German Linux Migration White Paper Updated

TheRealDamion writes to let us know that the German Federal Government Co-Ordination and Advisory Agency (KBSt) has released an updated version of their Linux Migration guide whitepaper. This guide, originally released in 2003, is incredibly detailed offering assistance on a wide range of issues that could be faced in a migration from Windows to Linux.

Comments

Shhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't mention the browser wars. I did once, but I think I got away with it.

Re:Shhh

[WesG]

For some reason I read the headline as they are migrating from Linux to white paper.

And for a short period of time I actaully believed it and didn't think I had to re-read the headline.

Official migration guide

[hernyo]

That's quite an idea: releasing an official guide on why and how should companies switch to Linux. CEOs rather trust an government-released official guide rather than geek speech.

Re:Official migration guide

[leonmergen]

releasing an official guide on why and how should companies switch to Linux.

I find it quite remarkable how the "if" is always missing from these statements... couldn't this guide also be used as an indication whether it's even profitable for companies to switch to Linux ?

There are companies for which it's simply not financially advicable to switch to Linux, you know...

Re:Official migration guide

[Skye16]

Shhh! We know they exist, but we mustn't speak of them!

The zealots are watching. Always watching.

Re:Official migration guide

[Anonymous Coward]

There are companies for which it's simply not financially advicable to switch to Linux, you know...

Microsoft? Apple? And.......... (specifically)?

Re:Official migration guide

[maxwell demon]

SCO!

Re:Official migration guide

[halltk1983]

I *Gentoo* am not a zea*Gentoo*lot. *Gentoo*I resen*Gentoo*t that *Gentoo* remark.

Re:Official migration guide

[Trelane]

I find it quite remarkable how the "if" is always missing from these statements... couldn't this guide also be used as an indication whether it's even profitable for companies to switch to Linux ?

And rightly so!

Maybe if you read it, it'll give you insight into whether you should switch some/all of your computers to Linux. However, the question of if you should migrate some/any software to Linux (or any other OS) is terribly situation-dependent and being argued constantly by pundits, armchair pundits, zealots, and paid shills every day. Indeed, reading such an article might well give you more information on whether you should switch than all of the TCO/ROI/WTF else studies together!

That is outside the scope of what these papers address. You're right that this doesn't (directly) address if one should or should not migrate to Linux. That's not what it's intended to address, as that question's already been settled for them.

IMHO, there is already too much arguing (mostly in generalities that make you feel good but don't actually inform, some downright misleading) by the above list of suspects about if and not how, so I think this comes exactly right--a paper on How We're Migrating to Linux.

Re:Official migration guide

[hernyo]

It's nothing new though.
IBM came out with Theirs a while back too.

Yes, but I have not heard of it yet. And if I have not heard of it I bet many CEOs neither did.

The more the merrier, I agree.

No mention of GNU

[ReformedExCon]

They discuss the GPL at length in some of their whitepapers, but they don't seem to mention GNU or the FSF once.

I think it is quite a BAD sign when governments decide that the creators and maintainers of the GPL are not significant enough to mention in their documents. On top of that, they use the term "Linux" to describe the OS, and though they mention in pdf_datei.pdf that "Linux is only the core of the operating system", they go on "the non-core programs are parts of a so-called distribution". This is absolutely FALSE.

GNU is the operating system. It is the environment in which the Linux user lives. GNU tools are (if not the heart) the brain, lungs, arms, legs, and bladder of the GNU/Linux operating system. Without them, Linux is useless.

So, sure. Hooray that GNU/Linux is being promoted for use in Germany. However, this is a net loss for the Free Software community if the FSF and GNU are lost amid all the hoopla.

Re:No mention of GNU

[Anonymous Coward]

Who let the GNU freaks out of the closet?

Re:No mention of GNU

[gowen]

Furthermore, they discuss the Berne Convention on international copyright, without ever mentioning the bureaucrats who originally drafted it in 1886. Surely they deserver their props?

Re:No mention of GNU

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm willing to be that with a little tweaking, a Linux kernel could boot a BSD userland... so useless without gnu ...

Re:No mention of GNU

[Anonymous Coward]

Ultimately, the casual users (i.e. people who have no idea what a compiler does) will call it "Linux". Nobody will ever say "GNU/Linux" that matters. Nobody cares what parts of the OS Linux actually compromises. Linux could be a text editor that happens to get included with a specific distro and people would still call the system "Linux". If they install Red Hat, they will call it Linux; if they install Debian, they will call it Linux; if they install Ubuntu, SuSE, Mandrake, Linspire, or anything else, they'll still call it Linux.

This is the term that the public knows. Nothing else. Whining about it at this stage of the game is just pointless. If we'd called it GNU/Linux from the beginning, one of the names would have gotten dropped anyway (and it would have probably been GNU, since people tend to prefer "words" to largely meaningless acronyms).

The average user neither knows, nor cares about whether their software is free. They want whatever ultimately yields the highest productivity to price trade off. They will never compile a progam, will never change the source, and couldn't care less about what language, paradigm, or commenting conventions are used to create it.

Insisting on silly, minor points about naming conventions is going to do infinitely more to harm Linux, the FSF, GNU, and the computing world than somebody forgetting to give credit to GNU. Until the OS community stops and realizes that the people that they have to convince to switch platforms ARE the people who know nothing about computers, Microsoft (and other closed-source software companies) will prevail.

Re:No mention of GNU

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh would you please RELAX
You make it sound like there's some government conspiracy to hush the existence of GNU and the FSF.
They migrated to linux (yeah I don't use the gnu either) and wrote a 500 page document for you and anyone else who might be pondering a migration, and all you can do is beitch.

Write to them and suggest your inclusions for the 3rd edition.

Re:No mention of GNU

[cammoblammo]

Nobody cares what parts of the OS Linux actually compromises.

So Linus has started to accept patches from Redmond?

Re:No mention of GNU

[Anonymous Coward]

A "net loss"? How can you be serious?
They offer a free document on how to migrate to Linux and that somehow is bad for OSS because they failed to mention some of your favorite acronyms? So according to you it's better to not inform citizens how to migrate but, as long as you call Linux "GNU/Linux"? Is that a "net gain"?

Re:No mention of GNU

[maxwell demon]

Nobody cares what parts of the OS Linux actually compromises.

So Linus has started to accept patches from Redmond?

So Redmond has started to send patches to Linus?

Note that if Redmond was sending worthwhile Linux patches, I'd expect the Linux community to very carefully check them, and making sure that there's an official statement from Redmond that those patches are indeed properly licensed to be inserted into Linux under the GPL (and maybe let a lawyer check possible other pitfalls), make sure that all this is perfectly well documented, and then, if all those checks show no possible harm, accept those patches.

Re:No mention of GNU

[TheRaven64]

A GNU userland already does boot on two BSD kernels and one GNU kernel - although the GNU kernel doesn't have much hardware support. These systems look a lot more like a Linux distribution to the user than a Linux system with a BSD userland would.

