Ubuntu On The Business Desktop

rchapman wrote to mention a Mad Penguin story about a consultant who installed Ubuntu on his work PC, and managed to use it for over a month before his boss even noticed. From the article: "This is not a typical review, because you've read enough of those. Instead, lets pretend I'm a typical worker, who just happens to have a soft spot for Open Source software. I want to use Linux, but I have a job to do. The price of Freedom should not be my salary. I don't have time to fiddle, all I care is whether or not it can do what I want, right now. So what do I want out of my system?"

Comments

NT AD or Domain?

[painkillr]

How'd he get it on the domain?

Re:NT AD or Domain?

[paranode]

There's an app called winbind that is used with Samba and it can tie you into a Domain using Kerberos tickets. Pretty neat.

More info:

http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Co llection/winbind.html

Re:NT AD or Domain?

[cojsl]

The article references Winbind: "Two hours of installing Kerberos packages, messing around with Samba and Winbind, editing Pluggable Authentication Module [PAM] configuration files by hand, 'net mapping' groups, and more."

Ubuntu hype

[joestar]

Well... I managed to use Mandrake(Mandriva) for more than 4 years on my business desktop with most people noticing that I rarely have any issue compared to their Windows workstation.

Viva Ubuntu! Glad to see that you are taking care of the Linux desktop! Anyway, it's not really new for me to live without any proprietary software on my business desktop, with minimum hassle.

Re:Ubuntu hype

[AKAImBatman]

In my experience, there is only one app that makes it impossible for the companies I've worked at to switch over to an alternative OS: Microsoft Access.

Love it or hate it (mostly hate it), it lets companies quickly create interfaces to larger databases. It's so simply and easy to do, that many developers don't realize (or perhaps care) that they'll be paying heavily for their choice later on when either their needs scale beyond Access, or Microsoft releases a new (usually incompatible) version.

Sadly, just about everyone I've spoken with has considered Access support to be unimportant to office conversions. "They should use a real database," they say. While that's a fine stance to take, that doesn't help companies that are already relying on MS Access. And if you take the emulation route to get Access support, you might as well just run Windows in the first place.

It's really too bad that the Access format is so widely ignored. Much of the groundwork has already been laid for reading/writing the format, and StarOffice/OSS have a real chance to make Access work correctly. IMHO, managers given the opportunity to use their existing Access applications on a better platform would jump at the chance to save money and support calls.

Re:Ubuntu hype

[AKAImBatman]

Let me repeat, that still doesn't help companies that have software written in Access.

Many companies use Access because it's easy for the moment. The costs later down the line are not something they consider.

And to address your point specifically, a large number of Access databases actually store no real data of their own. Instead they link off to a much larger server somewhere else, making them useful as a RAD (Rapid Application Development) front-end. The limitations of the software in this situation are even less clear to the developer, making the Access trap that much more dangerous.

Re:Ubuntu hype

[Mr. McGibby]

It's really too bad that the Access format is so widely ignored. Much of the groundwork has already been laid for reading/writing the format, and StarOffice/OSS have a real chance to make Access work correctly. IMHO, managers given the opportunity to use their existing Access applications on a better platform would jump at the chance to save money and support calls.

Decrypting the file format gets you about 1% of the way towards an Access work-alike. Even a working Access work-alike is only 5% of the way towards actually running all the Access-based apps out there. Most of these use a wide variety of COM objects only implemented on Windows. While this is fine for those running open source Access-work-alikes on Windows, it does nothing for us Linux fans living in a Windows based office. I'd love to run Linux at work, but it just isn't going to happen for this very reason.

Re:Ubuntu hype

[AKAImBatman]

Most of these use a wide variety of COM objects only implemented on Windows.

This is different from my own experience. The standard controls are usually the only ones used because:

1) Distributing ActiveX/COM controls is a PITA
2) Access doesn't correctly support the full range of controls. (I've seen plenty of controls that work fine in VB, fail miserably in Access.)

The real holy grail of Access support is the VBA language. All kinds of business logic tidbits are stuck into VBA.

Even if we do consider that ActiveX/COM controls are the real problem, making minor changes to use alternative controls is a lot less costly than rewriting the entire application. :-)

Re:Ubuntu hype

[ajs318]

Um. Have you tried phpmyadmin?

I use it all the time. Of course, you need Apache, MySQL and PHP; but they are all in the package repositories. And once you have them all working, and you are satisfied that your database schema is correct, you can just write your own front-end in PHP, that accesses through a web browser {if it's a corporate environment, you have the advantage of knowing which one} and has your company logo in it and everything.

