Slashdot Mirror
Desktop Linux Mass Migration
Rob writes "With many Linux vendors attempting to push the open source operating system as a
desktop alternative to Windows, Computer Business
Review reports on Novell's migration to Linux on the desktop. From the article: 'Changing any mission-critical technology is a daunting task, and despite the growing maturity of Linux as a desktop operating system, it is little wonder that the vast majority of businesses are sticking with Windows.'"
is probably the single most important reason to use Windows,
Outlook 2k3 + Exchange/SBS + ACL is a good business solution (even if it is >2000$)
until Linux can replicate the suites functionality and ease of use (for admin+users alike) our enterprise will be sticking with a Windows thanks
of course if *nix can replicate it you will find biz migrating pretty quickly
With the BSD ports collection, the slick Apple interface, many great OSS options being multi-platform anyway, and virtualizing XP for the few XP apps I can't let go of... Why not just go MacTel when I buy my next PC in '06 or '07?
IMO, MacTel could be a Linux killer, or at least help keep it a niche OS instead of a major mainstream competitor.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
Device Drivers Applications that don't work under Linux Software Installation That's it. If my video card (ATI), Mouse (Logitech), Nostromo (gamepad), all worked under Linux and responded the way they do under Windows, that would be the first step. If I didn't have to find replacements for FairUse, ACDSee, GetRight, XFire, Ulead Video Studio, Photoshop, etc. etc. etc. that would be step two. If I could just double click a file, maybe read a quick note about the software and hit next a time or two, that would step three. Unfortunately, to switch right now I have to deal with substandard drivers (I don't give a $hit that this isn't Linux's fault), a bunch of half finished applications that are ALWAYS betas and typically start with K this or G that, and "installs" that require me to go to a command line, hack up config files, and hope like hell they don't jack XWindows ('cause I'd rather install the OS again as to fight that). There you go. You want the other 98% of the PC's out there to run your OS? Get to work.
My Tech Posts on Twitter
One thing that I think would help a lot is a unified clipboard. And I'm not talking about the X clipboard eithor. There needs to be a clipboard that unifies qt and gtk based programs AS WELL AS commandline. As more people switch there will be better apps, however the unified clipboard needs to be worked out as soon as possible...
You install an in-development package from the experimental Sid distribution - and when it fails say Linux is not ready for the Desktop?
By that argument, Windows XP is not ready for the desktop either, because Longhorn build nr. 1823 b0rked some computer somewhere.
first of all, most of the old people here can barely figure out how to open a file in windows. they are about to retire. if you move an icon on their desktop to a place it wasnt before, they will get confused. it makes absolutely zero sense to retrain these people and waste their time and our time and taxpayers money.
second of all, our 'public' computers connect to several multi-thousand dollar databases, many of which will not work properly on mozilla.
third of all, multimedia has to 'just work'. no fiddling around with installing/running plugins or special players, which i know for a fact is a pain in the ass on linux no matter how much time you spend tweaking it. our users are not there to waste time figuring out how to save a file then open it with some kind of binary compatability layer with a command line program. most of them still dont understand the concept of 'where a file is saved to'.
now the standard linux philosophy is that these people are worthless and shouldnt be using computers. thats fine for nazi germany, but not for america. the people i work for dont have a lot of money and their government denied them a hot shit education like most of you have had, but that doesn't mean they should be denied access to information important to them.
in other words, the number 1 problem of linux is the problem of social class and elitism. this has also been the number 1 problem of computer science over the years, and from the first compiled language to the first open peer protocol (tcp/ip)... it has been the rising tide that lifts all boats, not some genius CS idiot with their pet project or ideology.
now, microsoft is not our friend. its a decent business to buy from, not too shabby in many ways. however, like all kings, microsoft can get a big head and screw things up. so can linux companies and linux 'underground' distros without corporate backing. the ordinary people will just use what they can of all of these things, mixing and matching the way they have always done, and they will be the final arbiters of what survives and what perishes.
The biggest problem facing Linux is the complete lack of integration between the different components. It's no single flaw, it's a collection of small problems, some which would require massive shifts in thinking to fix.