And even if you are using a BSD userland, then you will still find some fairly major components (e.g the compiler collection) are GNU projects.

Re:No mention of GNU

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman?! Get back to work!!

Re:No mention of GNU

[slavemowgli]

That's not true. First of all, other parts of the system, such as X11, are of similar importance, yet noone (not RMS and his fanboys, that is) ever demand that the system be called "GNU/Linux/X" or so; similarly, most Solaris systems I've seen (for example) have the GNU tools installed, yet noone called it "GNU/Solaris". Also, the statement that you *need* the GNU tools is also wrong, as you can just as well replace them with something else, like busybox for example.

Sure, that's not typically done. But while it's true that most people don't give the GNU project enough credit, the right answer is not to give the GNU project *more* credit than it deserves.

Re:No mention of GNU

[grumbel]

### GNU is the operating system. It is the environment in which the Linux user lives.

Sorry, but that is simply wrong. The environment in which Linux users live in these days is KDE, Gnome or Fluxbox or whatever, there might be a few 'command-line hippies' left that use a 'true' GNU environment, but for the majority the GNU stuff simply is a non-issue, an implementation detail hidden somewhere deep down below which you could switch to BSD Userland and hardly anybody would ever notice it. Even GCC is no longer maintained by GNU people and the C++ parts of it didn't origin from GNU either as far as I know. So calling the OS which people use GNU is equally wrong to calling it 'Linux', to make it correct you might wanna call it Linux/GNU/Xorg/KDE/Samba/Apache or simply call it by the name of the distribution as the paper suggested.

Re:No mention of GNU

[nickos]

IIRC (and I may not!) I think there is at least one kernel contributor with an email address at microsoft.com

Re:No mention of GNU

[Vanders]

A GNU userland already does boot on two BSD kernels and one GNU kernel

And one non-GNU, non-BSD kernel.

Re:No mention of GNU

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody cares what parts of the OS Linux actually compromises.

Obviously, some people care what part it comprises .

Re:No mention of GNU

[Antique Geekmeister]

If you rip out the X display system, you still have an OS. If you rip out glibc, bash, vim and EMACS, the GNU compiler, and all the other GNU tools, you have scattered bytes of programs left that you can't even compile with.

The GNU tools really are the guts of the operating system itself: Linus's kernel provided that last missing piece, the beachhead to unload the rest of the troops onto for the free source invasion.

Re:No mention of GNU

[houghi]

Or, to sum it up, handle it as any other patch.

Re:No mention of GNU

[Gnuosphere]

Slavemowgli said:

"yet noone (not RMS and his fanboys, that is) ever demand that the system be called "GNU/Linux/X""

Of course they don't call it "X". The dispute comes over what is considered to be an "operating system". X is a windowing system. Linus Torvalds has decided to use a computing scientist's viewpoint and propagate it as mainstream. Which is insane - but not if you want the world to believe they are using "Linux". Even Linus himself is caught in contradiction. He says the operating system that many of us use should be called "Linux" but then admits that a users never use an operating system - the users use programs which in turn use the operating system.

Linus's injection of the computer scientist's viewpoint into the mainstream world has served his interests and Open Source interests well. However, that trick has hurt the Free Software movement's philosophy. The trade off is the fact that OSS developers have contributed many programs to free software in exchange for obfuscation of the philosophy. But bottom line, to propagate the notion that an "operating system" is a kernel to anyone other than a fellow computer scientist is disingenuous. He's using that specialized angle to further his ego and downplay the socially charged topic of "freedom".

One should call the system "GNU/Linux" not for a sake of "credit". Richard Stallman doesn't want people to call it "GNU/Linux" so that people drool over his name. RMS wants people to call it this so they do not forget that freedom is what is at stake here. Linus wants people to call it "Linux" so he can stake out the spotlight for his ego. He has admitted many times he has an ego the size of the sun.

Torvalds should be thankful that Richard Stallman calls it Gnu+Linux. He needn't. The intent was to create a complete operating system called "the GNU system". The FSF had no intention of ever calling it "the GNU+Hurd system" or "GNU+anything system". They would only do so to differentiate between variants that may be created (i.e. Linux) - it just so happens to be the case.

Here's my opinion -

Screw the ego and history. Call it "Linux" if you don't feel freedom is important and you feel that RMS is just a freak extremist whose GPL can be used on occassion. On the other hand, call it GNU+Linux if you feel that the whole purpose of the GNU Project (i.e. to bring freedom to computer users) is an invaluable contribution to humanity with regards to computer technology AND you think that the kernel developer should be acknowledged even if his views don't mesh with the free software community.

I choose the latter.

Re:No mention of GNU

[GuidoW]

Straight out of the "CREDITS" file included with every copy of the source code:

N: Raymond Chen
E: raymondc@microsoft.com
D: Author of Configure script
S: 14509 NE 39th Street #1096
S: Bellevue, Washington 98007
S: USA

Re:No mention of GNU

[richlv]

not exactly the kernel, but gaim accepted patch from microsoft :)

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5829512-2.html? tag=st.num

and search for patch.

now, a single case, and how much publicity has it gained already...

Re:No mention of GNU

[richlv]

i don't have vim and emacs installed. most workstations don't need gcc installed. few users want to know what bash is (though i use it a lot).

they are useful applications, but in this case most users would have to call their systems kde/x.org/gnu/linux.
and i am probably missing about a zillion other components.

Re:No mention of GNU

[richlv]

if we had called it gnu/linux from the beginning, how manu users would have bothered to find out what gnu is, and how many of those would have bothered to find out more about philosphy behind it ?

that still would be more credit thing unless you believe that simply adding three letters would suddenly enlighten everybody who reads them.

Re:No mention of GNU

[Anonymous Coward]

and actually they _do_ mention FSF in it.

Re:No mention of GNU

[sumdumass]

Screw the ego and history. Call it "Linux" if you don't feel freedom is important and you feel that RMS is just a freak extremist whose GPL can be used on occassion. On the other hand, call it GNU+Linux if you feel that the whole purpose of the GNU Project (i.e. to bring freedom to computer users) is an invaluable contribution to humanity with regards to computer technology AND you think that the kernel developer should be acknowledged even if his views don't mesh with the free software community.

Strangly, i have heard the term gnu/linux so much i just though it was understood that linux was GNU. I guess thats the price of calling it GNU/linux instead of GNU on linux or linux with GNU. I just asked a friend and he said he considers it automatic too.

Arguing over names for somethign that basicaly stands for the same thing isn't verry productive. I understand that some must have thier name in the 15 minutes of fame spotlight. In this day and age, one simply implies the other. Maybe people don't have a good grasp on what linux or GNU actualy are and that grasp is were credit is suffering.

Re:No mention of GNU

[swillden]

So calling the OS which people use GNU is equally wrong to calling it 'Linux', to make it correct you might wanna call it Linux/GNU/Xorg/KDE/Samba/Apache or simply call it by the name of the distribution as the paper suggested.

