only game in town. The file extensions are handled by the mime system (built into every distribution about 10 years ago). There is also a magic file that can determine the type of file automagically (and associate it to an application, much like the file in your computer that automagically knows that if something comes in on port 80, it's a web application, port 21 is FTP, etc.). Linux is a system you *CAN* count on, unlike any Windows system I've ever seen in my life!

Internal standards

[tjwhaynes]

If he wants open standards based computing, then he had better start mandating that all web applications are developed so that all relevant browsers can use them.

Actually thats precisely what the internal standards do say. I find that waving them under the nose of the respective developer is quite instructive. And occassionally successful - several web apps which used to be IE only work seamlessly under Firefox/Mozilla these days. The number of web apps which are IE-only is shrinking fast.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:Internal standards

[MicroBerto]

Good to hear! Now if only IBM would give me an interview... :)

But after interviewing and being blown away at a certain company on Fortune's Top 100 Companies to Work For list, I think i'll hold off before sending IBM any more apps

What's wrong with Wine?

[iamacat]

Win32 API is just one more option to write a program under Linux, no different from Motif, Qt or Java. There maybe a better choice for a new project, but if a large existing program already works well under Wine, there is no reason to change it, or even not to also release future versions that way indefinitely. Lotus notes it's there own software, I am sure they can make small fixes for compatibility problems.

Re:What's wrong with Wine?

[GiMP]

Having used Lotus Notes under Wine, I must say that it is awful. I've had rendering and functionality problems.

Of course, the worst thing is that Notes itself is just an awful program -- I'd like if Notes integrated better into Evolution and other clients.

Do as we say....

[Anonymous Coward]

not as we do.

Lotus Notes under WINE!!

[erroneus]

I don't care that there's no native Linux client yet. I read in the article that there's a guide for setting it up. I'm a dumbass and I need guides like HOWTO's and stuff. Does anyone know where I can find the guide as mentioned in the article? I'd like to duplicate what they've done.

Re:Lotus Notes under WINE!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I you want to run it with no hassle, you can purchase a copy of Crossover Office from here.

Re:Lotus Notes under WINE!!

[tbogart]

It has been a long time since I have done this personally, but just get wine set up - I know on SuSE 8 and above it was pretty much taken care of by the base installation. Then you might look at

http://www.developer.ibm.com/tech/faq/individual ?o id=2:25424

for some specific tweaks.

Re:Lotus Notes under WINE!!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www-10.lotus.com/ldd/nd6forum.nsf/DateAllTh readedweb/7c0f5c42281a6d9485256e2a00801caa?OpenDoc ument

Re:IBM keeps promise: ThinkPad w/o windows shippin

[Anonymous Coward]

I am also shopping around for a new notebook and will not pay for any windows which i don't use. i'll check out IBM and in the end i will vote with my wallet and go with the company that makes it most easy to get a windows-free notebook. so far IBM has been a company of words and not of deeds.

Is bundling of windows with hardware actually still legal after the those decisions in the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft?

Wrong browser?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm using Firefox, and everything looks great. Are you sure you're not using IE?

They're still going to do it....

[Anonymous Coward]

but with a piece of software called the IBM Workplace Rich Client. It'll do email, IM, office, etc, and there'll probably even be Mac version.

the otherside

[recharged95]

I think the point is really OEMs and VARs. Ask any non-slashdot Windows user: "When was the last time you upgraded your Windows PC or installed Windows?" My guess would be a lot of folks would answer-- Huh? The OEMs/VARs did it for them (Dell comes to mind).

Considering IBM got out of the OEM biz and PCs will now be sold from Lenovo they are competing directly with Windows on the desktop to the OEMs. Basically, they're now doing the reverse of the OS/2 strategy (e.g. selling PCs bundled with OS/2, but NO GOOD APPS unfortunately) and ending up with nothing (again, and AS USUAL).

Windows 3.1 was easy to install and that's why the OEMs went w/Windows and continue to this day--"if it ain't broken don't fix it". But, upgrading a Win98/Me/2000 box or upgrade from anything to WinXP while maintaining your apps/registries in perfect order is a utopia. On the Linux side the same can be said (2.4 to 2.6 kernel, ugh!). Basically all operating systems nowadays are a b*tch to upgrade period. Windows is not superior to Linux or vice-versa, though they are both very complex/fragile systems (unlike a Sony playstation for example ;) ). But since the OEM/VARs already have a selling/manufacturing process with Windows on new PCs, it make sense to stick with it. With killer apps like OO1.1.4, and office apps being so overkill in features nowadays, it's more of an exposure problem to new users such that the apps war is a non-issue.

Note to IBM: either compete for the OEMs/VARs bundling Linux with killer apps (apps are what their good at), or create a superior upgrade process from Windows--I bet Longhorn will be a pain in the butt to upgrade to (from 2K/XP) == another reason of its delay.

Re:the otherside

[eobanb]

Basically all operating systems nowadays are a b*tch to upgrade period

I've updated my G4 from Mac OS 8.5 to 8.6 to 9.1 to 9.2 to 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3. No major problems yet.

Re:the otherside

[billsoxs]

But since the OEM/VARs already have a selling/manufacturing process with Windows on new PCs, it make sense to stick with it.

There is one problem with your argument - that is cost. In the days of commodity PCs ($400) the price of Windose is too much. This is why Linux will eventually win. Even Dell will sell PCs with Linux installed (or they did!) - it costs less

Money changes everything

[Anonymous Coward]

I see the problem as the savings are not clearly defined. At high levels the thought of paying less for licensing operating systems and software is drooled over. No one wants to put this to the test further down the management chain because it is unclear exactly how much they'll save. Questions of how much productivity will be impeded during the "switch over", how much more it will cost to support (training support staff, extra time spent per problem, extra time to bring a dead machine and their user back to life - if it does take more time) and how to make your department work if a mixed environment is required. I'd like to see IBM pick an area or two where it looks like a Linux based Desktop could work and then MAKE IT LUCRATIVE for them to switch. They may have to use an incentive but the reward to the rest of the company is that a working model can be analysed. Sometimes you have to spend money to save money. So far, it does not look like that has happened. I work there - I'm a support person in a very technical development environment. I use Linux as my primary OS on my Thinkpad. It works for me. Lotus Notes running on Wine works very well. The internal chat client works very well. Open office works very well. VPN and wireless work well. The problem - it doesn't save my boss money, so why would the rest of my department switch over? "It all comes down to the money Whether it's rainy or snowy or sunny Funny, but it all comes down to the money I'm in it I'm in it for the cash I'm in it for the cash" Terminator X

Re:Money changes everything

[Chemicalscum]

As someone outside IBM it seems to me that this must be in part a problem of internal accounting. If department's were forced to buy all new pc's without an operating system and then faced the choice of buying a copy of Windows to put on it or installing IBM ebiz for Linux for free, it might provide an added incentive.

It seems to me they are not pushing too hard to switch to Linux internally as they are waiting until they move from Notes to Workplace 2 a major task in itself. Then everything should become a lot more cross-platform.

How to get Windows users into Linux

[mboverload]

1.) Remove all file extensions 2.) Export registry into 40374 files and scatter them around hard drive for no reason. 3.) Remember to name those files random things, like trontabs 4.) Use a program to then scrable those letters 4.1) Remember to make all folders in the root only 3 characters long with no thought to human organization what-so-ever 5.) Downgrade to Windows 3.1 to get that box window feel (and jaggy-font feel) 6.) Get rid of your printer driver and use the standard linux one. All your ~ are now @'s 7.) Remember to type in lowercase 8.) Create batch commands JUST to copy a file! 9.) Run only text games because your graphics card doesn't have a driver for Linux 10.) Realize Windows is easier and get your XP cd from trash.

Ok, thats kind of circular, but you get my problem.

Re:How to get Windows users into Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

1.) Remove all file extensions
If any progam that views / opens the file (and file managers) knows what it is without the extension, why does it need one again?

2.) Export registry into 40374 files and scatter them around hard drive for no reason.

No actually, by far, most of them are in /etc. there are some exceptions (chroot jailed apps, X11, but it mostly applies)
And of course, the registry, with seemingly no organizational structure at all, with no documentation about what does what is sooo much better...

3.) Remember to name those files random things, like trontabs
It's Crontabs (with a C) and that's perfectly sensible if you knew what cron was, but you appear to have no knowledge about Linux at all, and no desire to learn.

4.) Use a program to then scrable those letters 4.1) Remember to make all folders in the root only 3 characters long with no thought to human organization what-so-ever
Wait. You're coming from windows, and you think Linux's (and Unix, in general's) single-root file system, with catagorical folders is too hard to manage? One of the reasons the permission structure works so well on Linux, and needs to be tweaked near constantly to work at all on Windows is the fact that people actually thought out the organization of unix's file structure, unlike windows

5.) Downgrade to Windows 3.1 to get that box window feel (and jaggy-font feel)
Whatever you did, it must have been wierd. My fonts in Linux look just fine.

6.) Get rid of your printer driver and use the standard linux one. All your ~ are now @'s
Huh? WTF? Printers don't change any of your symbols. I think you borked your config somewhere...

7.) Remember to type in lowercase
What does that have to do with anything?

8.) Create batch commands JUST to copy a file!
Believe it or not, you can do that in a filemanager too, without batch commands. The advantage of batch commands is mostly complex batch commands or cron scripts.

9.) Run only text games because your graphics card doesn't have a driver for Linux
That's not Linux's fault, it's the fault of your graphics card maker. Besides that, IBM employees shouldn't be playing games in the first place.
This will also become less and less of a problem as time progresses.

10.) Realize Windows is easier and get your XP cd from trash.
It's 'Easier' if you don't have to administer it, clean up other people's viruses / spyware / misc crap off it every other week.

Ok, thats kind of circular, but you get my problem.

Yes, I get *your* problem.

Re:How to get Windows users into Linux

[Chemicalscum]

There is a much simpler way to get Windows users to upgrade to Linux - no longer update their anti-virus software.

Re:How to get Windows users into Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not really fair.

1.) Hmmm, many files still have them. .htm(l), .c, .cpp, .jpg, .gif, .pdf........
Mostly it's just text files that dont' have an extenesion. Therefore, you can assume it's text, determine from context or use the "file" command.

2.) First, they aren't all over the hard drive. System wide settings are all in /etc/, user config files are in ~/.AppName/.
How many windows programs don't completly clean out the registry anyway? And do you really want a single point of failure (the two files containing the registry) on your system? It gives viruses a better targe.
Last but not least, the config files are a lot less cryptic than the registry, and are actully meant to be changed.

4.) Stupid.

5.) Not true. I have very clear fonts, and my windows are nice and clean on Fluxbox on my debian computer. Other window managers have even more eye candy. Stuff looks pretty in linux too.

6). My HP printer works perfectly, and it's on a SMB share on another (windows) computer. Not sure what you mean with ~/@.

7.) For the CLI: Saves extra button pressing, easier on the fingers ;-). For regular work? My post is all capitalized....

8.) cp foo.txt bar.txt. What's your problem? In DOS it's "copy" instead of "cp", and cp has lots of powerful options. If the CLI isn't your thing, there are tons of GUI file managers, Konqueror, Nautilus and Rox (lightweight) spring to mind.

9.) I don't play games much, but I know others who do, and my graphics card works just fine. NVidia is decent (though not great) about releasing drivers. They have an all in one driver (just like windows) that supports all geforce cards. As long as you don't upgrade your kernel on the day it's released, it works fine.

10.) Hmm....maybe I should put the disk INTO the garbage.

Re:How to get Windows users into Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

1.) Remove all file extensions 2.) Export registry into 40374 files and scatter them around hard drive for no reason. 3.) Remember to name those files random things, like trontabs 4.) Use a program to then scrable those letters 4.1) Remember to make all folders in the root only 3 characters long with no thought to human organization what-so-ever 5.) Downgrade to Windows 3.1 to get that box window feel (and jaggy-font feel) 6.) Get rid of your printer driver and use the standard linux one. All your ~ are now @'s 7.) Remember to type in lowercase 8.) Create batch commands JUST to copy a file! 9.) Run only text games because your graphics card doesn't have a driver for Linux 10.) Realize Windows is easier and get your XP cd from trash.