Re:Ubuntu hype

[iamdoctorron]

Hello, I have been using Ubuntu on the business desktop for about two years and I absolutely, positively LOVE it! It lacks for nothing. I'm a sysadmin for a large publishing company in Chicago, and when my boss noticed (after 23 months) that I'd been using Ubuntu/Gnome to successfully administer a Novell server/SAN, a subnet of OSX Macs, and a gaggle of '98, NT4, and XP Pro machines he nearly fell over. When he realized that I have gone that time with about 3 reboots (none of them necessary--all due to power failures that outlasted the UPS) he almost choked on his tongue! ;') He was so impressed that he asked me to implement Ubuntu on EVERY desktop that's now Windows-based in a very high-production environment once we implement our company-wide desktop upgrade next month. Ubuntu lacks for NOTHING. Its quick on doggy boxes, super stable, and easier to install than Windows. With RPM support its software library grows every day. And Gnome kicks butt! My only prior experience with a UNIX-like OS on the desktop has been FreeBSD, which I used to run a semi-large ISP for over four years. While it is also stable and almost legendarily secure, the availability of pre-compiled binaries is limited (PCBs are a boon for inexperienced users) and it just doesn't offer Ubuntu's main advantage--d/l it, burn it, boot it, run it -- and with mostly everything a new Linux user needs bundled in and ready to go! As long as you grasp the idea of an IPv4 address you CAN install Ubuntu with little or no hassle. As an aside, I also use it at home on an old G3 iMac to run routed/ftpd. Works like a charm, and installs just as easily. X/Gnome is just too slow on that box to be useful though, IMHO. After all, it IS 7 years old! I will never give up Ubuntu. Never. Kudos to the Ubuntu team, and I hope for all our sake that this revolutionary OS gets the recognition (and user share!) that it so well deserves. Regards, DoctorRon

Re:Ubuntu hype

[Master of Transhuman]

The question of Access is one about the cost of conversion, not whether Access is competitive with other databases - it isn't.

The cost of conversion depends on who you hire to do the conversion and how you do it (as well as, of course, how MUCH conversion you have to do - a couple systems versus everything being used in-house.)

Converting Access should not be a show-stopper if you're not paying someone $200-400/hour to do it.

As for "taking the emulation route", that's not the same as running Windows by a long shot. If Access is being used mostly as a front end, there's no reason it can't be stuck on a machine with remote access and used to access OSS databases while conversion to something else is being done over time. It just requires a little imagination on the part of the conversion people - a quality sadly lacking in most IT consultants and CIOs, unfortunately.

Also, what most people use Access for are systems that could easily be redone using cheap or no cost report generators and HTML-JavaScript data entry forms connected to an OSS database. Rather than mucking about with VBA scripts, Access forms and the like, the logic and GUI could easily be replicated using more advanced tools.

I'm doing work with Oracle Forms at the moment, and when I think of how much easier it is to do things in other tools (unless you are ALREADY an Oracle Forms wizard), it's ridiculous to use a huge, complicated tool that locks you in to that one tool - no matter how "easy" it's supposed to be (it never is, anyway.)

The real issue in all these cases is the simple fact that paying for vendor licenses - and more importantly, vendor lock-in - is INEVITABLY going to cost more AT SOME POINT than converting to more open standards, and it is ALWAYS cheaper to bite the bullet sooner than later. Any management that doesn't understand this is - well, typical management, apparently.

Re:Ubuntu hype

[xs650]

That's not a Linux problem, you obviously need to replace your customers.

Note to Linux zealots: Even though you are nodding your heads in agreement, that was humor.

Freedom?

[GypC]

The price of Freedom should not be my salary.

Exactly! That's why I surf porn on the company network. The fascists won't be telling me what to do...

BBL, I have a special meeting in HR to go to. I wonder if I'm getting a raise.

Re:Freedom?

[paranode]

BBL, I have a special meeting in HR to go to. I wonder if I'm getting a raise.

Be sure to tell them that you probably only do about 15 minutes of real, actual work. When they get surprised mention that you are not being challenged and have no motivation. That raise will come your way! ;)

Re:Freedom?

[thrillseeker]

"I just stare at my desk, but it looks like I'm working. I do that for probably another hour after lunch too, I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work."

2560x2048 ?