I disagree that "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" are equally wrong, or that "Apache/Samba/KDE/Xorg/GNU/Linux" is necessary to have a "correct" name. Why? Consider a very simple test: Take your "Apache/Samba/KDE/Xorg/GNU/Linux" system and try ripping out each of the named components. What happens? Remove Linux? The system won't boot. Remove GNU? The system boots but, with glibc gone, nothing runs. Remove Xorg? System runs and is useful, just without a pretty UI. Remove KDE? System runs and is useful and maybe even "pretty", but less user-friendly and with fewer apps. Samba? System runs, is pretty, has lots of apps, but can't share files with Windows machines. Apache? System runs, is pretty, lots of apps, shares files, but can't serve web pages.

So, if we envision a curve of functionality vs component set, I see a serious knee right at the GNU component. Sure, you could replace the GNU stuff with a BSD userland, in which case an appropriate name might be BSD/Linux.

Personally, I just call it Linux when talking to people who don't know the difference, and the distro name when talking to people who do, because it gets the point across. But I do not agree that calling an OS GNU/Linux necessarily implies that we should name all of the major components. Some components are more important than others, and the GNU stuff is clearly much more important than the rest of the list.

Re:No mention of GNU

[IpalindromeI]

If you rip out the X display system, you still have an OS.

You have a server OS, but not a desktop OS, which is what the average person needs to use a computer.

If you rip out glibc,

I don't know enough about alternate libcs to say anything on this one.

bash,

Personally I like zsh better, but if you just want sh compatibility (for running system scripts), dash is smaller and faster than bash.

vim and EMACS,

Neither vi nor vim are GNU software. Regardless, there are many, many text editors that people like and are not GNU software, so I hardly think you can say GNU has the market cornered for text editing.

the GNU compiler,

Only developers care about compilers. A normal user probably doesn't need one. Thus, it does not make up a significant part of his OS.

and all the other GNU tools,

Most common system tools that I'm aware of have non-GNU variants available, as well.

I do not doubt that the GNU software was a great help in the early days, but an average computer user (ie, someone who doesn't read Slashdot) could get by fairly easily with most of his OS comprised of non-GNU software. I find your dismissal of the X Window System especially amusing, as that is probably the most important component of the OS in terms of allowing it to become a viable desktop OS. Do you actually think that an average user could happily use a computer without a graphical display at this point in time? It's an absurd statement.

Re:No mention of GNU

[Kjella]

I think you're making the point, but also the biggest argument for dropping it. GNU/ is implicit. It provides exactly no additional information over "I run Linux". Saying "I run KDE" or "I run KDE on Linux" is also far more informative.

As for the importance, all the major distros are trying to show off desktops today. For a desktop, XOrg or KDE is as important as the rest because the end user doesn't care where it halts - to him none of the above is a useful desktop.

Overall, I feel GNU is a really really minor part of my Linux experience, as in "what % to you contribute to the total". It is of course a completely absurd comparison of apples to fruit baskets, but if I were to try to list them in order, I'd probably list them as:

1. KDE
2. Debian
3. Linux
4. GNU

Re:No mention of GNU

[frank_adrian314159]

yet noone [sic] ever demand that the system be called "GNU/Linux/X"

Of course not. You can save a keystroke by calling it GNU/LinuX.

Re:No mention of GNU

[swillden]

GNU/ is implicit. It provides exactly no additional information over "I run Linux".

I agree, actually. Until someone makes a BSD/Linux system, anyway.

Saying "I run KDE" or "I run KDE on Linux" is also far more informative.

Given that many people run KDE on *BSD systems, "I run KDE" is ambiguous. OTOH, the user experience of KDE on *BSD is nearly indistinguishable from KDE on Linux, so I guess it depends on what you're trying to communicate.

Overall, I feel GNU is a really really minor part of my Linux experience, as in "what % to you contribute to the total".

You don't use BASH?

Re:No mention of GNU

[Master of Transhuman]

And without a kernel, the GNU tools are (mostly) useless.

And since GNU means GNU is Not Unix, and the whole point of the GNU project was to produce an OS - a COMPLETE OS WITH KERNEL - which they utterly failed to do over twenty years until some Finnish grad student did it (probably not even using their tools, for all I know)...

In other words, you've lost that battle, so fuck off.

Linux is Linux and the rest of the OS and distro is by whoever supplied it - including KDE, GNOME, and fifty thousand other tiny little people who don't particularly care if the OS is called Linux or KDE/Linux or GNOME/Linux, or tinylittleutility/Linux.

Only the GNU clowns want support.

If you NEED it, you don't deserve to get it.

Morons.

Re:No mention of GNU

[Hognoxious]

The average user neither knows, nor cares about whether their software is free. They want whatever ultimately yields the highest productivity to price trade off.

The average manager might care about productivity but the average user cares more about whether he can set his favourite wallpaper.

I could add that the reason most managers don't care about the wallpaper is that they don't know it's possible to change it. But that would be harsh so I won't.

Re:No mention of GNU

[Media Tracker]

Overall, I feel GNU is a really really minor part of my Linux experience, as in "what % to you contribute to the total".

You don't use BASH?

Or ls, cp, rm, mkdir, cat, sort, ... ?

Or make, tar, emacs, ... ?

These are all GNU products. I agree with my grand-parent, who says that adding the "GNU/" prefix doesn't give much information, but still, GNU is everywhere on a Linux system. And whether the OS is GNU or Linux depends on your definition on an OS -- a kernel? a kernel plus tools? a whole system?

Anyway, I guess my point is, let's not be anal retentive Stallman clones. I'm not going to start saying "GNU slash Linux". Most self-respecting geeks understand what "Linux" implies. That is, GNU is all any Linux desktop.

Re:No mention of GNU

[Anonymous Coward]

How old are you? Twelve? Thirteen tops?

Re:No mention of GNU

[grumbel]

### Why? Consider a very simple test: Take your "Apache/Samba/KDE/Xorg/GNU/Linux" system and try ripping out each of the named components.

That is a very bogus argument, when I remove my Athlon Processor my system doesn't boot either, that however doesn't mean that I start calling by OS 'Athlon', same for Bios, Grub and other stuff. When you want to play the game that way you have to do it the other way around, ie. which components can I replace without noticing. I can replace my Athlon with a Pentium, still boots, my Grub can be replaced with Lilo, still boots, Linux and GNU can be replaced with FreeBSD, Busybox or some other Unix, still everything fine and I won't even notice till I run 'uname'. Xorgs can be replaced with a old copy of XFree86, might still work, but replacing KDE with TWM makes it kind of obvious that things changed. Linux and GNU are just implementation details which the normal user won't even notice, yes they are important core parts, but parts which are hidden deep down below. So saying "I run GNU/Linux" is ultimativly not really very meaningfull in most situations and saying "I run Debian GNU/Linux" on the other side actually has some usefull information in it, same with "I run KDE". Just saying "I run Linux" is fine with me too, since Linux has become a general buzzword for all OpenSource stuff.