The biggest problems I see facing Linux are:
1. A lack of integration between desktop components, and between GUI world and Console/Kernel world.
X is to Linux as Win 3.1 was to Dos. The Linux console rules, even as a desktop operating system. While bootsplash vaguely attempts to hide startup messages from the user, they can still press Esc. But it's still there. And the SysV init procedure still asks questions of me - for example harddrake2 runs each time the machine starts. If it detects new hardware, woohoo, Console!
Then we have configuration. Configuration is handled almost always using plain text files on the filesystem. Every application handles its configuration differently, with most choosing a semi-structured format. XML may go some way towards solving this, but it's no registry. People also resist XML - it's easy to read, easy to tweak, but not as easy to manage by hand as semi-structured files are. However on the flip side, it's much easier to parse and edit.
Neither Mac OS X or Windows handles startup or configuration in the way Linux does. It would be an almost impossible task to write a GUI to manage all the disparate Linux components as elegantly as Mac OS X or Windows does.
Linux needs some integration, some elegance. Hardware detection should happen in the background, configuration should happen within a GUI. More of a Windows approach would be nice.
A device management framework is needed, to detect devices, manage hotplug events, store details of present hardware, and to fetch and store hardware configuration options. This should include graphics card options.
It should be trivial for a user on any Linux distribution to manage hardware.
Look to Mac OS X. Perhaps by adopting Launchd, and implementing a "Registry like" configuration system, may help. Here's a thought - make the configuration system have a "storage API" for storing/retrieving configuration data. Users can then select where the configuration data gets stored. XML Files. Database. You name it.
2. Developing on the Desktop
At present, there are simply too many widget toolkits and desktop environments present. Motif, GTK, QT, KDE, Gnome.. and none of these are strong enough for there to be a clear winner. They are all tied to X, and perhaps that in itself is a problem.
A single, unified, high quality toolkit is needed, that makes development on Linux as attractive as it is on Windows or Mac OS X. While choice is good, sometimes it can cause more problems than it solves. Perhaps a solution such as Y Windows (http://www.y-windows.org/) may help.
To emphasise the problems facing developers.. GTK looks terrible. QT is nice, but it's a fully blown development environment. Most OSS QT apps are KDE apps, which places a dependency on KDE, which is also undesirable. Developing GUI apps on Linux is far from ideal.
The Linux platform is excellent when developing non-gui based programs. It's an excellent server based platform. But as a desktop solution, it's weak. I use Linux every day, and I can tell you, I fully understand why people hesitate to adopt it - despite the fact it's free.
Good point, accountability is important. Let us keep in mind, however:
1. Proprietary software vendors (including Microsoft) limit their liability to a considerable extent. The EULA basically stipulates that they are not responsible, and that, for instance, the software should not be used in life-and-death applications, etc. This limited liability can be modified by buying increased support and coverage from some company (which is often the company selling the proprietary software). Thus, you can pay Microsoft and they will provide certain guarantees, with a contract, and this will create a chain of accountability.
2. If you download a linux distro and install it on your computer, you do so at your own risk. The license clearly states that the software is free, and provided as-is, with no guarantees. However, you can purchase additional support and coverage from companies. For instance, you can pay Red Hat to give you a linux distro that they support, and they will provide certain guarantees, with a contract, and this creates a chain of accountability.
So I don't think the situation is any different in Windows vs. Linux when it comes to accountability. In both cases, if accountability and liability are important for your application, then you will pay some company (Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Red Hat, etc.) to provide you with guarantees. The company will analyze your mission-critical application, make recommendations, and state whether or not their support and suggested software can run your application properly. You have to pay for the support, for insurance, and for their guarantee of functionality. This is the same for proprietary and F/LOSS solutions.
You pay for accountability in both cases, with professional Engineers signing off on everything... but in one case you can save money on the cost of the raw licenses (and associated administrative hassles). Plus, linux is at least 10 times better.
If for no other reason than the vast majority of businesses are NOT "sticking with Windows", they simply don't have a clue about Linux.
