Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
IBM Users have been complaining they cannot install those fabulous search toolbars they've come to enjoy on their windowz boxen!
=D
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
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.
I'm a big tall mofo.
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.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
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.
Tech Public Policy stuff
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.
--- Submission is feudal.
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.
By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
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?
This is another way of starting a sig with this and ending it with that.
Hmm... computer is an IBM Netvista. Thats pretty much expected.
Now for the OS... Windows XP Professional. Damnit.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
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.
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.
befuddled (noun) 1. Unable to create a pithy sig
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.
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!
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.
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg246380.htm l
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...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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.
"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.
She almost sounds a little dismayed, perhaps even slightly frightened, by that fact.
... parent should have said more ... I like Linux, but, I don't USE it, I play with it.
... well, maybe I'd consider running Linux as my daily iron.
... that's why they call it ... work.
... etr cetera ... the better.
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
When I want to get WORK done, I boot XP.
Work, that place where I do stuff and get paid for it
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"
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.
Webapps suck. Burn them all.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
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.
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.
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.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
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.
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? ;-)
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The average user doesn't work for IBM, either. If they did, hell... I could easily get a job there.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
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.
Berto
" 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.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
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?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
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.
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.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
"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.
... 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.
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...
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.
Breakfast served all day!
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
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
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.
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.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
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....
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?
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
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
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.
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.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.
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.
Ok, thats kind of circular, but you get my problem.
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.
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
Garg
Alumnus, Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters
couple things. ..
.. wow. Since IBM made the announcement that it would roll out linux across the company two things have happened.
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
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.
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.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
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.
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...
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.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
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."
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
Nobody will lose their job over this failure because "nobody ever lost their job for choosing...."
Shouldn't they just deploy the Sun Java Desktop(TM)?
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
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).
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Have they really learned anything, or are they just mindlessly jumping on the bandwagon of the day? We shall see.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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".
Engineering is the art of compromise.
A troll, but I'll bite:
/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.
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
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.
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.
If all else fails... RTFM
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.
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 ....
... 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.
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
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
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.
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
Visualize Whirled Peas
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.
I believe you mean "it's just the software" -- gui and familiarity are second to functionality, though a good program is never without both.
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.
Client for e-business. Basically a standard package of software for day-to-day business operations.
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...
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.
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.
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.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
"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.
Yes, I agree.
It is exactly what happened in my dept, and it gives security gains more quickly.
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.
Free will is just an illusion
"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).
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?
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.
May the Maths Be with you!
Mod this one up - FP is just slush spouted from a bovine rectum
Check out my PHP Url Validator
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.
Serenity now, insanity later.
That was a joke, based on a flash movie I once saw. lol, you guys are too serious =)
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.
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.
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...
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.
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... :)
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...
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.
"More people are smoking crack than drinking mango juice. Therefore, it's better for your health to smoke crack."
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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.
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
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
The Master (Angelo Rossitto) in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, "Not shit, energy!"
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.
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?
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.
Tech Public Policy stuff
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...
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.
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.
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).
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...)
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.
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.
at a presentation.... what struck me was that they used Windows left and right on the clients... I still had the announcement in mind...
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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
Sitting Walrus Blog
the problem lies with stubborn and difficult users. gnome/kde are perfect for the desktop.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
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
In the end, It's all bovine dung you know
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.
Maybe they don't have enough support people that know about Linux? They know where to ask... :)
Get your own free personal location tracker
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
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...
Bitten Apples are still better than dirty Windows...
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.
Visit your local IBM plant, or any other large company. Count the number of K&N stickers on the boot lids.
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.
g if"
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.
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!
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.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
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.
Linux is not Windows
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.
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. :-)
yes. You're too stupid to use a computer. I bet you have serious problems with windows also.
Szo
Red Leader Standing By!
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
A blog I run for the wealth
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.
:-p
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?
IMHO, IBM just didn't get it's focus right.
The best way to accelerate a windows server is by 9.81 m/s2
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!
I find laziness to be an excellent motivator.
"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.
geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken
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 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.
/ /veg-recipes.blogspot.como gspot.com
As a wise man said, 'If you can't beat them, join them.'
Just my two bits
ravee
--
http://linuxhelp.blogspot.com
http:
http://thoughts2005.bl
Linux Help
for all things on Linux
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.
Poof.
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...
AZspot
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.
>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.
/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).
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
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.
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.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
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.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
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.
Wanted: One witty yet thought provoking
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.
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.
Changes between window managers aren't that big. There is a standard to follow...
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.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
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.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
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.
VKh
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
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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.
Tech Public Policy stuff
ROFL, aren't you quite the piece of work.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
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
"Use some logic here."
... 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 ...
... At least with Microsoft, I can get the security fixes without paying for an enterprise support agreement."
....
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
"... the problem is that security fixes are included in "support" with the Linux distros - which you pay annually for.
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
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.
There: Something at a specific location.
Their: Owned by someone.
Please make sure your english compiles.
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*
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:
The stylesheet itself is available as:
Misc sites:
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
How about we just forget about IE?
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