[graphicartist82]

2560x2048 spread across 2 monitors? I hope he means 2560 x 1024 .. Otherwise that'd be one helluva 17" LCD monitor!

Re:2560x2048 ?

[Janek Kozicki]

2560x2048 spread across 2 monitors? I hope he means 2560 x 1024 .. Otherwise that'd be one helluva 17" LCD monitor!

I guess that he is speaking about virtual desktop. Probably he has two 1280x1024 monitors. But 2560x2048 would also work with two 800x600 monitors :>

I worked at a place one

[saskboy]

One time I went to fix someone's Windows computer at work. I found it to be very different from the standard machine image, it was missing something like Microsoft Word. He mentioned that he'd installed linux on the machine, and put Windows back on himself. I didn't know what to do, so I told my boss what I'd seen, and it turns out tinkering with the software in that way, at this company, was a big no-no. I don't know to know what happened to that employee, but thumb screws might have been involved.

Before you tinker with a work computer, ask! You won't like the answer, but there won't be any thumb screws.

Re:I worked at a place one

[meringuoid]

seems as though our network people think that using a Live Linux CD can import a virus to bring a Windows network down. Yes, that's exactly what I was told!

Well, they can. In theory. It would be insane to actually do it that way, mind...

I was also told that using Linux posed a problem in that they 'didn't have tracking tools for Linux so couldn't tell what web sites were visited or what was downloaded or uploaded.' That did sound more reasonable.

That actually sounds less reasonable. Surely they should be logging your internet activity at the network gateway? Isn't that a hell of a lot easier than maintaining spyware on every individual machine?

Re:I worked at a place one

[jimicus]

since they give you a computer which you can install anything on

Stop right there. Sometimes IT people and even developers can install anything on, generally everybody else gets the system locked down to a greater or lesser extent.

Fascist? Maybe.
Reduces number of calls to the helpdesk? Definitely.
Reduces the risk of a rather nasty audit by the BSA? Definitely.
Reduces the risk of inadvertantly introducing malware? Definitely.
Inconvenience to users? Only if you haven't got the good sense to find out what your users need and make sure they've got it.

Re:I worked at a place one

[SmellTheCoffee]

My wife works for an electronics company and they are trying to bring some linux servers in the company. I've been using Linux at home for about 2 years now and she's been watching me work and tinker while listening my occasional rants about the **OS-with-biggest-market-share**. She naturally got interested over time and wanted to use Linux on her office IBM Thinkpad but she wanted to start out with installing it herself. Knowing how enterprises have PC's with don't-touch-it policy, I suggested that she talk to the IT person in her company about her plans. I was pretty sure she would get a no-no but to my surprise the IT department said GO AHEAD! do what you want to. We will reimage your laptop with windows...but don't forget to backup your stuff first.

Re:I worked at a place one

[skribble]

I work for a rather large corporation. We run many different OS's around here (Well, Windows/Macs) as desktops (Our corporate email system is exchange so Lookou... Outlook I mean is necessary, at least until they update their exchange server) and they are all locked down fairly tightly. That said they have a DMZ for running test machines of whatever nature you need to run including Linux. Additionally I find that if you have a business case for something they are accommodating. For example the other day I wanted to install OpenOffice.org 2.0 (As more people work with OpenDoc, we need more effective way's to work with it, and OOo 2 seems to be a reasonable way to deal). I emailed the person in charge and was given the appropriate rights (temporarily) to install the software. The point being that:

A) Sometimes if you ask you actually can get what you want.

B) That said if you don't have a *real* good reason for doing what you want to do, then you will likely be denied.

Re:I worked at a place one

[daikokatana]

Yes, but this guy had the sense to install a spare HDD for the experiment, thus "Undo" was fairly easy.

While this may very well be, I've worked for a client where the policy did not tolerate you even thinking about installing another HDD.

At said client's workplace, you get a Windows machine, with a default software kit necessary for your job. All other software/tools/utilities you want to install must be cleared by a) your boss, b) boss of the department and c) the internal IT department and will be installed by party c.

Installing your own software, tinkering with machines/hardware in any way has ALWAYS resulted in getting yourself fired on the spot.

Not a very friendly environment, you might think. True, but it helps avoid situations like the one I've seen at another client, where the manager runs around the building screaming "we've gotten word the BSA is coming - delete all your junk right now!!!", after which just about everyone frantically tries to rid their machine from said junk. Half an hour later, the BSA arrived.... oops.... You don't want to know the fine. Or the fine the company which tipped us off got.