Probably ninety percent of businesses only have a vague notion that Linux exists as some sort of geek software. Certainly ninety percent of users don't know what Linux is and have never heard of it. They barely know what an operating system is in the first place.
None of which means anything as far as whether Linux can replace Windows.
As I've said, the only thing holding Linux back is a lack of enterprise applications and application developers, and a lack of VARs able to support large corporation mass migrations and migration of the scores of thousands of small businesses. It's simply a matter of manpower and economics which will sort itself out over the next ten years.
It took ten years for Java to get hundreds of thousands of developers and enterprise level capabilities and that was a language controlled by one company. It should not be surprising that Linux isn't able to produce hundreds of thousands of sys admins and consultants in the same time frame, particularly when it had to take ten years to get to the point where it was feasible to replace Windows. Give it another ten years and it WILL replace Windows given enough people who see money in it.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Debian Unstable is labeled "Unstable" for a reason.
First off let me say that the desktop situation is abysmal on _every_ OS. Their are fundamental decisions stemming from the earliest GUI's that slow the speed of the interfaces and allow for entirely unneeded errors.
All this is _provable_. Speed of an interface can be modeled using the GOMS framework. If you are new to GOMS do not argue its accuracy here, there are several newbie mistakes that have been explained and would only serve to cloud the debate. Ever get annoyed at how fast the terminal is to use, and GUI's only seem to get in the way? GOMS explains it, typing is much much faster than the _multiple steps_ involved in using a mouse. Not to say that GUIs or mice are bad, but poorly implimented. GOMs can show when to use mice, when to use typing, and how to structure the size and conceptual model of an interface to be as speedy as possible.
But GOMs in and of itself is only a tool. Not a guide on how to create an interface. Liken this to racetracks. Once can sure build a fast car when their motive and only measure is speed, but can be more expensive, unsafe, unreliable, etc, etc, etc.
So where can one reliably make an interface that works well with humans? Most use "intuition." But this "intuition" is genrally nothing more than familiarity. And familiarty does not fix the current, demostratable problems.
So where does one turn? To the science of how humans think, their limitations, and the subset focusing on human computer interaction. Cognitives cience
Using this one can construct an interface based on what humans can do. It has exposed our limits and abilities. What mental models we handle better. Folders and Files? A model based on our desks, not a model based on how our brains handle information and computer interactions.
Using these tools we can end up with an interface faster than the terminal, easier to use, and less error prone than either GUI or terminal based programs. Don't believe me? Try Archy. It is a nearly total departure from standard interfaces. Thus for anyone familiar with comptuers have to retrain their muscle memory. One will constantly reach for the mouse in a vein effort to select text. It will piss you off. If you habituate it's use you will find how much harder and more complex the other text editing interfaces are.
Interfaces are a thing we can fix that Windows and OS X can't without major losses. We have upserped Windows in security and stability. Things Windows _cannot_ fix without breaking everything. OS X has poor performance. In fact horrific proformance thanks to the MACH core. The interface is one of the last major thing in OSS software that MS and Apple are beating us at.
BUT ITS FREE!! Which is a lie. Yes, it is not their higher costs of administration, vendor support, and retraining. It is also the worst selling point. Ask any professional sales person. The only people that hooks are people you don't want to deal with. Just reimagine that mangager that was a cheapskate manager who pinched every penny and lost dollars in lost productivity. The old pinch pennies, trip over dollars.
We have to beat them where they are sore, and believe me, their interface sucks. I use OS X. It is only less annoying than windows or UNIX.
Okay, I really have to go, this thing needs to be edited in half, correct the spelling, etc. but I have dinner calling me. Agree, disagree but interested? Email me, we can bitch over the finer points : ) aal357 REPLACETHIS sent dot com
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
if you move an icon on their desktop to a place it wasnt before, they will get confused. it makes absolutely zero sense to retrain these people and waste their time and our time and taxpayers money.
