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.
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.
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
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.
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"
Webapps suck. Burn them all.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
The Domino web interface is ungainly and not standard. Furthermore, it's not Section 508 compliant which means US Government sites using it are being converted to other technologies rapidly.
You wouldn't tolerate it on your own web site, I suspect, and users never have liked it.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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!
Are you trolling or is this for real?
The idea of 'su' or the more modern 'sudo' is that you can let users run as 'users' and still have the ability to escalate to 'admin' rights to do priviliged operations, some users can escalate and others cannot, but all run as 'users' for normal operations. This is demonstrably the best way to implement user rights on the modern desktop, it prevents stuf flike viruses and spyware from being able to proliferate to non-user areas of the disk where they can affect other users. See Mac OS X, which has a well thought-out implementation, out-of-the-box Linux is not exemplary of what you can do with sudo.
As for 'too hard for the average user'...
I've converted two housemates to Linux, these are people who know nothing but email, chat, wordprocessing, and web. After a few days of occasional questions, they're total converts. Linux is NOT hard to use, it's hard to geek on, especially if you've been perverted by a Windows-only experience so far. Windows is really the ugly bastard child of operating systems as far as I'm concerned, it's still trying to reconcile it's past as a permissions free-for-all.
Dammit, Microsoft thinks 'Documents and Settings' is a more intuitive location for user profiles than 'Users' or 'home'! They don't offer a decent CLI shell and SSH-alike for people who need to admin their servers from cellular links on their PDAs! They ship a desktop OS that loads with defaults to prompt 'yes or no' to -execute unsigned binary code- right from a browser window. They ship this same OS with services for file serving, directory services, remote desktop, remote registry access, and lord-knows-what-else listening out of the fscking box, and they rectify it by enabling a software firewall that defaults to 'on' -three years later-.
Where are the file extensions? Good fscking question. Last time I looked Windows just chopped off the dot and the last three letters of the files and presented them that way, it also hides the entire root of your drive and the system folder. All the competitors use this really cool utility and library called 'file' that has the ability to type a file based on it's CONTENT, which is much safer and more sane. Some systems even use the filesystem to store -metadata- about a file, which is superior to both methods but not nearly as easy to work with or support from a developer's POV.
Alright. I've eaten your flamebait, and spat back burning embers. I await a response. I'll be asleep until 6 am EST.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
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.
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
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?
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...
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.
at a presentation.... what struck me was that they used Windows left and right on the clients... I still had the announcement in mind...
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.
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.
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
"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
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.
- 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.