Re:I worked at a place one

[WhiteWolf666]

It always a good idea to ask, but you should be tricky with how you phrase the question.

"Can I install Linux on my desktop?"

Will often be answered with a "No. Don't mess with the network."

"I'd like to experiment with Linux on my desktop. This won't interfere with my regular work, will help me associate better with my Linux clients, and I won't be replacing Windows; they'll be installed side-by-side. Plus, there's the potential to save the company $X per client if I can find a working configuration!"

Will often be answered with a "Wow. I've heard of this Linux thing on the news. Sounds like a great idea for you to look into; don't let it interfer with your regular work, and keep me appraised on your progress."

No matter what you want to do in the workplace, you've got to sell it. Change, without arguments for it, is risk, and risk alone. Change, for the purpose of _research_, is investment. Investment, plus minimized risk= return.

Just my 2 cents, but thats how you talk to a PHB.

Re:I worked at a place one

[networkBoy]

True enough about the BSA. We have automated software audits that run as system, thus as a user (even with admin rights as us devs have) you can not bypass or cancel the audit. If the audit sees software not in it's list of approved software (known freeware &&|| OSS, Site Licensed software, or software the system knows you should have), you are asked to confirm you have a licence. Perodically a LivePerson (TM) checkes that you did not lie, if you did you get your pee-pee whacked (officially, and perminant record). Do it too many times and you will be fired. The rule even extends to shareware. You can't use it if you've passed your free trial (those with unlimeted use, but reduced functinality are fine). All that I agree with, it's a legal issue.

As to Linux, my company does not mind if you install a second HDD and run linux (unless you violate security policy). They assume if you are smart enough to get Linux running on the network to the point of logging in and connecting to the servers, you are smart enough to adhere to the common sense security policy we have. You do, however, loose IT support if you install Linux on the same drive as the IT build of Windows. As it is I've had issues with some security patches killing CygWin, and I was on my own for that as well.
-nB

Re:I worked at a place one

[foo fighter]

Patching is part of it, but the biggest reason is because of internal support costs. It's easier to troubleshoot, fix, or replace a machine if it is one of a thousand mostly identical machines. And you may be /able/ to install any software, but most places have written policies prohibiting it. They only reason you are able to is because working as a non-administrative user on Windows is often impossible because of poorly written applications -- often line-of-business apps written in house that are required to get the job done.

Linux Addict

[kspiteri]

My name is Simon, I am a Linux addict, and this is my story.

So long for Linux Anonymous.
--
Run for Fun

Me too

[psbrogna]

I'm an IT professional that's been using Unbuntu at work for about 2 months know. Everything works fine (email, internet, Office compatible applications, etc). I do miss MS Access (Ubuntu doesn't have latest version of OOO which would have included an Access counterpart). MySQL CC or MySQL Admin+Query Browser aren't as easy to use (though they are faster because all queries are pass through).

I've been using Suse OSS 10 at home and like it a little better- more robust repositories slightly more stable.

I will say that when the next desktop o/s upgrade occurs at my company it may not be as hard as I thought to put Linux on the candidate list because the number of non-IT employees that are switching to Linux at home on their own (without any evangelizing by me) is pretty high. This will certainly make it an easier sell if I want to consider Linux on the desktop at work rather than the PIA-Du Jour from Redmond.

Re:Me too

[LDoggg_]

(Ubuntu doesn't have latest version of OOO which would have included an Access counterpart).

I have very little experience with ubuntu(mostly fedora user), but I know this isn't true.
I installed ubuntu in vmware the other day was able to have it upgrade to open office 2 without any problems.

Re:Me too

[DoctorPepper]

Um, perhaps you should upgrade to 5.10, that includes OOo 2.0 (1.9.129 pre-release, actually), and OOo Base, which is the Access counter-part.

Haven't used Windows...

[eno2001]

...on my desktop for about five years here at work now. To be honest, if you know what you're doing with computers, there's no reason to stick with Windows on your desktop in a Windows environment. For those apps that you HAVE to have, there is Wine and 'rdesktop'. When I need to do some Windows admin stuff, I just connect to one of our servers with 'rdesktop'. And I got most of the basic apps installed under Wine if there was no Linux equivalent. Linux gives you everything you need and more than Windows ever could. And of course uptime and reliability... we won't talk about that. Suffice it to say that when my Windows using co-workers are scrambling to apply critical updates, clean up worm/virus issues and griping about malware, I'm always up and running without a glitch.