Looser. Its people like you who killed the computer industry. You're to dumb to understand basic computer science and get an simple system running. Then you wonder why America's IT fields are suffering. Please, please get out of the industry and go back to something more your speed. Maybe you can TRY to take orders at Burger King.

Re:How to get Windows users into Linux

[watermodem]

every machine in my house is either dual boot or linux only. (Dual is for the wife and games) Linux is as great as it claims. The windows only prop. apps such as games and Office are the problem. Oh and Wine? It was great back in 1997-98. Now is just sucks big time. The kings of Wine need to work with the community not spin off all sorts of versions and configurations. Also, a giving Wine config file should be updated with a new version of wine to a functional config and not a ClusterFk.

Re:How to get Windows users into Linux

[DuncMan]

What a load of crap. Moderators, this post should- nay, *must*- be modded *down*. There's nothing remotely insightful in it.

Re:How to get Windows users into Linux

[Felonious Ham]

You're getting beat up, but I know what you're saying. I use linux at home, and set up my girlfriend's Dell laptop with Ubuntu (which I'm using) after realizing XP won't run on 256M and a slow hard drive. She is completely computer agnostic, all she wants to do is be able to browse the web, read the email, write the occasional .doc and print a map or whatever. I really dig Ubuntu, but I find myself apologizing a lot. Some recent examples?

• No printer driver for her Lexmark x125 (I'm aware of the sourceforge project)
• No shockwave
• Kernel recompile to get support for her madwifi card
• OO.org can't render .docs from work exactly
• Firefox exhibited annoying mouse gesture behaviour when using her touchpad

As I say, I like linux and can deal with its warts, but to regular folks, its broken. And they don't care about the politics.

Costs? Focus?

[digitalgimpus]

That would be my bet on the true reason:

1. Proprietary apps (I'm sure they have some) need to be ported. Some may be old Win NT4 programs. You know the corporate rule: if it ain't broke, don't replace it. So old stuff tends to lie around.

2. Focus. Unless a company has a high priority, it normally doesn't get done. For a switch like this to happen, it needs some high ranking executive championing it, and *pushing it*.

This isn't really a geek issue, it's a management issue.

I'm sure the whole IBM->Lenvo thing didn't help the project either.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is linux on the desktop a pain? Why do you say it's difficult to manage? What do you think needs to be done? It's amazing what gets modded up as interesting. The parent contains nothing interesting, only wild claims with no explanation or nothing to back up his claims. Pure flaimbite/trolling.

Same old song.

[Garg]

In 1994, I was working for a hospital trying to deploy OS/2. We'd had some success (most notably with the medical library), but we had challenges too.

In particular, there was a DOS-based package that we needed the workstations to access. OS/2 supposedly ran DOS apps as well as Windows, but this one froze up randomly. It was written in dBase or FoxPro, one of those database/language platforms.

The vendor (basically, the guy who wrote the code with a few people as a support staff) practically bent over backward trying to get it to work. He offered to give IBM the source code, if they would only sign a non-disclosure agreement. Remember, at this time nobody showed source for a commercial product; it was like giving away the crown jewels.

And IBM wouldn't do it.

That was the straw that broke the camel's back. OS/2 hung on for a while there, but the day the IBM rep called me and said they would make no further effort to get the package to work, its fate was sealed.

The problem was, while IBM promoted OS/2 publicly, there were all sorts of people there who knew Windows, liked Windows, and undercut OS/2 at every opportunity (in typical passive-aggressive fashion). Maybe they were Windows experts and didn't want to learn new things. Maybe they thought Windows looked better on their resume. Maybe they used OS/2 1.0 and never got over their initial negative reaction. But whatever the reason, corporate fiat couldn't win the hearts and minds of a lot of their employees. The same thing may be happening here. (They only support IE? WTF?!!)

I wish IBM well in their Linux effort. Maybe they'll eventually pull it off. But it's gonna take more than a decree from on high.

Garg

Re:Same old song.

[Anonymous Coward]

The main problem with IBM, as in the past, and probably as now. Is a lack of a common vision. Their is a gross lack of selling itself its own vision. Too many branches, each unwilling to co-operate with one another because they feel the need to compete against each other. In short, IBM fights among itself. This is one of reasons OS/2 failed, there was so much struggles within the organization they let Microsoft walk all over them, while they sat and did nothing. Thus one product after another will feel the axe and fail, not because of the superiority of the product but because the lame giant of IBM is too headstrong to realise that it's feet are stuck in the mud.

Don't get me wrong, IBM is one company I respect, they do make great products (most of the time). However, the company itself needs a swift kick in the pants, and wake up to the realities of the computing market and not let things slip through its fingers. IBM has the chance to make Linux dominant both internaly and externally, they can invest to make a Linux future secured, but like OS/2 they probably sit in the sidelines. Thank god, IBM does not fully control the faith of Linux as it did OS/2, or Linux grave would have already been dug.

IBMer

[Anonymous Coward]

couple things.
I've been using IBM's internal use only "linux client for ebiz" for years now. For the most part its a pretty tight distribution.
It has..
1. Lotus Notes (wine)
2. Lotus Sametime equiv called sanity
3. mozilla,
4. open office, msviewers
5. realplayer
and a peguin in a BLUE TUX ..

I've been using that combo for about 5 years now .. wow. Since IBM made the announcement that it would roll out linux across the company two things have happened.

1. Some nice beta work has been created. linux ebiz 3.5, w/ a nice knoppix installer.

2. Its been very hard to find out whats going on, the whole project is very hush hush now.

potential problems??
1. IBM has only a few billion internal apps that are not centrally managed ( hard to port )
2. they are trying to figure out whether to go w/ redhat or suse or both.

I have also seen IBM internal apps moving very fast to work w/ mozilla/firefox.

Its a big company boys, I just joined when win95 was being rolled out, and that took forever. Dont expect a linux desktop overnight. My guess is atleast 3-4 years from announcement. Mainly due to other dependencies like lotus workplace etc.

The good news is, if you want to use linux at IBM, its available and working well.

Re:IBMer

[tbogart]

He he. Old, if not fond memories.

When we were teamed with IBM in the early nineties, the IBM lead on my task finally set up a system. He had enough clout that he would get the latest desktop box when one would come out. He told the internal support guys to 'leave it at the door' and call me to set it up. Dual boot AIX 1.3 and OS/2. Couple of hundred floppies worth. 8-( Of course, it got a bit easier when I discovered an internal AIX install server. 8-)

Generally speaking, the internal support groups I have dealt with at 3 major corporations and a couple of Federal agencies could, as the saying goes, foul up a nocturnal emission.

Come to think of it, that is how I got involved in IT in the first place, as folks who actually wanted their machines to work found out they did so after I went and worked on them. But I digress.

The upshot is that for any management directive to do anything on the desktop, it will take 10 times longer than it should until that same management understands that hiring the cheapest bodies for support isn't always the cheapest solution.

Remember - this is just speaking in generalities, and I know there are some good end user support folks. But staying in the generalities, the cream does tend to rise to the top, and they end up doing server support. 8-)

Speaking of which, I don't recall any real issues with the internal directive to dump Windows servers in favor Linux servers. ??

Back to ancient history. When the division I was dealing with (I don't think it was IBM wide) dictated they were going with RS6K servers and OS/2 on the PC, my lead was almost in tears laughing at the squal that went up among his fellow employees. There was a bit of a stunned response when he piped up from the back of the room 'what is the big deal, I've had that for over a year now'. Lots of folks trouping thru his office for demos. Even got to the point the support group was talking about having me trouble shoot their network installation of OS/2. Pity about that time the project went in the dumpster.

Nor did it help when he set up a seperate contract for me when the entire 50 or so employees at my company and hundreds of IBMers were layed off/ moved when the project went down. Seemed all of a sudden I was a security risk to have on site even though there were corporate NDAs in place for years and I had on site access on that other project for years.

Yeah, dealing with internal bureaucratic momentum can be a real nightmare.

IBM was lying to us, needs to keep promises

[Anonymous Coward]

Over the past couple of years IBM has been advertising their Linux support everywhere and capitalizing on the Linux trend. At the same time you haven't been able to opt out from being forced to pay ~$150 for windows when deciding for an IBM ThinkPad!
IBM has been promising to ship notebooks without windows from the very beginning of their Linux campaign. What took them that long to keep their promise? It seems that they still did not update their website and enable to opt out from the windows option. Do they think people are stupid? My message to IBM: come clean and keep your promises or face boycott!

Success Story

[lotsToLearn]

Here I would like to report a success story from my company which migrated its 200+ workstations to Linux (FC2) over a period of 4-6 months. The users are mostly data entry operators (high school graduates, college interns, fresh undergrads) with almost zero unix experience. We used to operate under a Windows environment but had to migrate due to licensing issues with the local Microsoft agents. We still use all MS Office formats including MS Excel, Word etc. to communicate within or outside the company (using OpenOffice, no vmware etc). The standard supported browser/emailer is Mozilla with its email client. As a software engineer I was concerned with glitches in the internal web-based applications usage but thankfully there weren't any. Credit goes to the IT/Sysadmin team (and their commitment) tho...

Re:Success Story

[PoprocksCk]

It probably isn't my business to ask, but if you no longer use Windows/Microsoft products, why would you continue to communicate in the MS Office formats? Wouldn't that just be unnecessary hassle?

Re:Success Story

[lotsToLearn]

Because our customers/partners still use those... and send/expect data in that format... specially the managers/execs.... Otherwise, of course, the product data is sent as XML, CSV or other formats...

Re:IBM keeps promise: ThinkPad w/o windows shippin

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I've heard about it. I was about to buy a Dell since they offer at least instant windows refunds now but now I am going to wait for that. Seems like not all of their reps know about it yet.

Of course it didn't work

[diamondsw]

They certainly never told the employees or pushed this. Other than references to a "challenge" to the IT department to move to Linux, no one seems to have a link. I can't find anything on the w3 Intranet to confirm it.

Look, as many have pointed out, IBM is huge. Unbelievably huge. I saw references to 40,000-60,000 desktops as a target - guys, that is HALF of IBM Global Services alone. IBM quite frankly has a lot of better strategic things to be doing than a disruptive deployment of Linux enterprise-wide.

IBM can be very schizophrenic at times due to its size. I'll take your word for it that there's some kind of push to deploy Linux. There's also a push to dump Lotus SmartSuite internally and use Microsoft Office. Why? Because Smartsuite has received no development attention in years, Office works a hell of a lot better than SmartSuite, and it does little good for sales and other groups to be hobbled when collaborating with partners who want ".doc" and ".xls" files. We're also *still* in the process of certifying Windows XP Service Pack 2 for deployment (which is unbelievably annoying, as all of the patches we need to make it work with internal apps were done one week after launch, but deployment is still delayed). Technically, I saw a "push" to move all internal web use to Mozilla, then not only saw nothing further on the matter but saw more IE-only intranet apps pop up.

One final thing to understand about IBM is we are a technical company. If you can maintain your own build and satisfy inane "security" requirements, then your free to. If I can run Visio and do all of my work in Linux with Wine, no one has any problem with it, but I better not miss a deadline due to it or let it take up too much work time.

As for some specific examples of remaining Windows dependency, the company lives and breathes on Sametime for internal instant messaging, and while there are a variety of internal projects that provide it on Linux (ICT is one I'm soon to be working on), none are "supported", and none notably are from Lotus. As for Lotus, they have a Linux Notes client, but no plans on further development of SmartSuie that I can see. People have mentioned IE and ActiveX use; while several internal apps annoyingly depend on IE, I have seen none in ActiveX. No, what I have seen are Java applets that inexplicably refuse to launch in anything but IE! Something to do with the glue bewteen the web page, authentication they use, and Java. Finally, many groups use programs such as Visio, Aperture, and custom-built departmental tools in Visual Basic. We use a lot of complex Excel spreadsheets that make extensive use of scripting and automation inside the spreadsheet (not simple forumlas, whole UI's created in the spreadsheet); backend systems in Notes are then designed around these file formats to parse and send them on to other groups, further locking us to Office (or Smartsuite in some cases). None of these will work on Linux, obviously.