People who are truly this computer-illiterate won't even notice the difference between Windows and Linux because they are only scratching the surface of their OS anyway. If IE disappears and is replaced with Firefox, their web-browsing experience doesn't change (except for the lack of pop-ups). Power users obviously have no difficulty adapting to a new OS. What I think you're trying to say is that intermediate users will have grown accustomed to certain aspects of their OS (actually their GUI), and will thus find it hard to switch. Still, there's no reason to believe they are not up to the task. Moreover, isn't it good to see that private companies are testing the waters? (i.e. NOT wasting your time or your tax dollars...)
second of all, our 'public' computers connect to several multi-thousand dollar databases, many of which will not work properly on mozilla.
I don't understand this at all. If by mozilla you are referring to their web-standards compliant browsers, I really don't understand what the problem might be.
multimedia has to 'just work'
Well, speaking from real-world and recent experience, I would not say that multimedia "just works" on windows. On a recent XP box, I downloaded an avi, tried it in WMP, it didn't work. Then I downloaded DivX, still didn't work, but at least DivX told me the problem was with DirectX. Updated DirectX, tried again. Didn't work in DivX. Switched back to WMP, and it worked now that DirectX was updated. Windows, out of the box, does not have full support for all codecs and filetypes. You have to put in some work to get it all working properly. Is the situation better on linux? Well my recent installs of Mandrake were able to play most file types without any issues. Using the command line to get new software may seem arcane, but by and large it "just works" if you know what you're doing.
the number 1 problem of linux is the problem of social class and elitism
There's some truth to that. But honestly, it's only a portion of linux users who are snobs and make others feel stupid. The elitism (or perceived elitism) is one thing that made it a bit difficult for me to make the switch... but once I did, I found a huge community of volunteers that were willing to help out and contribute. In truth, the majority of linux users now are not snobs... they are passionate about linux, and are eager to help. You just have to give it a chance.
Anyways, just my opinion(s).
This article (and reality) are about converting enterprise desktops from Windows to Linux. In a 5000+ seat environment, "simple to install" and AOL compatibility are just not issues at all!
Linux at home is not going to be at all common for a long time yet. But in big business, Linux on the desktop would be very interesting. The lack of viruses and needing to keep track of licenses could save a lot of admin headaches. Of course, the current love affair with Exchange and MS Office, the lack of native support for big enterprise software, and reliance on VBScript-filled apps in Access and Excel are the real reasons for difficulty in migrating a big company to Linux on the desktop.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
The article is ABOUT people switching to Linux. This means they have to go out and replace all of their external devices ? Good way to get people to make the switch. I think the attitude I've seen in this thread speaks for itself when it comes to answering the question of why Linux won't become mainstream.
I point out that I've had a problem with Linux and get jumped on by a million posts saying that I am dumb.
There's a difference between "Accountable" as in "I can sue you if your stuff breaks" and "I can blame you, and not get fired if your stuff breaks".
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
The real reason why Linux has not made serious inroads into the desktop is mainly due to the inability of many managers to view anything other than Microsoft as useful. The average clerical worker is given what management has decided is going to be comfortable for management not the worker.
..... etc. That really is just an excuse (and an poor one IMHO) because most managers like to adopt the comfortable path and today that path is Microsoft.
How many time have you tried to show a manager computing "concepts" and hear the stock reply "Oh it doesn't look like Windows". When you hear this you have lost any chance of introducing change.
In the(1970/80's) the old addage was "You can't get fired for buying IBM". Today it's the same but change "IBM" to "Microsoft".
I have seen companies buy muiti million dollar database systems (SAP) and instead of changing their methodology (which would be very easy to do) of doing business they will spend millions on changing the database to conform to their business practice (great for SAP programmers/consultants). What chance do these companies have of changing their desktop.
Please don't come back and say "cost" (see above), "training", "not enough apps"
The average American likes Windows because it is relatively simple to install
The average American doesn't install Windows. They buy the computer with Windows preinstalled, and when their copy of Windows gets to the condition that it needs to be reinstalled, they throw out the computer and get another one.
It's ok, you can get one of the nice Mac PPC machines, dump the crappy OS that comes with it and install Linux, and you'll be all set. Future-proof! :)
"My FC4 has two clipboards, one is the auto-copy-when-highlighted, paste with a middle click; the other is the ctrl-c to copy, ctrl-x to cut, ctrl-v to paste. They can hold different things at the same time."