Re:Haven't used Windows...

[Alworx]

Please help me guys...

I really can't understand all these issues with Windows desktops! At my (very small) company we have 4 windows pcs and a Linux file/mail server. We have never had half a minute's worth of downtime since 2001, except maybe when during the summer I switched the last PC over from 2K di XP.

Malware? Never. Virii? None. Patches? Just a question of clicking "next" a couple of times.

The trick? No one is allowed to install anything and all users run with minum priviledges. Sounds banal? It should! :-)

Add RDP and SSH and you can administer anything with out burning calories!

Re:Haven't used Windows...

[jdgreen7]

To be honest, if you know what you're doing with computers, there's no reason to stick with Windows on your desktop in a Windows environment

Once again, I call BS. I hate Windows problems as much as the next guy, but there are certain applications that only run in Windows environments. In fact, there are MANY applications that only run in certain environments. WINE, as good as it may be, still falls WAY short of making every Windows-based app work successfully on Linux (let alone trying to get it working on a 64-bit machine at all - see Ubuntu 5.10's repository for AMD64).

In my industry, there are no applications designed for any OS but Windows that handle all of the government regulations that we need to comply with. There are a couple of web-based products, but either their quality is very poor, or you are required to store your data on their servers. Unacceptable. At the moment, unless you have a ton of free time to devote to writing all of your software in-house, and you also have the skills to make that software cross-platform, easy to use, etc., some people/companies are forced to remain on Windows.

You also mention rdesktop, which is fine, but you still have to have a Windows terminal server configured to make that happen. Some software doesn't run nicely in a Terminal Server environment, plus, if your users need to access that software, you still have to pay for a Windows File/Print CAL in addition to the Terminal Server CAL, so there's no cost savings that way, either.

I love Linux's philosophy and general framework as much as the next geek, but to make a blanket statement like "There is NO reason to run Windows" is a bit far-fetched. There are plenty of reasons to run Windows, just as there are plenty of reasons to run Linux. It's still a choice, and Windows will remain until every vendor starts designing apps to be cross-platform or specifically targeting Linux/MacOSX, etc. But, for now, Windows is where 90% of their clients are, and they need to pay bills, too. Hopefully, that will continue to change.

Re:Haven't used Windows...

[optimus2861]

To be honest, if you know what you're doing with computers, there's no reason to stick with Windows on your desktop in a Windows environment.

No reason? I'll give you a few that apply in my office:

Rockwell Software

Wonderware

GE Fanuc

PI

AutoCAD

SolidWorks

If we can't use those tools, we go out of business. Plain and simple.

Moderators, please consider such things before moderating blanket statements like the parent up to +5. There are a lot of workstations out there that aren't just Word/Excel/Access/Outlook/IE boxes. When you start using dedicated software packages like the stuff I've described above, you're using Windows, and you don't have a choice (PI being a partial exception, you can get the server for Unix but many client tools are Windows-only). Does that suck? Yeah, kinda. But that's the reality, and wishing it were different doesn't change it.

Re:Haven't used Windows...

[cbreaker]

This isn't as far fetched as it sounds. At my last contract, they were in the process of forcing the entire IT staff, which was over 200 people, to use locked down workstations.

As long as your server admin tools are available on your workstation, you don't actually need local admin access.

They were doing this because too many admins were getting spyware and crap they'd have to deal with in the client group.

I think it sucks, but it's not impossible.

Huh?

[GypC]

The fonts are so smooth I want to spread them all over my body.

Nausea forced me to stop reading at this point.

Re:Huh?

[Skye16]

I had to stop reading too, but that was because I was too aroused.

Exchange integration

[fm2503]

"However, all was not lost. Exchange server is fairly happy to deliver e-mail, and even meeting requests, via IMAP. I quietly crept onto the Windows server, turned on the IMAP virtual server, and thus set up my Evolution mailboxes."

All very well and good, but no organization with decent change control would allow this to happen. If the policy is MAPI only does anyone have a better solution that fetchmailex ? At least for use with Thunderbird?

Ta,

Matt

Just wanted to get things done??

[bakreule]

Don't let the /. blurb fool you. The article has as many "damn it didn't work" moments as "woohoo!" moments. Hell, he couldn't even get Evolution connected to Exchange. That right there would be a death blow to any Linux-in-a-Windows environment migration.

Don't be fooled, Linux has a long way to go before being a drop-in replacement for Windows on the desktop.