At this point in time, IBM could move people to Firefox, OpenOffice, and some individual OSS projects if it wanted to, but a full-on move to Linux just is not realistic at all.

Here's the Slashdot story, if you want /. comments

[MojoStan]

Linux Desktop Migration Cookbook from IBM
Posted by michael on Friday December 17, @12:48PM

from the rated-u-for-useful dept.

almondjoy writes "I was project leader for publication of this recent IBM Redbook, available for free download here: Linux Client Migration Cookbook: A Practical Planning and Implementation Guide for Migrating to Desktop Linux. At this point, I'm gathering input for what we could improve on, and what additional topics should be covered in a second version of the book. I realize this is a broad topic to cover in a rapidly changing environment. And because these books are developed by IBM there are some content limitations. Nonetheless, in the next version we want to continue making the book as useful as possible for anyone considering a migration to Linux on the desktop."

The obligatory reference...

[real gumby]

Nobody will lose their job over this failure because "nobody ever lost their job for choosing...."

Say: sounds like a perfect fit!

[real gumby]

Shouldn't they just deploy the Sun Java Desktop(TM)?

Re:Costs? Focus?

[jmiles242]

You said it! Maybe I've missed the efforts, but no one wants to spend a dime to make management try Linux. The focus also appears to be an "all or nothing" switch. If tidy Linux desktop works for the building security desk, the stationary supplies clerk and the sales line for Thinkpads and hardware do it. But don't make investment in switching these areas over contingent on switching every other person in their department at the same time. Let Linux be second best for some purposes! John

Tried to drink the blue koolaid…

[(H)elix1]

Well, I spend a lot of quality time with Linux and a chuck of the IBM stack, so I tried to move over about a year or so ago.

Learned more about the innards of Linux than I ever cared to trying to get the OS to work on one of the higher end IBM thinkpads. SuSE SLES 8, more or less the standard for the WebSphere stack I work with, had a kernel that did not see the Ethernet port and the video was a mess. Due to a how-to and forum support on the Gentoo side, it was the first distro I got the xwindows and the wifi card working on! With a bruised forehead and a better understanding I went back to SuSE and got it to work as well on another HDD. Life was good. Problem was I suck as an installer, and getting the base to work (because I don't know the underlying details) was far worse (for me) than the development I was trying to do on it.

Eventually I tried the new SuSE Enterprise 9 (and desktop version) with the new 2.6 kernel. OS worked like a charm - many of the things I googled and dug through forums to figure out 'just worked'. Even Gentoo packaged up the hard bits to update. Unfortunately, it would seem that DB2 needed tweaking to get up and running, WebSphere was far from stable, and WSAD was a wreck. Same when I updated the Gentoo drive as well. With an extra six months, more config tricks, and a few helpful service packs it sort of works. This is my daily driver, however, so I reverted back to the older kernel.

So to sum up - it took about three months to get the hardware working, about the same to get the apps working, and a lot of work to do in between where I really should not have messed around with the system. My boss would die if he knew how much time I spent coding versus trying to just get the app server to install. I know the *nix gurus out there would laugh at my bonehead moves trying to get 1400x1050 to work (and then 3d acceleration), but I'm the type who had to hit the man pages to add users! So much easier today now that the hardware is a bit more mainstream. I'd say it was a year too early if they were gunning for the unwashed masses (like me).

Re:Tried to drink the blue koolaid…

[dedazo]

We recently had one of our in-house developers set up a Linux workstation (Debian unstable) to test a PHP/MySQL application that was primarily developed for Windows. He was gung-ho at first, and then as the weeks passed and no updates to the bug tracker were made I went to talk to him. He was frustrated beyond belief. He couldn't get Apache to work quite right and he was having a lot of problems getting MySQL to behave, never mind the fact that he had to use a plain text editor to work. CVS (running locally in his box) was a mess.

Instead of fixing things for him I showed him what the problems were to the best of my ability - I'm a 6-year Linux "power user" if you will but far from an expert, so the rest of the stuff we just Googled. Eventually he got to the point where he was coding, doing his daily check-in and builds and demoing the app, which is working pretty well now. His changes are then backported to the main Windows trunk to ensure everything works. We're thinking of also supporting BSD at this point.

It just takes time. Even the most savvy PC users will have problems. I can't believe IBM would be that different, especially when trying to move their less technical folks to a brand new environment. Just give them time.

Re:Tried to drink the blue koolaid…

[tbogart]

When we were getting a group to try and 'standardise' on a Linux distribution there were the two typical RedHat and SuSE camps. The heavy hitter in the Web development and support group was a RedHat guy for years. Had all the things he needed to build and add to RedHat professional down pat. Once I finally got him to try SuSE professional, he was bowled over at having most of the stuff he added or reconfigured on RedHat already set up an working. Even found some new things he hadn't known of before and began to swear by.

I guess one of the real problems with having hundreds of distros to choose from is finding the one that works best for you. Some problem, eh?

But please, choosing an 'unstable' distribution and complaining about things not working? I mean, that is not tech talk, that is plain english.

Re:Tried to drink the blue koolaid…

[dedazo]

But please, choosing an 'unstable' distribution and complaining about things not working? I mean, that is not tech talk, that is plain english.

Debian unstable is pretty effin' stable. The distro had nothing to do with his problems, it was his inexperience. I could have handed him a perfectly configured SuSE box and the end result would have been the same.

Besides, all our internal Linux servers are Debian so I went with it because I could get support from the sysadmins, who never touch the Windows desktops.

Re:Tried to drink the blue koolaid…

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but compared to AIX, Linux is a walk in the park :) AIX, building the better dinosaur!!

Re:Tried to drink the blue koolaid…

[tbogart]

"Debian unstable is pretty effin' stable. The distro had nothing to do with his problems,"

Fair enough. 'unstable' is relative, I guess. Compared to 'gold' XP, a lot of 'alpha' code can look good. It wasn't clear that your googling was to get around problems with the 'unstable' distribution or, as you now seem to imply, simply with learning how to use apache and MySQL.

Nor do you make it clear, even here, whether the Debian on the servers is the 'unstable' so you had the knowledge that at this point, that 'unstable' version is really about ready to go 'stable'. It just seems odd you would bother to say Debian 'unstable' at one point and just Debian later.

Cheers.

In the future

[Sloppy]

One thing that should be amusing, is to find out if these companies that are having trouble migrating due to short-sighted lock-in decision (e.g. using ActiveX on intranet apps) are going to repeat their mistakes. I am going to laugh my ass off, if it turns out that these companies then start running binary apps (on x86 Linux) that they can't recompile for whatever platform they switch to after x86 Linux.

Have they really learned anything, or are they just mindlessly jumping on the bandwagon of the day? We shall see.

CEOs are politicians

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Wehn speaking publicly, CEOs are just part of a large company's politics. "Read my lips, no more Windows" has about as much credibility as "Read my lips, no more taxes".

Re:CEOs are politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

GHWB didn't say "taxes".

He said, "Read my lips, no new Texas"

You have to listen closely, but I think you'll be able to hear the difference. And he made good on the promise. There is no new Texas.

Re:CEOs are politicians

[jbolden]

IBM is feudal not despotic. The king can announce something but he needs the support of the dukes to get it done. Nothing specific to Linux migration here, IBM has the same problem on every issue. The funniest example was during the OS/2 days the OS software division was paying for television commercials telling consumers to insist their hardware vendors offered OS/2 while large parts IBMs PC division would not offer OS/2 on their desktops.

Re:CEOs are politicians

[NateTech]

Darn, I was hoping he said "Texans".

fud

[sum.zero]

the article reads to me like anti-linux/anti-ibm fud.

they seem to me to be creating a story where there isn't one, oversimplify the issues and infer that ibm is hiding something.

oh no! ibm isn't migrating fast enough! linux is not ready for prime time! ie is a must!

nothing to see here...

sum.zero

Some truths...

[agraupe]

This may seem like a troll, but it is truly not intended as such.

First of all, I'm a Linux user and have been for some time. I run a Gentoo box, and am fairly comfortable with all system administration tasks. I have tried out many Linux distros, as well as the BSDs. I also have a full time Windows box (I use "second-generation" hardware for my linux box) for running games. I like Linux, and I use it as my main system. But even I, a vocal supporter of Linux, cannot overlook that there are some flaws. I know that when I attach a new piece of hardware, there will likely be some googling for a howto or drivers, or a kernel recompile. I know that a lot of programs that Windows users can take for granted (like Skype) can be a day's work to have working correctly on Linux. Now, I put up with it because it is free, stable, and has an excellent variety of software. I am sure that the more user-friendly distros, like suse and mandrake, or fedora, have many problems solved. In my mind, these distros are giving up some of what I like about Linux. I guess it all boils down to what level of control do you want, and what kind of user-friendliness do you need. Maybe I'm missing something, but no OS or distro has both on the desktop.

Re:Some truths...

[Anonymous Coward]

[agraupe:] Now, I put up with it because it is free, stable, and has an excellent variety of software.

You are exactly right, the software is free, but unless the user is doing this as a hobby, time is money, and companies (from small time entrepreneurs to big ones) don't want to be wasting money.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why IBM is supposed to have THOUSANDS of employees, but they can't get their act together and create some good apps to compete against Microsoft.

Re:Some truths...

[bfree]

When you get a not so new piece of hardware (let's say 5 years old) which OS would you rather try and install it in? And while you are at it, go to a Mac/Sun shop and buy some hardware without doing any research (don't read any boxes to look for a Windows logo or ask anyone if it'll work) and see how you get on with it in your Windows box, that's the comparison to make to buying $random_windows_supported_hardware with no research to use on Linux. I guess you've never seen people trying to hunt down Windows drivers for Win-Modems or some funky printers, especially XP drivers for 9x hardware. The advantage with Linux is ususally that if it was ever supported with Free code it will be supported for a long time unlike windows where a manufacturer can often only ever release drivers for one OS especially with more useful/less common products (say video capture devices where one prime example I know of used to take the national distributer about a day to setup the software for a 2500 card on a fresh install of the only supported and working Windows OS version).

Really for a Gentoo user to extrapolate on the state of Linux is laughable, it's like someone building their own TVR Kit car saying that it's too hard to fit parts and that TVRs just aren't for everyone/are lots of hassle. You comments may be applicable to the 0.0001% of computer users who have a real need for Gentoo but it is hardly indicative of the general situation. I think you know this though hence you know you are in Troll territory even if you really don't mean to Troll!

And to get back on Topic, this is IBM we are talking about, how hard is it for them to setup a distributed internal apt mirror network for the approved company packages? Or for them to implement a standard remote desktop paradigm to support them? They have resources! And if some particular applications are stumbling points, setup NX servers (or something similar) to let people run those apps on the OS they need to run them on, but all on their Linux desktop.

Re:Some truths...

[tbogart]

"THOUSANDS of employees"

100K +, last I saw.

You might want to go and get a CD of all the Linux Journal issues and plod thru all the success stories.

It can be done correctly and it can be done wrong. Done correctly, it simply saves large companies millions of dollars.

I watched a 12K seat organization that was rather disjoint, with virtually no firewalls in place and something like 20 different ISP points spread across that many locations around the country running AIX but still essentially never compromised move to a 'unified' Windows platform with $100K Cisco security solutions and controlled net access taken down more than once. Yeah, that really saved some money. The fact is, if an organization can't do Linux correctly, do you really think they can do Windows correctly?(OK, that is almost an oxymoron)

In particular, I dealt with this organization on and off for more years than I wish to recall, but there was one instance of 'Windows works, no matter how many times it breaks' that speaks volumes. The email adminstrator was so rabid Windows it would be funny if it weren't so sad. For one product, the solution was to use an OS/2 server (to replace about 6 DOS 'servers'). Of course, it wasn't MS anymore, so it was nothing but problems. I built and configured the server and delivered it to this customer. Three seperate times I was called in because the OS/2 server was 'broken'. Each of those times, a power crash in the server room ended up with 1) the routers not having the stupid manual static routes being restored or 2) a Novel server had it's software so scrambled that it had to be reloaded. Never a problem with the OS/2 server. We finally said I wasn't going over there to trouble shoot for them any more unless they added some money to the contract for me supporting them onsite. To this day, this person will wail about all the problems with the OS/2 server.