Re:No mention of GNU

[grumbel]

### Or ls, cp, rm, mkdir, cat, sort, ... ? Or make, tar, emacs, ... ? These are all GNU products.

One problem with these tools is that they haven't evolved much at all in the last years. GNU has added a bunch of additional options to the tools back then compared to the commercial Unixes which made those tools popular, however that seems to have stopped long ago and all those tools are now still completly text-based, disconnected from all the progress that has been made in other areas. I wish GNU would move a little bit with the times and adopt some more advanced OO-based way of handling command line tools, options to output XML instead of just plain text, something along the lines of XMLterm. If GNU would do that, maybe people would have a easier time recognizing that they are important and making progress, today GNU simply seems to much a thing of the past.

I for one

[Uukrul]

I, for one, welcome our new german overl.... or may be not.

Last steps in the guide

[AnonymousYellowBelly]

The last steps:

5. Call MS representative and shout: GO F$CK YOURSELF, you greedy son of a...!!
6. PROFIT!!!
7. Contribute money/resources to the OSS community.

Re:Last steps in the guide

[Ingolfke]

8. Spend all quarterly profits + and additional 80% on FOSS software support contracts, overpriced arrogant consultants w/ a political agenda, added development staff, smelly GNU/Hippie sys admins to realize that the solution you implemented doesn't work effectively.
9. Call M$ and beg for forgiveness and the latest copy of Windowss 2003.

All kidding aside, Linux migration is not for every company or every situation. It's been said before and will be said again. Hopefully this guide will help companies make the right decisions so we hear more and more about successful and lasting migrations and not failures.

this is getting out of hand

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux, Linux everywhere, and, if that's not bad enough, now everyone's a geek. The word geek has been packaged and sold into the mainstream and everyone want's a piece of it.

The docu movies are soon to follow. Rumour has it that Micheal Moore's going to play RMS; and, RMS is going to direct. ESR plays a psychopath, mass murderer, coming out of the closet loaded down with firepower.

Linux Migration projects...

[TarrySingh]

I see a lot of bloody wars coming up!Yeahaw!

Re:It's 3:00 AM

[Anonymous Coward]

over here it's already 12:47, sorry ;)

Thorough but....

[Anonymous Coward]

I skimmed over it and it looked thorough enough but it didn't mention anything about ducking chairs? Did I miss that part?

Austrian Linux for download

[MadMoses]

Meanwhile, Vienna has made their own Linux version Wienux, which is based on Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 with kernel 2.6.11 and intended to be used in small and middle businesses and muncipalities, available for download.

Governments and OSS

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a big fan of governments actively supporting open source business software. Such an approach would be a big boost for productivity (better use of IT) and small business profits (less IT expenses). Perhaps more governments should seriously consider the investment, and even perhaps through more active approaches such as government funded projects (tailored to the country's complicated tax systems?)

Does anyone agree?

The Windows, The!!!

[InvisibleCola]

The Windows, The!!!

Re:The Windows, The!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"No one who speaks German could be an evil man."

OS wars

[FishandChips]

So I guess it's only a matter of time before some charmer like Orrin Hatch introduces a bill in Congress mandating the US government to publish a guide for those wishing to migrate from Linux to Windows.

European Greens Linux "Linux für alle"

[bernfast]

The european green party is also releasing a linux CD: Linux for all and www.gruene-opensource.net

Re:European Greens Linux "Linux für alle"

[bernfast]

The download is here.

Spain has a lot of Official Distros

[Uukrul]

It's better to try to do the change like Germany is doing than to add another distro to the market. Spain has a lot of distros for every comunidad, but it lacks politic objectives.

Spanish oficial distros (From spanish Wikipedia):

• LinEx: Junta de Extremadura, Spain.
• GuadaLinex: Junta de Andalucía, Spain.
• Molinux: Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha, Spain.
• LliureX : Generalitat Valenciana, Spain.
• MAX: Comunidad de Madrid, Spain.

Creator:

[Simonics Zsolt]

Creator: Acrobat PDFMaker für Word Producer: Acrobat Distiller 7.0 (Windows)

Re:Creator:

[rnbc]

Yes, I already noticed this...

Considering the migration document is itself made in Windows, with Microsoft Word, I see nothing real happening in the next few years.

Re:Creator:

[Anonymous Coward]

Give the guys a break. The document was written at EDS, where OSS is only starting to make it inways. EDS is in bed with MS, as part of their Agile Alliance. MS Office is the standard for any documents produced there, OpenOffice is not used. (At least, not officially. :-) In fact, some of the chapters were written in OpenOffice and have been imported into Word later.

The usage of OpenOffice was discussed, but discarded since it would have been to much of a headache for the staff that made the final formatting. That was for the 1st edition, the 2nd edition just used available text and continued with that format.

Please note, I post anonymously since I've written one of the chapters. :-)

Chinese translation of the 1st edition available

[zero0w]

The Chinese translation of the 1st edition of Migration Guide can be found here:

http://www.fect.com.tw/Docs/Migration.pdf

The translation effort is sponsored by the FSOSS dEveloper Center @ Taiwan, aka FECT.

More Migration Tools and Whitepapers

[wehe]

Here are some more tools and whitepapers for migrations to the Linux operating system, for example about Solaris to Linux migration, filename conversion and more.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

geek paradigm shift

[sounddesignz]

suggestion: use the term geek for persons having no clue of computers at all. same with nerd. i mean, what world do they think we live in when they sit around in this nature thing all the time?

Nit-picking

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the problem with the OSS community. A significant industrialized country, such as Germany (who is very influential within the EU), devotes time and money to give Linux a push and people stick to the details irrelevant to the big picture, at least from a corporal level (i.e. they call Linux Linux not GNU/Linux). Geek mentality (in the negative sense) and the assorted nit-picking can hamper Linux adoption. Grow up guys, this is definetely a good move and perhaps people should start translating and build upon thos document.

Does this make Germany ...

[houghi]

... home of the brave, land of the free?

Re:Does this make Germany ...

[Anonymous Coward]

...they have been the "land of the free" for a long time...
where else in the world can you find a autobahn where you can drive 240 km/h ?

Re:Does this make Germany ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... home of the brave, land of the free?

as in... beer?

Re:Chinese translation of the 1st edition availabl

[ratbag]

As a puerile fan of Father Ted, I feel I must snigger at the final acronym. Girls! Drink!

you are full of shit

[Anonymous Coward]

if you rip out the X display system, you will be left with an OS that no-one except a few geeks want to use. GUIs are more friendly.

Bash,Vim and Emacs are tools from the 70's. Most users DON'T WANT to ever touch them. Most users are NOT programmers, and THEY DON'T WANT TO COMPILE A FUCKING THING. Why won't you linux freaks understand that. Fuck compile. I want to double click a program on a CD, go next next next and have it install.

Dickhead.

Re:you are full of shit

[ajs318]

What's wrong with single-clicking a program on a CD, and having it compile and install itself? That's entirely possible with GNU/Linux. And you have the benefit of knowing that it was cooked in your own oven; if it gives you the Dire Rear, you can analyse the traces of leftover ingredients to see what was responsible.