Re:Just wanted to get things done??

[at_slashdot]

"Don't be fooled, Linux has a long way to go before being a drop-in replacement for Windows on the desktop."

Of course, there's a long way till 50,000 viruses will be written for Linux.

Now being serious, I'm kind of tired of "Linux it's ready" or "Linux it's not ready" kind of posts. It has been ready for me 1 year ago, for some was even earlier and for some it will never be -- it depends on the usage, what are your needs and what programs you use taling generalities doesn't make much sense.

Re:Just wanted to get things done??

[Penguin Programmer]

Don't be fooled, Linux has a long way to go before being a drop-in replacement for Windows on the desktop.

No, it has a long way to go before being a drop-in replacement for Windows on the desktop IN A WINDOWS ENVIRONMENT.

Linux on the desktop is just fine. It is no harder to setup or use than Windows is, provided that a Linux-friendly infrastructure is present. Connecting to an Exchange server is something that Microsoft has made purposely difficult for OSes other than Windows, so it's no coincidence that it's hard to connect to under Ubuntu.

If your company is already using things like IMAP mail (or, God forbid, POP mail), a transition to Linux should be no harder than the transition to a new version of Windows.

Re:Just wanted to get things done??

[bcrowell]

The problem is that if there's even one thing you can't get working, it can be enough to deter all but the most fanatical from making the switch. I teach at a community college where the faculty mostly have Windows machines on their desks, with a small percentage of macs thrown in. I brought in a $200 Great Quality brand generic intel box with Linux on it to put on my own desk, and AFAIK I'm the only person at the school using Linux on the desktop. The killer for me was Samba. I got the client working for printing -- almost. The problem was that once in a while, one of my print jobs would freeze up the whole print queue, and I couldn't even delete the job from the queue. So here's a whole building full of people who can't print, and it's all my fault. Any normal person would have just given up and asked meekly for a Windows box to have on his desk after all. Because I'm a fanatic, I've actually kept using my Linux machine, but whenever I have to print, I upload a PDF file to a server I use to run a non-work web site, walk over to a Windows box, and print it from there. It's ridiculous, and nobody but a zealot like me would put up with it.

What's really sad is that this whole thing smells like a bug in Windows, not Samba. After all, why should it be possible for a user to freeze a whole print queue just by sending a certain type of data to it? But it doesn't matter. Even if it is a Windows bug, it still comes across to the average person as an indication that Linux is flaky, and dangerous to have on your network.

Exactly

[dreamchaser]

You should be modded as insightful. The place to play is on your own machine. If you don't like the standards at your workplace you should find a new job. I'm all for running whatever works on the desktop, but it's the perogative of the *owner* of the hardware (in this case the employer) to decided what is to be run on it.

This reminds me of my teenager who has a habit of decided on her own that certain rules shouldn't apply to her so she'll just do as she pleases. Buy a machine and play with Linux at home. If you feel strongly about running it at work then propose it to your boss.

Re:Exactly

[bogie]

"If I'm more productive in linux, isn't that the bottom line?"

No that isn't the bottom line. The bottom line is what the company can support with its IT department. It's also what the company and not you thinks works. If they standardize on XP and Office then so be it. You can feel free to point out why X product allows you to do your job better, but your not free to just use whatever you want.

Just one single example among many of why what you want to do doesn't work. Your in charge of X project. You used Gentoo and blackbox to do all your work. Oh and you boot into init 3 because that's the way you like it. Your hit by a car and never come to work again. Now how the heck is the company supposed to figure out your computer and replace you with someone else to pick up where you left off?

Re:Exactly

[nequeo]

As the author of this article, I'd just like to clarify a few points.

Had I known I was going to be mentioned on Slashdot, I would have left out the speading fonts over my body line (but don't knock it till you've tried it!), thrown in an 'Inconcievable!' or two, and perhaps criticsed KDE, so that the opposing camps of Trolls would tear into each other, and let me quietly slink off back to work with my pride more or less intact.

I wish to say:

You have probably been thinking of cublicles. I saw a reference or two to the PHB. Luckily, I don't have one.

Yes, I have previously worked in the IT departments of large, international companies who run Windows desktops with an iron first. I cannot doubt the efficiency of this system, nor the intelligence of the people who implement it. In fact, one of these companies had an in-house software dev team, and their 'senior developer' was only 19 years old - having been hired at 17.