And this is a bad thing because...?
The average user won't use the middle-click-paste anyway, so I really don't see why the concept of having two clipboards for two different kinds of copy-pastings is so wrong.
Most people are not technically savy like the SlashDot crowd. The average American likes Windows because it is relatively simple to install and to connect to the Internet.
:P There are plenty of people bigger in the *nix filed than Apple. Even though Apple has been dabling in nix for over 10 years now. Apple is at best a niche UNIX vendor. I must admit I see things I like in their product. But it's not all that special.
Ok for one the average American does not install "any" OS what so ever. Second "any" current major distribution of Linux is easier to install and supports more hardware out of the box than Windows ever did/does.
Note that AOL builds an ISP dialup client only for Windows, not Linux.
Yes because dialup is a booming market. Blows DSL/Broadband out of the water. IIRC AOL has consistantly lost subscribers for the last several years. As people learn that AOL is not the internet just like the big blue E is not. Switching isn't that hard.
If we expect Linux to make a dent in the desktop market, Linux distributions must change radically. They must be as simple to install as MacOS X, a very-simple-to-install UNIX variant.
Have you seen Debian, Redhat, SuSE, Mandriva, Unbutu, Knopix, or any of the hundreds of other distros with super simple point and click distros? Or in some cases don't even have to be installed at all! In what way is Mac OSX easier to install other than most of it's users don't have to install it much like Windows?
We need the ISPs to board the Linux train by building dialup clients. Yes. Much of America still uses dial, and in the dialup market, AOL is still #1.
Last I saw Linux has supported dialup since the early 90s. Second dialup is a dwindling market where AOL is number one (when did they get to be number one again? I thought MSN had them beat) simply because that is their main/only real market and everyone else is leaving.
I absolutely admire Linux, and if my ISP would provide the same kind of support, for Linux, that my ISP provides for Window, I would switch my AMD-powered desktop over to Linux.
If my ISP provided the same kind of support for Linux as they do Windows it would generally be worse than providing no support at all. Actually they are getting better. TimeWarner's AMS system is now basically platform and browser agnostic these days. But still their techs are a clueless bunch. Back when the guy was supposed to come out and install RR he couldn't get anything right. He schedualed another appointment for someone to come out and take another look at it and see if they could get it to work. 10 minutes after he left I had solved the problem and called them up and told them to cancel the service call. Ever since then I have not needed their tech support outside of issues on their end. Which are still painfull to work through.
Otherwise, I'll wait for the Apple x86 box and switch from Linux to FreeBSD. I prefer Linux; it's got the cooler icon: the penguin.
Ok I like OSX and all. But that whole argument sounds retarted. Second OSX is BSD based. Not FreeBSD based. Silly newb. And if you are so hot to trot about switching to BSD then just do it. FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, or Darwin. It's all good and just as functional as Linux FTMP. Though I still preffer Linux. The only thing I would change is to create a universal driver architechture so that outside of binary differences the same driver source could be easily used for all *nix systems.
By the way, some hackers will likely provide the necessary software patch to enable x86 MacOS to run on any IBM PC clone. If the Apple x86 box garners 10% or more of the market, then most of the ISPs will gleefully provide support for UNIX connectivity.
Most already do support nix as much as it needs to be supported.
Perhaps, the title of this article should be "Simplicity & Connectivity & A Matter of Time for the UNIX Juggernaut called Apple".
"Unix jugernaught called Apple?" I see someone here is a hopeless/clueless fanboy. As well as a similarly clueless AOL fanboy
The tobacco industry also employs lots of people but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get people to stop smoking
Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
I don't know others but I have been trying OpenOffice.org with high hopes every time a substantial new release is out. And every time I was disappointed. Like it or not, we need (and expect) excellent MS Office import/export capability. We are doing business at the end of the day and most of our biz partners are using Word/Excel/PP. Until now, I still see lots of glitches here and there when I am importing some MS files. How can I expect my users to accept these glitches when they switch over to Desktop Linux or even just OpenOffice.org on top of Windows?