Political developments since 1st edition

[FlorianMueller]

The first edition of the Migration Guide took a strong pro-OSS position. The basic message, supported by endless columns of numbers, was that a full OSS migration would yield the greatest cost-savings to public administrations, but a partial OSS migration would yet be far better than none at all. Subsequently, that government department came under major lobbying pressure from the usual suspects.

German politics is in a period of major uncertainty now after elections in September had an outcome that gives neither of the two camps (Conservatives plus Liberals or Social Democrats plus Greens) a majority. The good news from an OSS perspective is that at least one of the two parties in the current coalition government (Social Democrats and/or Greens) will be part of the next government, and those parties are quite committed to open source even though the Social Democrats supported software patents in the EU Council (and some of them were relatively swpat-friendly in the European Parliament). There are a few German conservative politicians who also have a favorable perspective on OSS, but most of them don't care and some are downright negative about it. The liberals are ideologically pro-OSS, but of all German parties they're most susceptible to the influence of big-industry lobbying.

You missed the point

[swillden]

if you rip out the X display system, you will be left with an OS that no-one except a few geeks want to use. GUIs are more friendly.

Without X, the system is less warm 'n fuzzy. Without GNU, the system doesn't work.

Which is the more important part of the OS?

Re:You missed the point

[IpalindromeI]

Without X the system would not work, in the view of the average computer user. To say that it's just "less warm 'n fuzzy" is like saying, "Without GNU, the system would still work, you just couldn't do anything with it other than boot." To an average user, those are the same.

Re:You missed the point

[swillden]

Without X the system would not work, in the view of the average computer user.

Irrelevant.

The point is that without GNU the system would be non-funtional, period. There's a big difference between "I don't know how to use this system" and "This system doesn't even have a way to accept user input".

It's like the difference between an automobile with no automatic transmission, stereo or air conditioning vs one with no steering wheel, pedals or drivetrain. The analogy is imperfect because a significant percentage of drivers do know how to use a manual transmission, but you get the idea.

Re:You missed the point

[IpalindromeI]

The point is that without GNU the system would be non-funtional, period.

You're right, that is the point. Without X, the system is nonfunctional for the average user.

There's a big difference between "I don't know how to use this system" and "This system doesn't even have a way to accept user input".

It's not a case of "I don't know how to use this system." It's a case of "This system can't do what I want it to do." That is the definition of nonfunctional.

Re:You missed the point

[swillden]

Repeating your argument doesn't make it any stronger. You could have at least tried to invalidate my analogy.

Re:You missed the point

[0ptix]

thing is, it's not quite like a more "user friendly" car. the conversation started by talking about wether TFA was good for Linux's public image or not although it didnt mention GNU. we're talking about if the acronyme GNU is important when trying to win the masses over.

the problem with the analogy is that there are far FAR more people in the world who can drive without transmition (and even may choose the cheapest most bearbone version of a car) then there are "average people" who can use and want Linux without X.

so the market for Cars without X-friendliness is proportional to the total car market, is way bigger then the proportion of GNU/Linux to the GNU/Linux/X in the market of average people.

thus for cars its fine to have models with no X but the market is to small for Linux without X. I geuss if we dont bother with X then why bother with GNU.

both or neither. thats all i'm saying. (better neither IMHO. Linux is enough)

Re:You missed the point

[IpalindromeI]

I apologize for being too subtle. I'll spell it out for you.

Computers don't look that great, so usually people want to use them to do things other than spice up a room. Many computer users are dumb or lazy, so whatever they want to do needs to be easy to figure out. Since people rely so much on sight, making things visual also tends to make them easier, which lets more dumb and lazy people figure out how to do them.

(Here's where it gets good.) Most people are too dumb and lazy to figure out how to do things without X, and some things can't even be done at all without it. If someone can't use the computer to do the things they want to do with it, the computer doesn't work for them. It's broken. Nonfunctional.

(Here's where I tie it back to the beginning of the argument.) Your claim was that, without X, the system is only "less warm 'n fuzzy," implying that it still works. In one sense you're right, in that someone knowledable could still use it for something. But most people aren't knowledgable, so for them it doesn't work. It doesn't accomplish its purpose of allowing them to do the things they want. Since that is a computer's only purpose, it doesn't work.

(One more try, from your angle.) I'm not trying to argue that the GNU parts aren't important (even though most can be replaced with non-GNU stuff). I'm saying that X is at least, if not more important, because that is the piece that actually lets the system become a desktop OS, which is what normal users need to make a computer work. Without X, Linux does not work for those people.

As to your analogy, it didn't refute my point, so I ignored it. Here's one that captures what I'm saying: It's like the difference between a car with only the bare essentials needed to make it move: an engine, a chassis, and tires, but without a body or seats. Sure it "runs," but who's going to drive it? No one. So effectively, it's worthless.

Re:You missed the point

[swillden]

I apologize for being too subtle. I'll spell it out for you.

No need for condescension. I fully understood that you're saying that because many people wouldn't want a computer without X, it's no more useful than one without GNU. I understood it, and I disagree.

What "most" people may or may not want isn't relevant to the issue of what is really a core part of the operating system, but if you want to look at it as a popularity contest, try this one:

How many running Linux systems today do not have X installed? Remember that many Linux boxes are servers, and most of those don't have a GUI.

How many running Linux systems today do not have the GNU userland installed?

Are your answers to those questions not significantly different? Don't you think that has relevance to determination of what is central to the OS, and therefore what matters when naming the OS?

It's like the difference between a car with only the bare essentials needed to make it move: an engine, a chassis, and tires, but without a body or seats. Sure it "runs," but who's going to drive it?

No, that analogy is more like the difference between Linux with or without GNU (though I like the drivetrain bit). The problem with your analogy is that no one does drive cars without seats or a body, whereas plenty of people run Linux without X.

I'm saying that X is at least, if not more important, because that is the piece that actually lets the system become a desktop OS

Okay, here's the crux of the disagreement. You are confining your discussion to discussion of Linux as a desktop OS. I think that's an artificial and irrelevant distinction. The other part of the disagreement is that you consider the small number of people who use Linux as a text-only desktop OS to be irrelevant. I think if there is even one (and I know that RMS does -- unless he now uses HURD), there is a very large difference between zero and one, between impossible and unusual.

Re:You missed the point

[IpalindromeI]

To be clear, the original comment that sparked this thread was similar to: "Why not call it GNU/Linux/X OS, then?" And you were one of the supporters of the argument: "Because X is not as important as GNU." I have not argued to remove "GNU" from the name, I am supporting adding "X" because it is just as important. Your logic supports that, as well, when you argue this way:

Don't you think that [widespread text-only server use] has relevance to determination of what is central to the OS, and therefore what matters when naming the OS?

Don't you think that the widespread use of X has relevance to determination of what is central to the OS, and therefore what matters when naming the OS? Of course you do, because you give the answer here:

The other part of the disagreement is that you consider the small number of people who use Linux as a text-only desktop OS to be irrelevant. I think if there is even one (and I know that RMS does -- unless he now uses HURD), there is a very large difference between zero and one, between impossible and unusual.