And certainly, in such an environment, I wouldn't dream of messing with their precious RIS-imaged desktops. Except to add certain users to the Local Admins group when their company-bought Palm Pilots refuse to work with 'limited' Windows accounts. But as nice as the money is, I do prefer a little more freedom in my work place.

So my 'company' is now a 'boutique' IT consultancy. There are two employees. Me, and the 'boss'. My job description is more or less to innovate. I have absolute lisence to do whatever I want to my desktop, and one of the developement servers, so long as I can continue to support our existing clients - who through historical accident mostly use Windows machines. As mentioned in the article, I do this using VNC and 'rdesktop', which is just as good as looking over their shoulder and pointing out where to click.

Since switching my desktop to Linux I have managed to successfully press for LAMP-type projects over IIS/ASP, and convinced several companies who were previously balking at the cost of putting in a Windows server to at least use a Linux machine to centralise and organise their data and backups. Our costs are down, which means client costs are down, which means more business and good will all-round.

Saying the Boss didn't notice for a month was a bit of artistic licence. Yes, the words are true, but I should mention that's because our office is in a converted wharf facility, and we have our meetings in a cafe overlooking Sydney Harbour, rather than in a cubicle or meeting room. Provided he could read all the documents I sent him, and none of our clients suddenly started complaining that I couldn't solve their problems, or administer their servers, there was no reason for him to care what OS I was using.

2506x2048 desktop was a typo. I did mean 2506x1024.

Windows Server Small Business Edition 2003, (I apologize for not specifying), ya know, the Crippleware version, does in fact automatically set up RRAS for you on first install and allow unencrypted connections by default.

Yes, the Slashdot posting was a little one-sided. I was not advocating large scale enterprise adoption of Linux. I was saying that despite a few hassles, Linux could be co-oerced into doing what I needed on a PC, and that perhaps other small start-up companies, who don't currently have any IT infrastructure, might want to consider Linux. As long as they dont need Access, that is.

Linux at school

[Descalzo]

I teach, and use Mac OSX 10.2 and these are the things I don't think I can live without: iChat (Rendezvous client) and PowerSchool.

I am sure PowerSchool doesn't have a Linux port, but I know they make a Windows version. I am very hesitant to try to run the Windows version in wine, as I have never used wine. Also, the only computer they have given me (so far) is an old iMac. Can you run windows apps in wine on a Mac?

Also, I have heard that you can use Trillian to be a part of Rendezvous, but I tried it and it didn't work for me. Am I doing something wrong?

I see these (and the time it takes to install) as the 2 things stopping me from moving over to Linux at school.

Office computer != your computer

[Viol8]

Whatever someone may feel about Windows or some other OS, if thats what the
company requires you to use then you have to use it. Its their computer, they're
paying you money , you do what they tell you. You wouldn't expect to get away
with repainting your desk , or putting down a new carpet around where you sit
"because I don't like grey" , so why do some people think they can get away with
messing around with the company computer. Its not your property. Yes , Ubunto
is a great distribution , but pissing off your boss this way is not a good way
to spread the Open Source message. IMO anyway.

Re:Office computer != your computer

[KiroDude]

I agree with you that it is the company's computer, but I disagree in the fact that they force you to use this or that tool.

You should be able to use any tool you need as long as it is free or you paid for the license yourself, if these tools allow you to be more productive your boss shouldn't do anything but agreeing.

The goal is getting the job done. Period. if your boss does not understand that, ten better switch quickly!

Re:Office computer != your computer

[digidave]

It sounds to me like you've had a lot of crappy bosses. I installed Ubuntu with little fanfare. I just told them why it made sense for me: I program for Linux servers. I won't get any desktop support from IT, obviously, but I accepted that risk.

Most bosses don't care what programs you use as long as it doesn't directly affect them negatively. If I started sending spreadsheets to my boss as ODF files and told him he'd have to install OpenOffice, then it'd be a problem. But right now he sends me XLS and I send him XLS back. What does he care if I'm running Windows, Linux or a hacked up Atari 2600? If asked I could show my boss exactly why Linux makes me more productive and I could also show him exactly why our web designer would be less productive in Linux.