The thing is you're confusing Windows already set up for your hardware with Linux being installed on your computer. It's a common mistake for newbies.
We don't really blame you... you're used to having systems set up for you by HP or Compaq or Dell, and it all just works. Have you ever tried installing Windows just by itself, though? OEM copy, without all your hardware specific drivers? It takes a long time to google all the drivers, half the companies have since gone out of business or don't offer drivers online, all kinds of fun trying to figure out how to get things working.
My point is that you (and some sympathetic, clueless mods) have gotten your ill-informed comment modded up. Or perhaps it's well-informed, and you're just trolling...
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Their product is sub standard, their business practices are harmful, and their power to eliminate innovation and dictate what their users can and cannot do with their computers is dangerous. So, No. It isn't. Any other questions?
1. Apps: I won't claim any Windows application got a counter application for Linux, but most does - and most have more alternative for Linux than for windows.b le.shtml
check up this table http://linuxshop.ru/linuxbegin/win-lin-soft-en/ta
2. again, the situation is better than it seems.
windows XP is 4 years old, currently, Linux support out of the box many things windows does not.
for example, try to install windows on serial ATA drive. you will need a floppy (!!) disk with drivers during the setup phase. (as if the early 90's are still here!)
the thing is, situation is improving constantly, and the better it gets, the better the incentive for vendors to support Linux.
3. The problem with fonts is most likely due to a mix with GTK and QT applications, that uses different configurations.
say, supposed someone would port a MacOS X application to windows, what are the odds that the windows fonts control would work for it?
there is a solution for it, however:
I use KDE, which uses QT, this cause a problem with GTK applications (regarding fonts etc). the solution is to use a small application called "GTK Style and fonts".
you can tell it use make GTK use the same font settings QT uses, which enable consistently changing fonts.
I don't know if there is a similar solution for users who runs Gnome (GTK) and use KDE applications. (QT).
about copy paste, works fine for me.
better than windows, actually, with the nice ability to copy by selecting with the mouse, and pasting with the middle mouse button.
Omry.
> The average user won't use the middle-click-paste
> anyway, so I really don't see why the concept of
> having two clipboards for two different kinds of
> copy-pastings is so wrong.
It is not wrong. Nor are the utilities wrong
that enable multiple clipboards under Windows.
They just should stay out of John User's range.
They should not exist, not even by accident for
John User. If a geek wants them, let him do all
the work to set them up.
More generally, same applies to the 3-key mouse
and to the virtual desktops. You want them? You
set them up editing config files, no trace of
them in the defaults, not even in control centre.
While I agree with you over this, it glosses over the real time consuming part of a windows install - all the damn application installs to get the system productive and usable. I have a usb key with all my current xp packages on, but it takes a couple of hours to get them all configured and ready to rock. FC4? Oh, they're already there!
When the article deals primarily with Novell and what Novell is doing regarding their desktop solution, it's really a waste of my time to wade through responses regarding Debian or Ubuntu or whatever else. Are those designed for an office enivronment? Not that I've seen.
When we talked about users in an office enivronment, we're primarily talking about a bunch of people who use an office suite, perhaps instant message others, and access a lot of web-based apps. Assuming that those web-based apps are platform-independent (i.e. not dependent on Internet Explorer), then the majority of people in an office setting will be perfectly fine with using a Linux desktop.
Having managed an IT infrastructure, I can tell you that I would not want users to be able to do most of the things people complain about with Linux. I do not want them playing Sims 2 at work. I don't want them playing Doom 3. I don't want them trying to install new programmes at all, let alone new drivers.
I have SUSE 9.3 at home and it works very well. Can I do everything I want to do at home yet? No. Did I have to tweak my install? Yes. But would I have needed to do that to do office-related work? No.
For the business desktop scenario, I would say that Linux IS ready. With proper user security (don't give them all root), Linux would actually cut down the number of support requests for supported software (because they wouldn't be able to install unsupported software).
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
Can't say that I agree. I advocate dual booting and a slow transistion from Windows to Linux - there is the problem of Windows applications which the user has the habit of using in order to be productive. I try to have Linux from the start on new sites though.
How many beans make five, anyhow ?