There is certainly more than one X user, and in your mind that must be significant enough to affect the name. So don't forget the "X" next time.

Re:You missed the point

[swillden]

Don't you think that the widespread use of X has relevance to determination of what is central to the OS

No. My whole point is that popularity doesn't determine necessity. I'll make the statement one last time and then drop it:

Linux can be (and is) used without X. Linux cannot be used (and therefore is not used) without GNU. The fact that people like it better with X (for some applications) does not make X an essential part of the OS, only a popular accessory.

Re:You missed the point

[IpalindromeI]

Ah, I misunderstood your last post. I apologize.

Fortunately, Linux can be used without GNU. If it is not, that is simply because GNU is the most popular choice for many system utilities. The fact that people like it better with GNU (for some system utilities) does not make GNU an essential part of the OS, only a popular choice.

Re:You missed the point

[swillden]

Fortunately, Linux can be used without GNU.

Prove it. Point out any system, anywhere, where Linux is running without the GNU userland. No glibc, no GNU binutils (ld, etc.), no BASH, no gcc, with BSD versions of ls, tar, mv, cp, etc.

You don't even have to find me a "distro" that doesn't use GNU software, just find me someone, somewhere, who has made it run, and I will concede the point that GNU is not essential to Linux.

Re:You missed the point

[IpalindromeI]

Mastodon Linux looks like it comes closest: Linux kernel, libc 4, and a BSD userland. There are pieces of GNU software included, and I admit that I don't know how essential some of them are. Bash can be replaced by other shells, gcc (and maybe binutils?) isn't needed merely for the system to function. It seems (to me) that libc is the really hard part, anything else could be replaced with a bit of effort.

There is also Pliant (their website claims to actually run on their OS), but I can't find anywhere on their site to easily verify how much GNU is in there, so it probably shouldn't count. I just found mentions of it running without GNU while searching the web.

Whether you accept these examples or not (I'm not sure I would myself if I knew more about the lower level of the system), I'll stop bothering you. I've lost the energy I had for this subthread when I joined it, and probably neither of us will be swayed. Thanks for the discussion, and I apologize for the condescension. I understand your point of view, even if I don't agree.

Re:You missed the point

[swillden]

Mastodon Linux looks like it comes closest: Linux kernel, libc 4, and a BSD userland.

I looked pretty hard, and that was the only thing I could find as well. I thought at first that I might have to concede the (increasingly esoteric ;-)) point, but after looking into it more deeply, I think Mastodon actually supports my claim that you cannot run Linux without GNU. Why? Because the creator of Mastodon dislikes GNU software and has gone to rather remarkable extremes to make it possible to run a BSD userland on Linux -- yet there are GNU components (notably glibc) in the core system. As much as he wanted Linux without GNU, he couldn't do it. Which isn't to say it couldn't be done, just that it's more work than one talented and dedicated guy could do.

OTOH, my searches have also turned up the fact that my OS of choice, Debian, has some BSD utilities which are an "essential" package (If you try to remove the bsdutils package, apt requires you to type 'Yes, I am aware this is a very bad idea' to authorize the removal). That package only contains a half-dozen utilities, and they would be fairly easy to replace, so I'm not quite ready to say Debian is a BSD/GNU/Linux system :-)

The question of what is and what is not part of an OS has no clear and general answers. It depends heavily on context and viewpoint, so it's not surprising that reasonable people may disagree.

I guess most of my insistence that the GUI should not be part of the OS stems from my perpetual irritation every every time I look at a Windows-based server with all of the bloat required for a full graphical UI that hardly ever actually gets used...

Anyway, it's been interesting.

Re:Hallo, Mayer speaking..

[Anonymous Coward]

...at my company we've got the following sig. on all outgoing mails and on our webpage :
"Please do not send MS Office documents. All MS Office documents are removed and trashed at the gateway."
Actually there is no MS Office filter... but we have an ecellent std. excuse for not responding to dumb mails...

Not for company CEOs

[12dec0de]

A number of comments that came before mine mention company CEOs that are supposed to be swayed by this document. No such thing!

This paper is a goodsend (yes I knew about the earlier edition. Got one in hardcopy on my desk) for a lowly public sector employee like me.

Why? because evertime I want to install any OSS somebody in the commity that decides on these things will whip out a ProprietoryGlossyPamphlet(tm) and ask me 'what about...' (license, support, copyright, patents, etc.) and will not believe any word I say. So I whip out my "Leitfaden für die Migration von Basissoftwarekomponenten auf Server- und Arbeitsplatzsystemen" and tell them what a federal agency had to say on that matter and they usually shut up.

The answers on legal subjects are aimed at the public service sector. While probably true for a private company, it is not the target audience.

biggest barrier is ease of use.

[patmoore]

Linux is a pain in the ass from an ease of use perspective. And I honestly wish that I could use Linux, but I don't want to be a system admin.

I want something that:

• I turn on and it works.
• When I want to configure something, there is a GUI that is easily found.
• works consistently across all distros.

I don't care about .rpm vs redhat vs whatever 'new, improved, way' of packaging programs to install there is. I don't care about journaling file systems. As a user why should I have to care? Isn't it the responsibility of the computer to keep track of such details?

Its not better for me as a user if I have to learn all about the differences. If I have to be a sys admin to get my document to print this is bad.

Unfortunately, the indifference to the user who does not want to RTFM permeates Linux (and to be fair most 'enterprise' commercial software) For examples of what I mean: Why I Hate the Apache Web Server and the whole discussion about Eric Raymonds rant about CUPS

For the 2 Linux developers who might care at all, you might read this book

P.S I have worked on *nix off and on for almost 20 years, and I program in Java professionally.

P.P.S. And I would really love it if Microsoft's desktop market share < 50% but it will not happen until Linux developers decide that ease of use matters.

Re:biggest barrier is ease of use.

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows is a pain in the ass from an ease of use perspective. And I honestly wish that I could use Windows, but I don't want to be a system admin.

I want something that:

• I turn on and it works.
• When I want to configure something, there is a GUI that is easily found.
• works consistently across all versons.

I don't care about Windows Update, or downloading patches, or whatever 'new, improved, way' of packaging programs to install there is. As a user why should I have to care? Isn't it the responsibility of the computer to keep track of such details?

Its not better for me as a user if I have to learn all about the details. If I have to be a sys admin to keep spyware off my computer this is bad.

Re:biggest barrier is ease of use.

[patmoore]

Thanks for proving my point about indifference.

My mother, my wife, and my kids' babysitter will all continue to be stuck with Windows until this indifference changes enough so that non-computer experts can use Linux.

Re:biggest barrier is ease of use.

[sloanster]

patmoore says:

Linux is a pain in the ass from an ease of use perspective. And I honestly wish that I could use Linux, but I don't want to be a system admin.

I want something that:

        * I turn on and it works.
        * When I want to configure something, there is a GUI that is easily found.
        * works consistently across all distros.


