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.'"
That, and the hundreds/thousands of Access/Excel/Word apps/macros/templates that a lot of businesses rely on. Yes, they can be recreated in other platforms, but it will take a significant amount of work to do so.
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
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.
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.
"between GUI world and Console/Kernel world."
And Windows has this integration exactly how?
"X is to Linux as Win 3.1 was to Dos." Not even close. X is a display server. Win 3.1 was a shell on DOS. X can run remote displays. Try that with Windows 3.1. (Not to say X doesn't have its problems, but they're being debated and addressed as we speak, supposedly.)
"But it's still there."
You've never looked at your Windows boot log, have you?
"it's no registry."
Thank God, the Windows Registry is the dumbest fucking idea Microsoft ever had. A nightmare single point of failure with no documentation and apparently no rules.
Text config files are infinitely to be preferred over such a thing. Especially when there are now numerous GUI tools that front-end them and do vetting of your choices so you don't have to worry about typos.
"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."
Never heard of Webmin, have you?
And since when is Windows "elegant" in handling its component configuration? You've never used Windows Server 2003, have you?
"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."
No, you're a Windows astroturfer trying to convince people that Linux has fatal flaws and covering your ass with that lame remark.
This is the latest gambit from Windows trolls - pretend to be Linux users "dissatisfied" with Linux or only wanting to suggest "improvements" to Linux. You see it everywhere now on the Linux boards. They give themselves away by their lack of real knowledge about what is available on Linux and how Linux works.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
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 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.
"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.