Swing the clock forward, and the new 'enterprise' mail solution runs on either Windows or UNIX, but this person insists on Windows servers. Claims no problems with them. In a test lab, we find wierd stuff happening - and this person has the solution! Oh yeah, these files get regularly corrupeted and all you have to do is delete them so the server can recreate and populate them when it comes up again. You see, since it is running on Windows, that is not a problem, it is a feature.

It gets worse. This software is famous for buggy releases, and at least there was an attempt to chose more 'stable' versions - but the choice was made only for the Windows platform. Even though numerically, most of the users had UNIX servers across the organization, releases with, for example, memory leaks in UNIX were distributed (for conformity, everyone had to have the same version number throughout the organization). So, the UNIX administrators had to set up cron jobs to bound the mail app (not the server) at midnight.

But of course, the Windows servers were touted as having 'no problems', and the orgainzation eventually settled on a 'cost savings' of uniformly moving to Windows servers. At quite a few $ of buying Windows servers to replace the UNIX servers.

Oh yeah, folks are just so happy with Windows because 'it works' that companies should waste millions of dollars on it. I'm so convinced.

Re:Some truths...

[Anthony Liguori]

I run a Gentoo box

That says it all. Gentoo is not for the faint of heart. It's not widely supported by people developing third party software. Hardware support is not automatic. If you want something that has more of that "just works" feel you need to run fedora or suse.

That's not to say there's anything wrong with Gentoo. I've been using it for years. I only run Linux and it's been that way for 10 years now. I've actually had no problem in recent memory with new hardware or getting software to work. Of course I know exactly what to do and where to go.

Put me in front of Windows, and I'm hopelessly lost. I had the most horrible time getting my parents computer to hook up to a webdav server. SP2 this, edit registry key that, it's all confusing to all hell.

You're a windows user. You know windows well. You know exactly what to do when something goes wrong in windows. That's why it seems easier. If you spend as much time working through problems in Linux as you have in the past working through problems in Windows, you'd find they're pretty much equally usuable (or lacking).

Re:Some truths...

[Anthony Liguori]

I've actually had no problem in recent memory with new hardware or getting software to work.

Let me go further here. I recently setup a media pc. Very snazzy. I happened to have a wireless USB keyboard laying around that I wanted to use. Wanted to get the multimedia keys to work. There were only MacOS drivers for it.

It took me about two hours to look through the USB subsystem in the kernel, figure out the API for doing evdev, and write a small daemon that would launch user defined programs on extended key events.

There's no way I could do this in Windows. Not a chance in heck. This is precisely what I mean.

Re:Some truths...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe on gentoo... but skype works flawlessly on fedora core 3. If someone is having troubles with skype it is more likely a mis-configured (or unsupported) sound card rather than skype itself.

The lesson for linux, I believe, is hardware compatibility. I made sure everything was compatible before i bought, and everything works flawlessly.

Re:Some truths...

[kosmosik]

I am sure that the more user-friendly distros, like suse and mandrake, or fedora, have many problems solved. In my mind, these distros are giving up some of what I like about Linux.

I run Fedora Core 3 on my laptop, two home workstations, tivo-like settopbox (running freevo) and two Athlon64 servers... I haven't notice giving something up... Of course Fedora got all that GUI stuff and so on - but you can simply not install it, and then you have normal Linux system (with kernel, all common net-services, X11, sophisticated package management and so on). I think you just haven't dig to much into Fedora?

Re:Some truths...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure that the more user-friendly distros, like suse and mandrake, or fedora, have many problems solved. In my mind, these distros are giving up some of what I like about Linux.

I don't think those distros force you to give up too much. The user-friendliness is an option. You can choose to ignore it. That is nice for me because I know some stuff but ocassionally have no idea. Of course, most people take the user-friendliness and don't experience the "full-effect" that is Linux.

Re:Some truths...

[Anonymous Coward]

SuSE, Mandrake, Fedora... ... unless you're not only comfortable, but *expert* at system administration: if you try to reach for the same breadth of software you have under gentoo, you will degrade your OS in a remarkably Windows-ish way. (Been there, done that; that's how I know. Saw friends also be there and do it also.)

Under Gentoo you have thousands of software packages at your finger tip at a download-and-compilation-time's notice. Under more user-friendly linux systems you have a (by comparison) tiny genuinely "for-your-distro-and-specific-version" library of software, and hoards of almost perfect RPM online that can be gotten to work but which (with enough of them install) will almost assuredly mess up your system down the road.

I start out friends with SuSE, that gets them to a comfort level; then I let them try out a few other distros, just to see; then when they realise they are "restricted" in the software "natively" available, I set them up with a Gentoo box. By that time they will have been messing around in konsole here and there anyways, and are ripe for learning more. (Mind you, I spare them the full "install gentoo from scratch" experience for the first time.)

So yeah...

Do you want user-friendly? *OR* do you want oodles of natively supported software with easy installation?

(BTW: Debian is still more restrictive than Gentoo with software packages--probably because of the "must-be-free" mentality.)

Re:Some truths...

[Eythian]

What you say is totally correct, within it's defined limits. I've been using Linux as a desktop (currently Debian) for a number of years now, and I like it. It's faster for me to work in than anything else I've tried (Mac OSX and Windows). I know that I may have some hacking to do to make things work, and I like that. I was surprised how simple it was when I plugged in a friends USB HD, and it popped up as a device, and I just needed to mount the partition on it. Mounting a partition on /dev/sda isn't an easy end-user thing to work out, but it doesn't bother me.

I used to use Mandrake on my machine, but eventually grew annoyed with it trying to do too much for me, and making it harder to get into the guts of the system. Effectively Mandrake was too easy for me, and I wasn't learning enough. This meant that I couldn't do some things well because I hadn't been exposed to them. I like the situation I have now, I have to do some things myself, but I'm happy to.

However, when I set up my parents machine, I put Mandrake on it. It has all the nice GUI userfriendlyness that I don't like. They can plug a camera in, and don't have to worry about mounting it, it just works. Same with removable harddrives. It doesn't bother them that they don't have to learn the guts to make it do what they want, they're happier without that.

What these anecdotes say to me is that you just have to find out where you are happy on the easeflexibility spectrum. I'm of the opinion that you can't add features without making things harder to use. Sure, you can perhaps hide the advanced stuff, but then you don't get the full power of the application. If you want all the power it offers, you have to be willing to get your hands a bit dirty and dig in. If you don't care about that all that much, so be it, use the program in 'simple' mode, or use a desktop-friendly distro.

Anyway, what I think my point was is that you are right: You can have power, or ease of use. It's nigh impossible to have both (of course, with a good UI, you can make the power more accessible, but still, more power == harder to use). Pick how much ease of use you are willing to trade for power, and go with it.

linux desktops

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry guys but KDE and Gnome just sucked. I tried to use it as an alternative to windows at one of the gigs I was working at.

Its just a hassle. Tweaky.

OS X is the way...

Linux is great for the server side though..

Internal resistance

[zorander]

Think about how you'd feel if you, a unix user in a unix company, were told that the past ten-fifteen years you spent learning all about unix were to waste and it was time to switch to a Microsoft OS. You'd resist it, right? You'd try to keep at least your pc running unix, just so you wouldn't have to bother with anything else.

Believe it or not, most people are like that about windows. It works. They want word, excel, and ppt and they don't tolerate bad imitations well. People smart enough to work at IBM are smart enough to know the difference. They're not people who can be told to 'pretend' that it's really windows they're using.

what is C4EB?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is C4EB (besides 50411)?

Re:what is C4EB?

[terror_duck]

Client for e-business. Basically a standard package of software for day-to-day business operations.

One of the major problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe that none of the IBM insiders here have posted about what is one of the largest problems, according to internal newsgroups...

Licensing. Like it or not, there are still a lot of legal questions surrounding Linux. Even if (when) IBM wins its battle with SCO, don't think the lawyers don't see the path ahead. It won't be the last legal battle fought over Linux. It's been mentioned numerous times on the internal forums that when ordering licenses for RHEL or SuSE products, questions come down from management about why it costs more than Windows, and questions come down from legal about why Windows can't do the same job. Bottom line, there are less uncertainties overall with Windows at this point.

Add on the fact that many well-supported (as in you can get help from the company) Linux distros now cost MORE than Windows to license. IBM, with its bulk discount, gets a copy of Windows (server and desktop versions) for cheaper than Red Hat is willing to license (for ONE year!) RHEL WS or AS at bulk prices. Where's the cost savings incentive?

Re:One of the major problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

simple blockhead

You don't become MS's bitch and you have the source.

In short, you control your enviroment.

That is priceless

Re:One of the major problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently not...

Re:One of the major problems!

[tbogart]

"there are still a lot of legal questions surrounding Linux"

There are no legal questions surrounding Linux. There is a great deal of FUD however, and I have certainly seen bogus 'legal concerns' used to try and block internal work at IBM I have been involved with.

The facts are that Microsoft has been convicted of code theft and patent infringement and no Linux distributor or customer has. Period.

"Linux distros now cost MORE than Windows to license"

There are NO license costs for any Linux distro. Zero. None. They don't exist. The only sosts are support costs. Ask the folks at Earnie Ball what they pay for support. Funny, a small non-tech company that makes guitar strings can out tech-support IBM?

This is another classic in-house funny money game. One of the best examples I saw of this was a GIS group that was crying to have Suns for their work, but the in-house cost listed for Suns were higher than any premium one-off contact I had ever seen, so Windows 'looked' cheaper. What those poor folks had to go thru to try and get their work done. I personally went thru hell and high water trying to tell some folks who finally got permission to buy a Linux server NOT to get the RedHat Enterprise product for the two machines because of the absurd price. Even after buying it, the support stunk and it just didn't work. We wound up putting SuSE professional on them, and found this was what most of the Linux underground at the organization was doing anyway. $75 for those who wanted the printed manuals, and no cost to put on any number of machines you want from the media in the box BECAUSE THERE ARE NO LICENSE COSTS. It's GPL folks, and can be redistributed as you wish. Now, finally, you can download the DVD from the net for it as well, in addition to the long standing FTP server install.

Now, Microsoft does cost, per seat, and I have seen their 'enterprise support' at a 12K seat level and it is laughable. It makes the early 90's AIX support look charitable.

Bah, this makes me want to spit.

Re:One of the major problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'm real sure that TONS of companies are sitting around modifying the source. Ever tried to get Redhat support (that you're paying for) after modifying anything in the distro's source? They run away like it's a turd in a punch bowl.

Re:One of the major problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

"There are NO license costs for any Linux distro. Zero. None. They don't exist. The only sosts are support costs. Ask the folks at Earnie Ball what they pay for support. Funny, a small non-tech company that makes guitar strings can out tech-support IBM?"

Something tells me that Ernie Ball's company doesn't have quite the tech support needs throughout the company that IBM does. Use some logic here.

And while you may be right about the (lack of) cost of the Linux distros, the problem is that security fixes are included in "support" with the Linux distros - which you pay annually for.

At least with Microsoft, I can get the security fixes without paying for an enterprise support agreement. And no, I don't want to screw with compiling source. Bah.

Re:One of the major problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

It must have went right over your head.

With the source you can debug down as low as you need to go........try that with MS. Just having that option allows other software vendoe to compete on a level playing field. Result, more honest compeetition in the application software market.

If you do not have the expertise, you can go and find someone who has, now try that with windows code. Want just the bare kerenl with only needed components for a server? Sorry with windows you are stuck with what the MS momopoly has decided to interwine in for mainly MSs' best interest, not your companies best interest.

Notice how hard companies who allowed themselves to be locked into the windows world find it to leave? Even the mighty IBM fell into the trap. With linux we have a level playing field, you do not like Redhat, there are other linux options. Again try that with MS windows.

Again it is not about the price of a OS lic, it is about having a level playing field with REAL choices with regards to vendors and your company not being locked into one companies products and self serving standards.

How would the auto industry be if one company GM controlled 95 percent of the oil and auto market? The justice department blew it. MS should have been broken up into Apps and OS divisions and the windows code should have been forced open so other companies could also produce competing versions of windows. Just like it is now possible with linux.