Hmm, sounds like you haven't used a modern linux workstation distro lately.

Now, let's look at your 3 item checklist:

number 1 - yep, already works that way -
number 2 - yep, already works that way -
number 3 - now that's kind of an odd and contrived requirement.

Why would you care about "across all distros?", in fact why would you even know or care that there is such a thing as other distros? You can't have your cake and eat it too - you can't say, "I don't want to know anything, I just want to sit down in front of my linux workstation and point and click" and then turn around and say "I am a l33t hacker who moves among multiple distros".

IOW, as a naive end user, your only concern is the distro you are using, period. Any demand that something be enforced "across all distros" is a red herring, and sounds like a contrived requirement.

Its not better for me as a user if I have to learn all about the differences. If I have to be a sys admin to get my document to print this is bad.

Sounds like somebody who has not looked into how easy it is to set up a printer in a modern linux desktop distro. Printing setup has been a simple point and click affair for some years now.

Re:biggest barrier is ease of use.

[RAMMS EIN]

Argh, posts like yours piss me off.

``I want something that:
I turn on and it works.''

That's more true of Linux than of Windows. How much maintenance do you need to do on a Windows box to keep it working, and how much maintenance do you need to do on a Linux box to keep it working?

``When I want to configure something, there is a GUI that is easily found.''

Many things have GUIs. Some don't. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have a good reason for bringing up that point.

``works consistently across all distros.''

Why? As long as you pick one distro and stick with it, this will never be an issue. Wanting anything to be consistent across distros is asking the impossible; the whole point in having all these distros is that they do things differently.

``I don't care about .rpm vs redhat vs whatever 'new, improved, way' of packaging programs to install there is. I don't care about .rpm vs redhat vs whatever 'new, improved, way' of packaging programs to install there is. I don't care about journaling file systems. As a user why should I have to care?''

That's perfectly fine. You don't have to care. But then don't go blaming "Linux" when things don't work exactly the way you want. After all, if you don't care, you might end up making the wrong choices. Packaging does work better on Debian than on most other distros, and journaling filesystems do provide faster crash recovery than non-journaling ones.

``Isn't it the responsibility of the computer to keep track of such details?''

No. You're talking about choices. You are offered the freedom to mix and match and create the system that suits you best. If you don't want to think about these choices, just grab a distro like Ubuntu, in which the choices have been made for you. However, there's no way "the computer" is going to make these choices for you (well, unless somebody builds in a randomizer in the installer, maybe).

``Its not better for me as a user if I have to learn all about the differences.''

I think that's debatable. I'd argue that the more you know about your system, the more pleasurable your experience with it will be. However, you don't _have_ to learn about all these differences. Once again, if you don't care, just grab any distro that doesn't offer you choices and stop whining. And if chosing a distro is too much trouble for you, just grab Ubuntu, it's generally considered good for people who just want things to work.

``If I have to be a sys admin to get my document to print this is bad.''

In that case you're in luck; Ubuntu (and I suppose other distros) comes with a whole slew of printer drivers installed by default, so all you need to do is plug in your printer and yo're all set. No hard stuff like inserting driver CDs and all that.

``Unfortunately, the indifference to the user who does not want to RTFM permeates Linux''

I can perfectly understand how people wouldn't be happy with the nth luser who comes in bitching that they don't know how stuff works and demands others to solve his problems for him. Frankly, I really don't care if you like Linux or not.

I do care about you spreading FUD about Linux and convincing other people with your lies. See also my essay Linux Superstitions Exposed; it addresses some of the more persistant false criticisms of Linux.

``P.P.S. And I would really love it if Microsoft's desktop market share 50% but it will not happen until Linux developers decide that ease of use matters.''

No, that's not what it depends on. Even if Linux is superior on every count, that doesn't mean people are going to switch, just because they can't be bothered. Largely, that's exactly how the current situation is. And there's nothing wrong with that; if people prefer to stick with their current OS, they have every right to.

Note, also, that Linux developers don't work on Linux

Re:biggest barrier is ease of use.

[patmoore]

Argh, posts like yours piss me off. ``I want something that: I turn on and it works.''

Hmm lets think about that. I turn on my car and it works. I turn on my stove and it works. I turn on my TV and it works. I don't even have to turn on Tivo. I turn on a Mac and it just works. I go to Google and it just works.

It is fine to get pissed off. But please understand these things:

1. Expecting someone, anyone to spend the time to read a manual on how to use any product, Linux included, is just rude. I have better things to do - like playing with my kids and saving the world.
2. Arbitrary flexibility is not good. (see below)
3. Computers should not make their users feel like lusers.

Choice is not necessarily useful. A zillion different filesystem formats to chose from is not choice - it's the developer's failure to make a decision. 90% of users are expecting the developers to pick for them, because the developers know the reasons behind each choice. Most users don't care about the filesystem beyond, the simple fact that they don't want their data lost. Just like most drivers care first that their car keeps them safe, not the details of how their airbags work. So make a reasonable choice for the users.

That's more true of Linux than of Windows. How much maintenance do you need to do on a Windows box to keep it working, and how much maintenance do you need to do on a Linux box to keep it working?

Honestly, I have a hardware firewall, use firefox, never open attachments, have Norton anti-virus and occasionally run a simple product that cleans out the registry. The only computer that I have had hacked is a Redhat Linux -- which is why I purchased the hardware firewall -- I didn't want to spend hours of fun figuring out ipchains (or whatever the current equivalent).

I can perfectly understand how people wouldn't be happy with the nth luser who comes in bitching that they don't know how stuff works and demands others to solve his problems for him. Frankly, I really don't care if you like Linux or not.

Sad to say you are not alone in this attitude. I see this in most code that I have seen professionally - no comments in code, cryptic error messages, little explaination and general indifference to others time. I try not to insult people using programs I work on by calling them "lusers" - that tends to make them go away without paying money (generally a bad thing in commercial software). When a "luser" bitches, as a developer that is a sign that I didn't finish doing my job - ease of use is not optional - and the customer is usually right.

As a developer I get the most satisfaction from writing code that works and when it doesn't work guides the user to possible solutions -- and my personal goal it to make it so the manual gets thinner and thinner (esp. the section that explains what the hell some bizarre error message means). Admittedly, I miss out on the satisfaction of feeling moral superior to the unwashed peasants - but life is full of sacrifices.

I did read your article. Never heard of that distro -- fine but where does it compare to Redhat, Mandrake, Debian, etc. It also don't talk about Eric Raymond's critism of CUPS.

You know what - go read the book. Think about the subject matter. If I have antagonized you too much I am sorry - feel free to ignore me and continue to enjoy the view from the ivory tower.

Re:biggest barrier is ease of use.

[patmoore]

Printing setup has been a simple point and click affair for some years now.

Yeah, go tell that to Eric Raymond

Re:biggest barrier is ease of use.

[RAMMS EIN]

``Expecting someone, anyone to spend the time to read a manual on how to use any product, Linux included, is just rude. I have better things to do - like playing with my kids and saving the world.''