One last thought. The world as MS wouuld like it would never have created something like the internet as we know it. Open standards and protocols with many freely availble software like apache. We would have had a MSN, AOL, Comptuserve online world.

Look a what the web has done for the world ecomomy in the late 20th and early 21th century. It has changed how many do business and communicate. A telling example for what a level playing field can do for progess and advancement.

Re:One of the major problems!

[tbogart]

"Use some logic here."

Oh please. I have done support at IBM on site. Have you? I have trained secretaries terrifed to touch a computer. For that matter, I have trained astonauts (though not about computers). Try using a little logic with factual imputs rather than vacuous logic. Having supported end users and developers for 20+ years I can tell you that making Linux work in an organization is no big deal, if the folks want to make it work. If they don't, they will find all sorts of bogus excuses for making it hard. And I have personally had far too many instances of having rabid MS folks being force to try something like OS/2 back in the pre Linux days come back to me, apologize and thank me ... and far too many instances of various folks from rabid MS to the merely curious come back with all their examples of what they can do with Linux, or that their wife won't let them boot the machine back into Windows, etc. to believe Linux hasn't been 'ready' for the desktop or lots of typical hone uses for years now. Now, there are lots of exmaples of folks who just make up any excuse to not want to use it. Kind of like what you are offering here ...

"... the problem is that security fixes are included in "support" with the Linux distros - which you pay annually for. ... At least with Microsoft, I can get the security fixes without paying for an enterprise support agreement."

I am afraid this is just as wrong as claiming there are licensing costs. There are NO COSTS with updates either. Of course, you can CHOOSE to pay for certain methodologies, like a particular RedHat tool, but hey, you can just CHOOSE to write them a large check for nothing too. Or, you can use one of the free tools. Or choose a distribution where the default tool is free. Like everything but RedHat. Choose individual patches if you want to, set up completely automated patching if that is what you want. For any distribution. Or choose to pay someone else to do it all for you. Choice. Not lock in.

And with MS, it is just a factor of what you have paid for, because unless you are violating law, you have paid for a license - and today, you get security updates with that purchase. Sort of. Now, the latest MS information I have to get third hand these days since I refuse to run it, but the descriptions of the latest requirements of the access you have to give MS to your computer in return for being able to run their updates on the XP distributions sure sounds like you are paying them as you go with data from your computer, and having to allow them to do what they wish.

Now, finally, to raise the awfull spector of 'compiling source' - well, I only do that when I want to for fun or learning. Nothing about managing a standard distro desktop for a business requires any compilation. Just because you are wrong about all these things is no reason to make up stuff.

You seriously need a reality check here. With every statement you make about what you have to pay for being wrong, how can you even begin to compare real TCO?

Bah indeed. For all the reasons one might reasonably not want to mess with Linux, from just not liking the looks of it to having to have some particular hardware that isn't supported well, completely ficticious arguments about how much it costs are just bogus. And posting comments like that to a community that knows better ....

MacOSX - Notes Client

[port3389]

IBM has a MacOSX native Lotus Notes 6.5 Client and the best they can offer for Linux is Wine to run the Windows version? It seems to me something like an enterprise email / PIM application (especially when you sell it) is kind of a critical thing to overlook when you say your company is moving the desktop to Linux.

Its not the corporate apps

[RhettLivingston]

that keep big technical corporations from moving. Its the 1000s of little apps written by engineers and departments to do very local, very special little tasks. It takes years to move all of these because the corporate big wigs will never recognize the problem and realize that they need to send 80% of the transition funding to the people that wrote the invisible 80%+ of the applications. If they were a non-technical company where every geek didn't have their own set of apps that needed porting, the transition would actually be easier.

Re:Its not the corporate apps

[sc88]

It's not just "invisible apps", it's Microsoft Access apps and Excel spreadmarts. Any company worth >$10m, nah every company worth >$10m has a dozen or so Access-based reports that a CEO uses and several directories of Excel workbooks with projections/equations.

Maybe it would have made more sense for IBM to first figure out where these renegade apps are, get them all to a Metaframe farm, then introduce Linux on the desktop (since the Citrix Java client works well), then look at migrating any apps back from Metaframe if needed.

Something else that would help is converting desktop apps to the .NET Framework WinForms along with GTK# and WxWidgets, they would/could port to Mono in the future.

Still using VM/CMS

[Anonymous Coward]

While on the surface it may seem like a no-brainer to convert to linux, there are a LOT of business process apps that need to be retooled. That takes time.

Believe it or not, there are still a fair amount of ancient VM/CMS applications that never made it to Windows, and/or have simple facade front-ends on them to disguise their implementation. Expecting IBM to move en-masse to Linux is unreasonable. Like any other project, it fits the 80/20 rule. The easy 80% is done, it's the tough 20% that's left.

It's happening, it's just happening slowly.

games

[mzwaterski]

linux=no 3d games support=I can't completely switch to it. if (supports3DGames(Linux)){ this.switchUserTo(Linux); } Dual boot is really not that much fun...

Re:games

[Anonymous Coward]

linux=no 3d games support=I can't completely switch to it. if (supports3DGames(Linux)){ this.switchUserTo(Linux); } Dual boot is really not that much fun...

Given that GNU/Linux fully supports 3D games, I assume you'll be switching right away then? Oh wait, you meant "the particular proprietary 3D Windows games I want". That's like saying that you won't switch to a GameCube or PlayStation because the games you want only run on XBox; it reflects more on your choice of games than on those consoles, which are quite capable of supporting any arbitrary game.

Re:games

[DragonTHC]

cedaga 4.2.1 supports 3d games and even HL2 through steam. get with the times man!

Re:games

[mzwaterski]

Corrected:

linux=no support for 3d games I want=I can't completely switch to it.

Re:games

[oliverthered]

Cedega? wine should have much better d3x9 support in the next week or so.

I've almost finished off swapchains today, and I'm about to write a plugable render manager so that you can choose between performance, compatibility or memory usage and your not stuck with PBuffers when you ATI card support render to texture.

Current issues are:

The Shader code still needs to be migrated from d3d8 and shader 2.0 code needs writing. (WineD3D will creates nice stubs so that apps will still run)

An issue with the vertex pipeline crashing or not working under some circumstances.

Slight performance issues (though not that much worse than Cedega), the plugable render managers should sort that out.

A minor? issue with wrapping coords.

And Queries don't return real data yet, but that's kinda accademic.

Many of the demos I've been running work find under wine, but won't run under cedega.

Oh, and you get the source code with wine so it shouldn't be too hard to fix any problems you have...

Dogfood, man. Dogfood.

[dozer]

Until IBM ports Lotus Notes to Linux and starts using it, anything they say about the Linux desktop should be absolutely ignored.

"Do as I say, not as I do" works for parents, but it sure doesn't work very well for companies.

And I get my work done in Windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Linux is any more productive, and I've extensively used both.

It depends on what you do, and Windows is actually good for more than word processing and running crap, proprietary VB apps, unlike well...every chucklefuck here who says that.

You use the tool that's right for the job. My servers run Linux/BSD, my desktops run Windows.

Re:And I get my work done in Windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Chucklefuck...
Best. Word. Ever.

Firefox/Mozilla first...

[mikelang]

Yes, I agree.
It is exactly what happened in my dept, and it gives security gains more quickly.

Lay off the crack

[Codename_V]

Right. Which explains Doom 3, Quake 3, Quake 2, Quake 1, Tribes 2, Savage, Unreal 2003, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, America's Army, whatever else I forgot, etc, etc. Long story short, you're smoking crack.

Re:Lay off the crack

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention Neverwinter Nights and associated expansion packs.

They forgot ...

[chris_sawtell]

To port the BIOS update facilities for my ThinkPad, so you cannot get rid of Windows if you want to keep up to date. ( I do )

For me this is the barrier to ditching MS Windows completely.

IBM: Please can you make versions of these binaries which run under Linux. Also how about releasing the skunkworks 'Watson Works' and 'E' editor which we all grew to love in the O/S2 olden days?

Re:They forgot ...

[1u3hr]

To port the BIOS update facilities for my ThinkPad, so you cannot get rid of Windows if you want to keep up to date. ( I do ) For me this is the barrier to ditching MS Windows completely.

On the page you linked is a file to create a bootable floppy with the BIOS updater. Admittedly, you may need a DOS or Windows PC to create this, but it otherwise seesm pretty straight-forward. (If your laptop doesn't have a floppy drive, a little more hacking could take the floppy image and burn to CDR.)

Re:They forgot ...

[The Cisco Kid]

Why do you need a 'tool' to 'create' a floppy?

They should just post the image of the floppy, and linux users could download that, and dd it to a floppy. Heck if they linked to RAWRITE.EXE they could ditch the 'tool' and anyone could use it.

It always seemed to me to be silly to distribute a 'program' to create a floppy rather than just distributing the floppy image itself.

Desktop *nix? Ask Steve Jobs

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Some people say that the linux desktop will never happen. And to be honest, sometimes, when the latest version of Gnome or KDE comes about and screws everything up, I almost agree with them.

But just take a look at OSX. Unix, that Mac users can use!? Surely you're joking Mr Jobs. But he's not.

What's the difference here? Why is apple able to make a usable gui interface for unix, and yet, after years of development Gnome and KDE have not? Which is not to say that advances haven't been made. Far from it. Linux is more usable now than ever. But it still isn't as usable as it could be. Linus is not yet at the stage where developers can sit back and say "Ahhh! Now there's a usable system". Dispite all efforts Aunt Tillie still cannot use Linux! Why is this? What is the reason for Linux's failure and OSx's success. This question needs to be addressed.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's that Microsoft and Apple take a wholistic view of the OS and Gui, changing fundamental configurations in the OS layer to better facilitate GUI use and administration. Whereas linux window managers are just that. They must change themselves to fit the linux OS paradigms, which may not fit so well to the GUI paradigm. Gnome and KDE cannot change fundamental aspects of the OS and so must work around them, where as Microsoft and Apple can change one to fit the other. Well, that's my best guess anyway.

Re:Desktop *nix? Ask Steve Jobs

[GRW]

I don't know about Aunt Tillie, but my 83 year old mother is doing fine with Mandrake Linux and the KDE desktop for email and web browsing.

where do you want to go today

[louden obscure]

apparently, IBM hasn't figured that part out yet. why would a company steeped in unix need to tack on windows training wheels? i dunno, maybe i just don't get it.

Mews Flash

[trendescape]

They sold their laptop line.. of course they weren't going to push for linux too much if they are so what getting out of the business.

They should have stuck with OS/2

[cyberspittle]

IBM keeps changing it's focus. The PC company wanted to stick with Microsoft Windows and look at IBM's PC business now. With OS/2, they had their own product, identity, and niche. IBM rode the Java wave, then the Linux wave, and now they have hit the beach. Instead of Linux (which I like, incidently) they should have ported AIX to the PC platform, wrapped it in a user-friendly interface, and broadened their platform. Or, maybe they should have stuck with OS/2.

Well someone do something about it...

[kefentse]

I must first begin by saying that I am probably less experienced with Linux than most in this forum, I have been an on and off Linux user for about 4 years now. First Red Hat, then Mandrake, then Susue, then Ubuntu...But I am a business guy and partime geek.
From a business perspective, what I see mostly missing from this entire equation is a company, or team to step up to the plate and say: "Linux has potential...why don't we offer high quality linux hardware and software products?"
I am still not sure why this has not happened. Is there not enough of a market?
Why is there still not an easy way to install software like people are used to in windows? How can you expect hardware manufactuers to have their products come out with ALL of the distributions on a daily basis?
I installed Mepis on my sister's computer about 3 months ago and she has had relatively few problems, but when she calls me up to tell me she cant play a WMV file embedded in a webpage, and I have no answer for her, then there is still a ways to go.
When there is still no gui wireless roaming client for laptops, linux will still be a second class OS.
I say this not to bash Linux, but let's be honest, there is ALOT of work to be done in the Linux for this OS to be ready for everyday people.
Now, I am no Linux developer, but I would DEFINITELY be inetersted in seeing how many Linux developers understand the average user. Until I find a linux developer that actually cares about what the "average user" really needs and, instead of pretending that Linux is already a real alternative, is dedicated to bringing a usable alternative about, then I do not see the Linux desktop stepping into primetime.
Just my humble opinion... :)

Re:Well someone do something about it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wish I had mod points, I would mod this as +10 Total Truth. And the total truth, folks? LINUX SUCKS ASS.

Re:Dogfood, man. Dogfood.

[Oswald]

"Do as I say, not as I do" works for parents...

Actually, children are so good at seeing through their parents' bullshit to the underlying behavior that at the same time they are most decidedly NOT learning to floss just because they are told that they should, they ARE internalizing this parenting "technique" to be passed on to their own progeny.

I know, I know, -1 Offtopic.

The cure to problem Slightly annoying.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ctrl + then Ctrl -

Fixs problem Still don't know where the render fault is but this is the only site where I have the problem.

This works for Firefox and Mozilla and Netscape.

Hmm wonder if Prefbar would have fixed there problems Ie a fake UA. Note does not work around JAVA ie MS java problem. Got many sites to change by login and point out that they just had to add a line to detect Mozilla/Firefox and it would be a bed of roses.

You are deep

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I subscribe to your newsletter?

Kernel compiles are in the past

[oo_waratah]

Kernels of major distros have all the required drivers built as modules so compiling is really a thing of the past. Sure there are a few exceptions but for comercial applications they tend not to have bleeding edge systems very often and when they do it is purpose ordered so it must work out of the box with a linux distro.

So your issues with hardware are not 100% typical. I bought a laptop and installed ubuntu linux on it and it 'just worked' without any tweaking.

I put up with it because it does work and is secure.

Translation

[Zontar The Mindless]

"More people are smoking crack than drinking mango juice. Therefore, it's better for your health to smoke crack."

User desires

[Craig Ringer]

My experience has been that that can be an issue, but isn't always.

I operate a network of Linux thin clients at work. We use an XFCE4 based desktop for the basic users, and its very much laid out to be idiot proof. The users work comfortably on it, and I know several folks have learned how to do a lot more than they ever did on their Win95 systems. Everything is presented right in front of them, MacOS X dock style, and it's all easy to use.

We're now trialling GNOME based desktops for some of our intermediate users. Initial results with this were abysmal, mostly due to reliablity problems, but a terminal server upgrade to a more modern OS has helped a lot with that. There are still issues, but things are working well enough that it looks promising for the future. These users just don't care what OS they're using, so long as they can manage their files, read PDFs, use a word processor, and deal with their mail.

There also comes a point where "I want windows" simply has to be answered with "Unfortunately, that's not possible - the company has standardised on something else."

In any decent SOE, the user shouldn't be installing toolbars, iTunes, etc etc etc anyway - the difference between a linux-based SOE and a Windows one should be minimal. In fact, the user may have more freedom to install things under the Linux based one (unless you choose to mount homedirs 'noexec').

I just don't see it as that big a deal. Use the appropriate environment for the job, train the users, don't just drop something on them without warning. It should be fine. You'll always have some user resistance to any change, but there are long standing ways of dealing with change resistance that have been needed with many desktop and app migrations before.

troll?

[sum.zero]

the article asserts that ibm is failing to live up to a strategic shift to linux. the shift is still under way. ibm is a large and complex operation. it will take a few years. no story there.

the timeframe the article is using to suggest that they are late is misleading. sam p's challenge was exactly that, a challenge. not an order or threat. it was not the deadline.

further, the issues plaguing ibm in escaping ie highlight the dangers in using non-open/non-standards compliant software quite nicely. ibm should learn from this.

finally, the article is long on innuendo, but short on fact. that is telling in an article on a subject as technical as this one.

call me a troll if you like, but i stand by my intuition.

sum.zero

X11 Notes

[Ruzty]

The sad thing is during th Notes 4.x days there were X11 clients for Notes. Several of us used the Solaris client when I was a contractor and one IBM employee on our team, a Tivoli admin, had an RS6K laptop running AIX with the AIX X11 Notes client.

They dropped support for X11 claiming the web client was just fine for non-Win32 systems. Look where that ended up, eh?

-R

Re:X11 Notes

[Anonymous Coward]

There are various rumblings of an Eclipse basedd version of the Notes client. That would be great, but I'll beleive it when I see it!

I use Gentoo @IBM - and I'm not alone

[yani]

Although I'm just a co-op student, and I personally use Gentoo for everything at work. The percentage of employees at IBM in total using Linux probably isn't that high, but a lot of the support needed for it is there. Although IBM has their own Fedora/Redhat based distribution for people to use with Sametime, Notes, etc functionality in there are even support groups for Gentoo, Debian, and Mandrake to name a few. Each of these has ported Notes and Sanity (the internal Linux Sametime client - which IMHO is much better than Sametime). The Gentoo group even has a portage overlay. How many other companies can claim such a Linux (nevermind the other internal open source projects) community in-house?

The problem is not with IBM despite everything everyone is saying here - it is the same problem experienced outside the company. People are habit forming. Windows is one of those habits. Breaking habits takes time and good reason. Despite this a lot of people I know here plan to switch to Linux or at least try it, especially when I tell them about my experiences, and I've acted as 'Gentoo Support' for a few people making such a transition here. Many need more convincing on "Yes you can do that in Linux" mind you.

I think the question posed by this article, and many people's conclusions are unfair - Linux support at IBM is probably higher than the general population outside IBM and rapidly climbing. Also this formal initiative was only set a year ago. How is that not a success?

Re:I use Gentoo @IBM - and I'm not alone

[ninthwave]

I also think when you look at the employment figure for IBM and realise it is an employee account akin to the population of a small country, you can realise the transition will take some time.

Have you tried ICT instead of sanity?

If *NOT* IBM, who?

[Anonymous Coward]

If IBM can't pull it off, what does that say for the prospects of others?

as for your embedded WMV problem...

[alizard]

Try Plugger 5.1.3, it's a browser plugin that effectively connects multimedia players to your browser. I've gotten mixed results with it. Google for it.

If multimedia players don't work, use whatever automated installer is on mepis to install mplayer , skins , and the w32codecs . You need all 3 to get acceptable performance.

Re:Dogfood, man. Dogfood.

[Anthony Liguori]

Until IBM ports Lotus Notes to Linux and starts using it, anything they say about the Linux desktop should be absolutely ignored.

It's called iNotes. It is officially supported under Linux too. Check out the spec page. Retargeting large pieces of software is not something that happens over night. This is the direction that Lotus is supposedly heading though.

There are internal deployments of iNotes too. However, notes under wine works so well for me that I doubt I'd switch anytime soon...

No market: the only Linux users are Linux admins

[ajp]

From TFA: "The majority of IBM's Linux users to date are technical users in the company's product development and research and development groups -- users who are technical enough to support themselves, the sources said."

When I interviewed at IBM (yeah, I know, but I interviewed for three days) I heard a LOT about how they don't sell computers. They sell solutions. They sell services. But the only Linux users are those who support themselves. Which means they don't need to buy services. QED.

Rebuttals can focus on hardware, goodwill, end-to-end solutions (DB2 and HPC clusters) but that doesn't change the economic reality. Linux is not any more profitable than any other niche market. Like OS/2 for example (which I proudly ran for many years and 3 versions...)

rdesktop

[atavus]

One question I'm wondering, might it be cheaper to have a few machines per department running a windows terminal server and use these machines for any program that doesn't work under Linux rather than Wine? This is what my university does, we all log into a Windows machine to do VHDL simulations, and it 4 (cheapish) machines seem to be able to handle 20-30 students using Active-HDL, so IE should be no problem.

Re:rdesktop

[Silhouet]

We also use this solution to let our researches use windows software.

Re:rdesktop

[tbogart]

"might it be cheaper"

No. If you are staying legal, you pay a per user fee for the rdesktop sessions. Wine is free.

I may be the preferred solution in many cases, but not because it is 'cheaper'. At least in initial costs.

China IBM desktop buyout?

[Anonymous Coward]

How come there's no mention of China's involvement... arent they buying out IBM's desktop division? Or does this simply not affect daily internal operations?

Have been recently at IBM

[MemoryDragon]

at a presentation.... what struck me was that they used Windows left and right on the clients... I still had the announcement in mind...

Re:Have been recently at IBM

[ninthwave]

And at a conference every machine I saw had the Linux Client on it. Is that the difference between the technical departments and the Sales team?

Re:Have been recently at IBM

[MemoryDragon]

Yes and no given that it was the Rational Atlantic launch event, it was sales people but from the technical side mostly (most of them had majors in CS). I can remember having those guys start VMWare left and right with Windows in it to demonstrate some of the features. The whole presentation was on Windows with VMware starting one or two additional Windows instances...

The biggest opportunity.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are millions of people running an old version of windows 98 or even windows 95. Their old machines are not upgradable to newer versions of windows.

Sell a small form factor box with Linux installed for $300 based on a mini-itx platform that has a 40GB drive. Setup this new computer next to the old computer. Plug it in. Connect the two computers together with a usb cable, or failing that, a serial port cable.

Install a software package on the old computer that will copy over the users preferences, bookmarks, background images, sound files, themes, data files, database files, old mail message, programs and just about everything that could be configured or installed or downloaded on the old machine. Filter out all the viruses and spyware so it is blocked.

Once the program says that it is done, power down both machines, disconnect the old machine and reconnect the shiney new machine. It boots up into a shiney new version of Linux with all the glitter. Except all the settings are configured. When you open your browser up, it has all the book marks and opens to the same start page. When you open your mail program up, there are all your mail folders and the mail servers are configured. If you want you can hit F7 to switch to an MS windows window that looks identical to their old destop.

Do this and you will get a million customers.

And we wonder why bugs don't get fixed...

[Anonymous Coward]

If two components of a system are buggy and the problems for both are pretty well-understood, it doesn't make sense for one to wait on the dependency of the other.

It's better to be correct and wait for the other guy to fix his stuff than to sit around and be broken together.

you can't "push" this kind of change

[idlake]

No matter how awful the desktop alternatives may be (and they are pretty awful), you can't force a new desktop on people without a lot of pain and resistance. People are attached to their desktop. People feel comfortable with their desktop. Their desktop is a security blanket for people.

The best thing to do is to make the switch gradually, one application at a time. Switch people over to Firefox. Then Thunderbird. Then OpenOffice. Make sure they know about a lot of free, fun goodies that run on both Windows and Linux. All of those are improvements from a security point of view anyway.

Eventually, it won't matter much to users anymore whether they run Windows underneath all that FOSS, and then you can switch.

Re:you can't "push" this kind of change

[Zontar The Mindless]

The best thing to do is to make the switch gradually, one application at a time.
...
Eventually, it won't matter much to users anymore whether they run Windows underneath all that FOSS...

That's exactly how I did it. Mozilla, PHP, MySQL, gaim, xchat, gvim, OpenOffice, etc. Then I started using Cygwin for work. Finally, I got to the point where I'd been messing with a couple of apps providing virtual desktops and window customisation and thought to myself, "Why should I pay for something like WindowBlinds or Object Desktop when I can get the same sort of flexibility for free from just about any Linux distro? Why do I keep spending time looking for win32 ports of tools that do things that I need to get done, or jumping through hoops getting them to run under Cygwin?"

not linux's problem

[timmarhy]

the problem lies with stubborn and difficult users. gnome/kde are perfect for the desktop.

It was not a pledge...

[rdean400]

Palmisano's challenge to the corporation was to be technically capable to switch to all-Linux on the IBM corporate desktop, not to actually do it. That's a big difference.

Supporting Linux.

[caluml]

Maybe they don't have enough support people that know about Linux? They know where to ask... :)

Domino runs just fine.

[Anonymous Coward]

rgds

Re:What Problems? Article is FUD.

[jbolden]

I was a huge fan of OS/2 1.3->3.0 user. IBM was not committed to OS/2. Let me just cite some examples:

When they offered the $99 deal (1.3.1 + free upgrade to 2.0 when it came out) their stores didn't know about it (IBM used to have authorized dealers sort of like Apple stores today) and still charged ~ $300. To get the $99 deal you needed to know an 800 number from word of mouth.

Most IBM PCs configurations could not be sold with OS/2.

IBM spent millions advertising OS/2. Far more than it would of cost to just give it away to all the gray box vendors of the time.