Well, you don't need to read any manual to use Linux. If you can point and click, you can use Ubuntu. You may not be able to use Gentoo, but you don't have to use all distributions at once; that's what choice is good for.

As for your example that your car Just Works; I hope you don't mean it would be a Good Thing if everybody started to drive cars without receiving any instruction?

``A zillion different filesystem formats to chose from is not choice - it's the developer's failure to make a decision.''

You fail it! Of course havinga zillion different filesystems is choice. Which filesystem you use has a very real impact on performance, interoperability, reliability, and features. No filesystem is best for all purposes, so choice is good. As I already said in my previous post, you don't _have_ to think about this, but you can if you wish. If you think that's a Bad Thing, you are an idiot.

``So make a reasonable choice for the users.''

Please, stop pretending this isn't what's being done. Most installers I've seen give you some default setting for the filesystem, which you can change if you wish, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO. So you're flat out lying when you say that Linux isn't user friendly, because it forces you to think about what filesystem to use. That's what pisses me off.

``Honestly, I have a hardware firewall, use firefox, never open attachments, have Norton anti-virus and occasionally run a simple product that cleans out the registry. The only computer that I have had hacked is a Redhat Linux''

Ok, so you're saying your Windows machine requires very little administration to stay clean. I'm happy for you. However, your experience is not representative. Most people don't want to think about malware, so they will open attachments, won't run a virus scanner, and definitely won't run spyware cleaners. These are the people who truly won't learn about their systems, not hypocrites like you who learn about the pitfalls of Windows, but at the same time state that Linux is too difficult to use without learning about it. These people do get their systems riddled with worms and spyware.

Your Linux box getting broken into is also not representative. I also can't vouch for your setup being a good idea securitywise. What I can tell you is that, at the moment, an Ubuntu system is much easier to maintain than a Windows system; you get updates for _all_ installed software (not just Windows components), and you don't need virus or spyware scanners. I personally think the Linux security situation is going to change for the worse, but at the moment, you're a lot safer with less effort on Ubuntu than on Windows. Meanwhile, I'm happy running OpenBSD on all my exposed machines, because they're the only *nix project that's really serious about security.

``Sad to say you are not alone in this attitude. I see this in most code that I have seen professionally - no comments in code, cryptic error messages, little explaination and general indifference to others time. I try not to insult people using programs I work on by calling them "lusers" - that tends to make them go away without paying money (generally a bad thing in commercial software). When a "luser" bitches, as a developer that is a sign that I didn't finish doing my job - ease of use is not optional - and the customer is usually right.''

That's one paragraph I agree with completely. Still, a few observations. With Linux, the customer base consists largely of people who know their way around computers and aren't wary of a little scripting and editing configuration files. To these people, Linux is user friendly, and more so than most other operating systems. As I explain in yet another essay of mine, Linux has a lot of hidden power that you won't a

Same technical lead as Duke Nukem Forever?

[Anonymous Coward]

With that speed the migration is going to be completed the same day that Duke Nukem Forever are released.

Printed Version

[glamslam]

Any idea how to get ahold of a bound and printed version of this?

Re:Printed Version

[triso]

Yes! Bring the file to a print/copy shoppe and ask them to bind and print a few copies. YMMV.

Re:Creator: ... you're mistaken

[pbhj]

No. They wrote a program entirely in assembler to generate the doc to look like it was generated by MS Word, no doubt the prog is also a Universal Turing Machine ...

That anonymous post is clear a cover-up!

Though if I'm wrong maybe they used crossover? MS Word is quite good after all, it's just the price and the evil conglomerate that put me off.

don't bother flaming me ...

[patmoore]

just go read this

Ubuntu

[1336]

If you want to try a desktop Linux that 'just works' pretty much all the time, download an Ubuntu Live CD: http://www.ubuntu.com/download/

My computer is dual-boot Windows XP, Ubuntu Breezy but I rarely boot into Windows anymore.

Speaking of packaging, I have to say that a system like Synaptic is an amazing improvement over Windows installers. You want software? Find it in the list, mark it for installation, press apply. You want all of the software on your system kept up to date? Ubuntu periodically checks automatically and the upgrades are just as easy to install.

GP is right

[RAMMS EIN]

Do note that all the grandparent's points are valid:

``I turn on and it works.''

Although people try to convince me of the contrary, I still see people boot up Windows systems that worked fine yesterday, but BSOD before completing the boot process today, without anybody having actively tried anything. Until recently, I though safe mode had fallen out of use by now, but then I saw this computer that suddenly wouldn't boot in normal mode anymore. There are stories abound of people setting up Linux on some machine and just letting it sit there for years, doing it's thing without any maintenance.

``When I want to configure something, there is a GUI that is easily found.''

Many of the configuration panels are somewhat hard to find on Windows, many of them being hidden behind multiple layers of hierarchy in the control panel; others not even being in the control panel, but included in the start menu entry for an application. And then there are things that need to be edited with regedit... I'm not saying the situation is better on any other system, but it's far from perfect on Windows.

``works consistently across all versons.''

The control panel got rearranged for Windows XP, completely breaking the hierarchy that had been there before. Same for the start menu. Ok, both of them have backward-compatibility mode, but they were still changed, and you'll have to puzzle to get the old ones back. If you read any set of instructions for setting something up on Windows, you'll probably find different sets of instructions for different Windows versions.

The complaint that Windows isn't consistent accross versions is actually more sensible than the one that Linux doesn't work consistently accross distros. With distros, you can't expect that; there are different teams making them, and different distros have different purposes. Windows versions are all made by the same company, and largely target the same audience. Also, when you dig a bit deeper, Linux is very consistent...the core APIs and the formats of the configuration files are very stable, unlike on Windows.

``I don't care about Windows Update, or downloading patches, or whatever 'new, improved, way' of packaging programs to install there is. As a user why should I have to care? Isn't it the responsibility of the computer to keep track of such details?''

There are various different installers for Windows software. These have also changed over time, while Debian's packaging mechanisms have remained very stable. There is no concept of dependency resolution on Windows; programs either use only system DLLs, or bundle their DLLs, with the risk of DLL hell clearly present. Not on Debian (unless you go bypassing the package system, but on Debian there's no real incentive to). You'll get updates for Windows components through a unified interface (which requires the known insecure MSIE!!), but for the rest of the software it's either a custom updater, or you'll have to do it by hand. On Debian, the package manager can keep your system and all your software up to date for you.

``Its not better for me as a user if I have to learn all about the details. If I have to be a sys admin to keep spyware off my computer this is bad.''

This has been a problem with Windows for years. You _have_ to be aware of the risks, or your system will get exploited. Everybody I know who uses Windows either knows their stuff and spends time scanning and cleaning, or gets exploited and calls someone in to clean up the mess. Did you know that something like 80% of spam is sent from exploited Windows computers?

I'm not saying Linux is any better securitywise, but the fact is that, currently, you're much safer running Linux that Windows. Keeping your software up to date is much easier on Debian than on Windows, which is a definite win from a security point of view.