IBM never wrote major productivity software for OS/2, or just buy it up and include it. With 3.0 they finally included something like Microsoft Works for free. Even with software they owned like Bloodhound they sold it at insane prices.

The best source of IBM support was a company BBS which was semi-rogue. Their were several times IBM shut this down. God forbid useful REXX scripts get out :)

Linux just ain't ready

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't want to hear it but Linux just ain't ready. ActiveX not working on Linux is an excuse.

1) Open Office and other alternatives are not as fully featured, mature and easy to use as MS Office, which despite all its annoyances is still the best office suite I know of (and believe me I want better!!!)

2) Its the same with a lot of other software.

3) Linux isn't as easy to administer. You need to know a lot more than just common sense basics.

4) Linux is fragmented. Every distro is a whole other operating system. Imagine if instead of having 5 or 6 major flavours of windows, you had 600 - that's what it's like with Linux.

5) There are a lot of application developers writing for Windows and a few number concentrating on Linux.

Not really

[guet]

The FIX is for Slashdot to use compliant HTML which would, incidentally, save them an awful lot of money if they could be bothered to do it. Sure they could use tables etc to make sure it all works in older browsers, but at least make the website validate.

The code of this website reads like it was exported from Frontpage circa 1995.

BODY BGCOLOR="000000"
TEXT="000000"
LINK="666666" VLINK="000000"
TOPMARGIN="0" LEFTMARGIN="0"
MARGINWIDTH="0" MARGINHEIGHT="0"

and continues

TD BACKGROUND="//images.slashdot.org/slashbar-black.g if"
BGCOLOR="666666" WIDTH="99%"
FONT FACE="arial,helvetica" SIZE="4" COLOR="FFFFFF"

They don't even use CSS for heavens sake, look at all those wasted lines full of 'arial,helvetica'. There are 1538 instances of the tag FONT in the markup for this article. That's 1538 too many.

Stop the insanity!

Unsupported.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell you that as someone who is currently working within IBM Internal help that linux is not supported. I am actually taking calls as we speak (work from home) If I was to receive a call on linux the only thing I can suggest is to check out our internal linux info page. There is very basic support on this site. We did however receive an email asking for individuals that have linux experience to signup for a new Linux helpdesk. I have signed up but as of yet not word. This was a few weeks ago.

Not too late for OS/2.

[lwriemen]

It sounds like they could have the same set-up that they have with Linux running OS/2 or eComStation. i.e., Windows apps like Notes under Odin, X applications using Hoblink, Mozilla running native, OpenOffice running native, Lotus SmartSuite running native, etc. It would be rather humorous to see IBM buying eComStation from Serenity Systems, Inc. while still providing the support for the base OS and drivers. :-)

1) 2 PCs 2) I miss explorer

[jago25_98]

One machine for linux,
One machine for Windows.

Fixes my problems.

Major problem for me is Window's intergration of Explorer is very fast and because I know it 100% it's powerful for me. Click my computer and it's there; no / to fight through. In linux I find myself going to commandline which is slower for many file operations:

- taking hand of mouse to keyboard as switch between commandline and GUI's
- waiting for konqueror to open to manage files or whatever, and then waiting as it does stuff
- generally finding it a pain to work on files graphically
- having to type in a password a bit more
- yet not any useability innovations at all on file management front

So I end up kicking up an xterm.
I'd love a perfect answer. I'll put some serious effort in again to see if I can improve things. Closest I got was a hotkey for konqueror --file-management

Conversely though:

- it's always there to rely on
- I know how to fix it; Windows problems might mean reinstall or fighting egistry black magic

From TFA

[vdboor]

users may experience problems running IBM's internal Web applications. Most of those applications are written for the Internet Explorer browser, which has not been ported to Linux. Internet Explorer is the only browser supported by IBM's internal support desk, according to another IBMer.

IBM is using Wine to run Lotus Notes software on thousands of clients, according to sources, but ironically, the company's internal use of the open-source Windows operating system emulator did not translate into a ringing endorsement in a guide to migrating to Linux clients, published recently on IBM's Web site.

So IBM likes to make a move to Linux, but keeps their webapplicaties IE-only..? Do we really need to start frames about the reason desktop-Linux fails? :-p

IMHO, IBM just didn't get it's focus right.

Regarding IE and intranet apps

[iolaus]

For all those scolding IBM for not making their web tools cross-browser compatible, take a closer look! As an experienced intranet programmer I can tell you that many times it just isn't feasible to make something compatible with IE and Firefox because of the ridiculous ammount of redundant code you would need (not to mention spotty forward-compatible browser checks). The question then becomes, "which browser do I make my app compatible with?". And as much as I'd like to say Firefox every time (because 9 times out of 10 it conforms better to standards), when your entire office runs IE the answer is clear. If only IE (and firefox to a much lesser extent) would follow standards to the letter, perhaps web apps could be truely universal!

WINE

[ganiman]

"IBM is using Wine to run Lotus Notes software on thousands of clients, according to sources, but ironically, the company's internal use of the open-source Windows operating system emulator did not translate into a ringing endorsement in a guide to migrating to Linux clients, published recently on IBM's Web site."

W - Wine
I - Is
N - Not an
E - Emulator

Wine is an Open Source implementation of the Windows API on top of X and Unix.

Wine Myths

I get a feeling that somehow this article was pushed by Microsoft or Microsoft supporters.

Port their OWN SOFTWARE!!

[lucason]

We'd be on Linux throughout the corporation if it weren't for the fact that IBM's LotusNotes doesn't run on Linux.

I just can't see the logic in that. Saying you want to migrate, nut not porting your software.

I call that failure to commit.

IBM is an opportunist

[ravee]

IBM and the other IT giants are just trying to make big bucks by hitching on to the OSS movement. As a linux user and enthusiast, I feel that these companies are really squeezing out all the mileage they can get by supporting linux.

As a wise man said, 'If you can't beat them, join them.'

Just my two bits

ravee
--
http://linuxhelp.blogspot.com
http:/ /veg-recipes.blogspot.com
http://thoughts2005.blo gspot.com

and what's news worthy here?

[ckuhtz]

Isn't this typical IT adoption cycle? New mandates are made, stuff is introduced, support orgs are lagging behind, stalling initial adoption. It's the exception when these things go smoothly. So, par for the course. Somebody is obviously looking for a story. Go back to bed, nothing to see here. Just business as usual.

M$ Owns The Business Desktop

[Naum]

And this is not likely to change, no matter how many public pronouncements from IBM executives. Ironically, some issues that would preclude OS transformation in the workplace are indeed no longer valid restraints -- for instance, the notion of being able to run the same OS at home as at the office, considering that many corporate environments only permit (officially) company owned (or leased) machines to connect to the network. Basically, in much of the corporate world, to do work you must work from a box provided by your work. That takes care of the argument that you need to have the same setup as you do at work...

However, the past 10 years has seen M$ firmly implant itself in the corporate desktop suite and it would take the next ten years to dislodge it. Not just the M$ Office applications (REAL programmers don't use spreadsheets or even a word processor...), which for many users, there is no suitable substitute -- I'm looking at the parade upon parade of dorky, kludgy, awkward third party Windows applications that now have pervade the business environment, both in IT and general business users. Another strong irony is that a good bit of this stuff is now Java based, which was touted as "write-once, run anywhere" but totally dependent on Windows to run. Either via custom Windows desktop client software, or piggybacked on MSIE or through proprietary database requirements that alternative OS usage was never ever factored in by the vendor selling. Go stroll through the software suite of any large corporation (most all of which are IBM clients) and it's heavily laden with gooberish offerings totally reliant on the Windows platform. Even the server software will have frontends unusable without IE and/or Windows.

Even if the software and hardware fulfilled the bill of need for business usage, users would still resent and resist change from familiar work patterns. This will always occur, even if the change is an obvious beneficial move of immense proportions. To a business user, even those computer savvy, it's a learning challenge hoisted on top of an already filled worklog platter. A mandate has to come down from above, that a change has been blessed and sanctioned, and that there is no choice in the deal.

In my view, most firms would profit hugely from a switch, at least those entities not dependent upon special software not available in alternative OS (including Mac OS X along with Linux) -- more stable, less virus/malware/spyware concerns, less employee "goofing off" factor (most games are Windows only), etc.... ...but then, expecting a large company to behave in a cost sensible fashion is folly, as they'd rather pay someone else to guarantee the deal or take the blame when things go south... ...at the shop I presently work, I've heard the network and system support engineers (and their managers) bemoan the existence of Linux and FOSS at our company, that they'd much prefer it all was HP/IBM/MS stuff, so they could simply "open a ticket" to the vendor to fix a problem......and it fits in with the "let's move it to India" instead of hiring a few good people and letting them manage the systems... ...but then I've drifted into another rant here...

Business inertia and expertise

[blugeoned]

I deal with a number of areas within IBM as a customer of theirs. I see two things working against their moving platforms internally.

First, I work in a Microsoft shop. IBM suplies a good deal of software to us (3270 emulator, Rational Robot, PC migration tools, etc.) and I expect IBM to support them and be experts in those areas. It would be difficult for them to provide the level of service we require while their people are trying to do their primary functions on a linux box. As an administrator, I have tried switching to a linux desktop to administer a Windows environment. With the help of Citrix, I was able to perform a great deal of my job function, but no where near all of it. I have no doubt that they are in the same boat.

In a slightly related situation, I know a few of their subject experts who have taken years to get where they are. I am sure they would not like to see all of their hard work washed away and being returned to a novice status by having their support area replaced.

Second, I see this as simple matter of time and money. Sure a mainframe support person could switch his desktop from Windows to Linux if all of his tools were available, but who has time for that? He has critical tickets to remediate. Something as trivial as switching desktops is probably not very high on his priority list. It does not matter that a high ranking offical stated that they would like to see him switch platforms. What manager wants to pay for the down-time it is going to take to make the cut-over and re-educate the user? As long as his job performance is based on other metrics, he is going to ignore the directive until it is convenient for him to follow it.

Re:more than insightful: my only follow-up

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah Dan, I tried 2.4, and then 2.6. Several attempts to use pre-packaged install tools, ended up having to thief a NIC from another PC to get the damn OS to see the 'net. Common on-board stuff like a Broadcom 57xx 10/100 wasn't in ANY of the releases, and three separate makes for the "drivers" I found didn't work.

I have been using Linux since about '97 and I've NEVER come across a situation where ANY release loaded without going through some geek manipulation. My original experiences were with SunOS/Solaris starting in 1992, so I am not really a noob as one poster commented. I'm glad I can do all of this (I'm an RF engineer, not a CS person) but Joe Average will *never* use Linux and this kind of crap is exactly why. The isntant you have to modify a text file or do a make is when the OS is mentally relegated to Not Ready For Prime Time. It's way worse when people say "oh, you should have used because it's . Ridiculous.

I don't get why the /. crowd doesn't *get* this. Loud Message -> other people can't do this stuff.

My nine XPpro/SP2 environments run perfectly, with a wild mix of sh*tty hardware, and I can walk away from the installs, every time. I'm no Billy Bootlicker, and it's not like I don't have Wintel problems either. But out of hundreds of installs, in both worlds, the edge is DEFINITELY on the side of redmondtron.

Sorry. I know the truth hurts, but only on /. can enough people be told to try and make it better. I fear too many egos stand in the way, however.

Inertia

[Enrique1218]

The problem with business and institutions migrating from is inertia. Microsoft is so entrenched from the office suite to webservices that it is extremely difficult to drop them all together. At my institution, I can't even log into a webservice without IE even though the service is based on Java. But for the companies that are selling Linux for business applications, they definately have to take the plunge.I would expect them to make it work first at their place before even think about knocking on my door.

Overstatment

[microbox]

2. Anybody who says that Linux isn't ready for the desktop is misinformed, or a liar.


The power of your statement is completely lost by the way you package it. Linux is getting there... but there are still problems

Driver support (Mum and Dad's new digital camera)

Package management (I need to run the latest aMule, which requires the latest GTK which isn't supplied by YaST, and other such nasties)

Application support - the basics are there, but there are a lot of missing applications, such as quality mixing software (that's what my friends so with their computers).

IE only compatible websites. Like it or not... they are out there, and people use them (for example, to trade stocks online). It made IBMs life a misery

Have you given OS X a run? It suffers from none of these problems, and gives a complete, smooth and consistent user experience. Linux is getting there, but is still only for the technical and the interested.

How much do I miss Windows? Well... I'll probably finish copying some miscellaneous files over from the the Windows partition and reformat it this weekend.

It may take you a few minutes to do this... but hours to install it again. You probably think you'll NEVER install it again... think before you leap.

Re:Overstatment

[Just Some Guy]

IE only compatible websites. Like it or not... they are out there, and people use them (for example, to trade stocks online). It made IBMs life a misery

Have you given OS X a run? It suffers from none of these problems, and gives a complete, smooth and consistent user experience.

You have the win32 ActiveX emulation library installed under OS X? Sweet! Mind sharing with the rest of us? IBM would be particularly interested in figuring out how you made that proprietary Windows junk run perfectly with "none of these problems" on a non-Windows system.

Re:Overstatment

[Zontar The Mindless]

Hell, if I'd wanted to take the path of least resistance, I'd've left Windows XP on the blessed thing. But I despise XP in any case, and there are serious issues with SP2 vis à vis BitKeeper and especially Cygwin (my boss has already talked to the Cygwin developers and they're not terribly interested in trying to work around the problem), both of which I'm required to use for my job if I want to use a Windows desktop.

As for the age of the hardware, I've had more problems trying to run SuSE 9 or Mandrake 10 on my older machines than I did with installing SuSE on the new one.

I don't expect everything to work magickally all the time on Linux anymore than I would with Windows or Solaris, BTW -- just extremely surprised at just how fast, easy, and on-target the installation went. For instance, I've already looked at what's going to be required to upgrade the default installation of Mozilla, and it's going to be a PITA.

The reason I'm anxious to get rid of the Windows partition is so I'll have room for VMware and some virtual machines, because I need to build and test software on win32 and Solaris/x86. Other than that, I have little reason to go back to Windows for much of anything.

It's the apps!

[Cletus the yokel]

The real reason so few employees have switched, IMO is not just the all the old in-house apps that are wedded to Windows but the all the off-the shelf apps they are reliant on as well.
For example: Distributed Callcenter, an in-house graphical frontend to RETAIN (IBM's PMR, or problem record, database). Dependent on IBM Object Rexx interpreter, and IBM Personal Communications. Neither ported to Linux. ObjRexx will (supposedly) run under WINE, PCOMM will not. And Callcenter depends on API hooks into PCOMM to communicate so you can't just use another TN3270 product. I could go on.

I have worked at IBM...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do you REALLY believe that a *corporate desktop* computer
needs to "easily install software" or "configure printers"?"

I've worked in 3 different departments at IBM, and in all 3 I was given a computer that only had Lotus Notes pre-installed. ALL OTHER SOFTWARE had to be installed by the end-user. However, IBM(when I was there) made this task easier by using a web-based installer.

As for printers, the only help I got was an email with instructions on which network printers to install a driver for. I had to install the driver MYSELF!

The simple fact is: Corporations don't have a large enough sysadmin staff to do everything for people, and managers are too damn busy to do everything for their new hires.

The one other thing i'll add, is that in all 3 departments I worked in, all 3 used different software for their respective tasks. I assume this is why the computers I received didn't have software pre-installed. One department used MS Office(Excel/Word), and another used Lotus SmartSuite(123/Approach), while a third just used a terminal client to do everything on a server-hosted app. The only piece of software I used in all 3 departments was Lotus Notes.

sounds like my company

[suezz]

everything is written to IE proprietary standards. reason: it is cost effective to only support one browser. answer: then write to a browser that doesn't lock you in. reason: well desktop support said IE is the desktop standard. answer: well can desktop support say what the desktop will be in 10 years - no - and if it isn't we will have to spend a lot more money to move everything over to open standards - or just pay ransom to microsoft - "our desktop standard" anybody who writes IE only sites whether internal or external should just get out of the business or be fired - no questions asked.

M$ writes for Apple

[microbox]

They always have... for example, Word and Excel were avaliable in 1984 (I think) on the Mac.

I have no idea about ActiveX on classic, but whenever you install M$ software, you get a metric tonne of "shared libraries" (extensions) loaded into your system folder. I've never come across an IE-only website that can't be used with IE for the Mac.

Painful to use

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

I've used Linux at home for quite a while - since my first Yggdrasil disk with 0.99. In the early days it was really clunky, but I didn't mind because, hell, it was a real live Unix machine running in my own home. Over the years I used used Irix at work, then Windows, and now I actually have to use Linux. What a shock. So many things that were wrong with Linux simply haven't changed since years ago. What were once charming quirks of my geeky hacker's PC at home are now major annoyances all day long at work. Some simple examples of things that don't work well:

1. The goddamn backspace key. It seems to be impossible to tweak it satisfactorily so that my .cshrc works across different distros and in every application.
2. Copy and paste. I've no idea what's going on here. Different applications use completely independent cut/paste buffers. Simply copy-and-pasting from my web browser into a text window can be a headache requiring me to paste temporarily into an intermediate application.
3. Shared libraries. I can run plenty of old Win 95 apps on a modern Windows XP box. Plenty of old Linux binaries will fail to run on a modern distribution. Downloading third party apps like RealPlayer is a real nightmare.
4. Focus. Many applications pop up windows but they fail to get focus. Nothing is more annoying than doing a search in acrobat reader, say, and having to actually click on the search window to bring it into focus.

The fact is - all of these problems are soluble. But I'm no longer that single young kid who thought it was cool to spend all night hacking away to fix the most trivial problems. I now just want these things to work. They do under Windows, they do under MacOSX. No doubt some smart young Linux zealot wil tell be how to solve the above problems. But that's completely missing the point.

Just so it's not all negative: it's a pleasure to have a working command line again. CMD.EXE is so, so, broken.

Re: IBM no longer owns a desktop PC company

[Anonymous Coward]

The sale has been discussed; it has not been made.
You also seem to have missed yesterday's news:
US Government May Not Approve Sale of IBM PC Unit

gewg_

Re:Momentum

[RayDude]

Thanks Phil. I believe its true, that's why I posted it. I wasn't trying to bait anyone.

a minor stats input

[BACbKA]

this is being typed at an IBM desktop, bought circa a year ago. Debian Linux runs here, no other OS. Alternatives were Dell, which were disregarded due to Dell's poorer support and esp. due to the bold IBM's backup of Linux. Also, similar concerns have been warmly communicated to all friends and colleagues, some of which have followed suit.

I can't believe the parent hasn't been modded up

[Anonymous Coward]

The code of [slashdot.org] reads like it was exported from Frontpage circa 1995.
...They don't even use CSS...
There are 1538 instances of the tag FONT in the markup for this article.
That's 1538 too many.

Seems +3 Insightful to me.

gewg_

really?

[alizard]

How many "full-time professional IT staff" know desktop Linux well enough to put multimedia onto a Linux box without doing a lot of research?

What about "unsupported" printers?

Anyone who wants to claim that printers are no problem is invited to explain how one makes a Lexmark X6xx or x5xx series printer work on Linux... hint: yes, it can be done.

Re:really?

[Wesley Felter]

I admit that not every desktop Linux problem is solved. But in my office I don't use multimedia much and all the printers seem to just work (in my experience, PostScript is PostScript).

Re:What Problems? Article is FUD.

[dedazo]

Is there better proof that M$ fanboys (or employees) waste their time manipulating Slashdot's moderation system to mislead?

ROFL, aren't you quite the piece of work.

bsd or embedded linux... or choose windows

[Anonymous Coward]

I really can't blame IBM for trying and neither can I blame them for failing. Each passing month, development on Linux and thus the subsequent support and realistic use for and by companies, becomes a harder target to hit. More and more resources must be spent on doing even the most simple tasks as compared to windows and osx.

Hardware support falls very much under the problem category of "negative reinforcement." Hardware vendors don't see a vital market still using Linux. Hardware vendors also do not know where to begin support on Linux due to the clustered (seen Heartbreak Ridge?) nature of Linux environments and stutter steps of incremental yet glaringly incompatable (backwards that is) changes. This limits users and developers, whom then think the solution is to make more changes that break more systems.

Note that what I am talking about here in reference to the changes is as follows. Lets use a generic system of "units" shall we.

In general terms, you have a system that is has a problem of 10,000 units magnitude. Primarily, lack of modern and semi-modern features including support of hardware... FULL support that is reliable and works with no fuss. Next, we see that in addition to various toy development (some very good theories on optimization) which may or may not include some degree of fixing the problem. Maybe hacked support drivers and user-space tools. Maybe retooling of any of the various layers/interfaces and messaging systems. This retooling is hoped by the most optimistic Linux developer to fix 50 units worth of problem but will break compatability with 150,000 units through direct and indirect means.

This requires more fuss on the part of the user, administrator, security team, and developers. This affects hardware vendors. Hardware vendors, looking at the pattern of Linux changes and direction, avoid supporting these changes for quite a long time for fear of investing so many resources into something that is so volatile and doomed to fail when chrome-011-56 is added soon after they could expect to release drivers and user-space tools. The hardware vendors overall lose more interest with each new change to the underlying core Linux system.

The result is dropped or extremely lessened support for Linux by that hardware vendor. The Linux community chooses to ignore the pattern and the lesson here and instead kicks their legs and flails their fists like a child who is denied that ice-cream trip because they poured their glass of milk on the TIVO after already it having been established that said child knows not to even bring food into the living room.

Wisdom does not mean you don't make mistakes (p.s. that implies that the wise are not perfect) but rather that you learn and adapt based upon those mistakes. Fools willfully refuse to accept reality and feel it more appropriate to cry victim than to solve the problem. The stupid are those who then lash out in attempt to destroy those that do adapt.

I am hoping that the maturity and professionalism found so much more in the BSD realm will hold steadfast against the inevitable influx of immaturity and stupidity as a result of more adoption of BSD to fill the gap of Linux.

There will always be Linux (or "a linux" rather) to fill the niche of folks who desire not a usable tool but rather a playground of chaos to tweak, hack, and play in. They care no more about the usability and stability of their toy than do they care about always being 2 steps (although that value grows as time passes) behind the expected level of functionality brought about by other operating systems.

To Microsoft, Linux is indeed a powerful explosive. However, I believe that MS has realized they can use it as ablative armor and thus turn it into a protective and strengthening tool. The burst of hype of Linux helps force improvements in Microsoft products, funny how competition does that. Meanwhile, Linux falls further behind in functionality and usability and further distance themselves from being a useful, no fuss, end prod

That's weird...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0

Never had a single problem. Has run smooth as silk since day one.

Bug 1103753: Rendering bug: overlapping columns

[KMSelf]

Robin: There's a few bugs filed on this, my own is 1103753, which includes an attached screenshot. The actual bug can show up in a number of different ways, though this is common. Sometimes (usually in the relationships / user settings pages) all the content is pushed a screenwidth to the right, rendered as black text on black background. Annoying to say the least.

Response is that the bug is a browser fault. but I'd return that until Slashdot presents something remotely approching standards-compliant HTML, you've got a problem here.

The upside is that I'm using the "light" user prefs setting and a custom stylesheet to give the page the "Slashdot" look. Or any other page. Some fun....:

Slashdot:

• http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/SlashdotLite/standa rd.png
• http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/SlashdotLite/lite-n o-css.png
• http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/SlashdotLite/lite-w ith-css.png

The stylesheet itself is available as:

http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/SlashdotLite/slashd ot-lite.css

Misc sites:

• http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Images/craigdot.png
• http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Images/googledot.pn g
• http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Images/karstendot.p ng
• http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Images/useitdot.png
• http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Images/dandot.png
• http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Images/microsoftdot .png
• http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Images/registerdot. png
• http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Images/w3cdot.png
• http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Images/ibmdot.png
• http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Images/nytimesdot.p ng
• http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Images/scodot.png

Linux

[MarlonMark]

uhm .. isn't linux just a kernel. are they part of the kernel development? so essentially IBM has only basically done what we users have been doing for so many years; install linux on pc hardware. and live to tell about it