Any decent boss will understand that different people require different ways to work. Very few places make their Photoshoppers use Windows because they cater to their needs. They learned on Macs and they want to use Macs, so they do. The day will come where Linux is in the enterprise in the same way. Programmers and sysadmins will have Linux available to them if they want. It won't usually replace Windows for everybody, but it will be there nonetheless.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Prior to getting fired

[Anonymous Coward]

Our company was running Windows 2k on the desktop and I took the liberty to install OpenBSD on my desktop (to try it out). Now I didn't have to worry about the stupid "Administrator" password, or not being able to use certain programs. The only problem was that I had never used it before and I couldn't get Wine to work correctly or compile programs very well. My boss found out that day and called me into his office. He asked me what the hell was I doing to company property and I told him how more secure and better OpenBSD was. He had no clue what I was talking about and said: "You don't need to be messing around with our company's computer equipment and you're not even in the IT department. You're a customer support rep." He also stated something regarding company policy, destroying company property, or something to that effect (I wasn't listening). So needless to say I was asked to clean out my desk and leave that day. I wasn't pretty, but I never reformatted OpenBSD off of my computer, so the IT guy had to see the OS on the desktop and must have thought I was a bright guy for doing what I did. Now that was years ago, but I still feel proud for what I did. Although, now I live at home with my mother and haven't found a new job since.

Oh Arial! Arial!

[winkydink]

my dingbats are aflutter!

Linux on the Desktop

[mchawi]

I run multiple machines at work - some native and some on VMWare. Either my Windows XP machine or my SuSE 10 machine can basically do anything that *I* want. RDP is easy with SuSE - none of the problems mentioned in this article. Kerberos and AD authentication was not very problematic - just go into YAST and the kerberos setup, then edit the config file. Windows administration - just RDP to a Windows desktop and use almost any tool from there. A few apps here and there that are Windows only - Citrix. So for it would work fairly well. I also have no problems at home or work with viruses, spyware, etc - mainly because I don't run as an administrative user.

The problem that prevents Linux from being used where I work is (1) with an Enterprise License Agreement for MS versus one for Redhat/Novell - the cost is about the same (**costwise - not sure who has better support). Number (2) and the main issue is that we have many departments that have 'must have' applications that are Windows only. We're not talking one or two applications - but probably about 60 of them. We can run a few on Citrix or some other platform - but that adds up very quickly. Our view of Linux not being ready for the desktop is -only- related to applications. I don't think our users would care about any of the other stuff. IT is going to set it up - so they don't care how hard it is to install drivers, software and hardware. They only care how it is to use. However, the first time you tell them they can't have their business critical application - it's all over (*a lot of these apps were written in-house, but I'm not responsible for the dev team...one of the other critical apps is our point of sale system...which is Windows only).

My guess is that as more and more stuff becomes web enabled, you'll see more and more people migrating to Linux. I think when most people talk about being enabled for the desktop and how 'difficult' Linux is to setup for the 'typical' user they never consider that the 'typical' user never sets up anything in a corporate environment.

Re:Haven't used Linux...

[DogDude]

...on my desktop ever. To be honest, if you know what you're doing with computers, there's no reason not to stick with Windows on your desktop in a Windows environment. For those apps that you HAVE to have, there is no real replacement for a real Windows machine (point-of-sale software with hardware). When I need to do some Windows admin stuff, I just do it. All of the basic apps installed under native Windows with no problem. Windows gives you everything you need and more easily than Linux ever could. And of course uptime and reliability... we haven't had to talk abuot that since Windows 2000 came out. Not an issue. Suffice it to say that when my Linux using friends are scrambling to figure out how to get their machine to boot, figure out how to do simple things like change the screen resolution and griping about .config files, I'm always up and running without a glitch.

Install time. Eh?

[squoozer]

WTH is this obsession with install time and boot time all about? I couldn't care less if install time was 15 minutes or a day. I've always got plenty of other things to be getting on with. Even if I didn't have one day out of the amount of time I would generally be working with the machine would be tiny

The thing that takes the time for me is upgrades and configuration. I run Debian so upgrades are probably about as smooth as they get for any Linux distro but the number of times a little something goes wrong and needs manually fixing is amazing (yes I could run stable and not suffer as many problems but I like to be at least fairly up to date). I suppose the reason this doesn't happen on windows is simply because you rarely update the installed applications. Even so it would be nice if updates were less likely to mangle the system.

Similar situation, only with Suse

[Ransak]

Three weeks ago I received a shiney new Dell Latitude D810 for a new position within my company. For the record, my company is a 100% Microsoft Windows shop. Since I have some Linux experience on the server side (and some nifty ceritifcation papers from Redhat to line my birdcage with), I decided to bite the bullet and try using a Linux distro as my full time desktop.

I chose Suse 10 since it's fairly new and I knew I'd need support for newer technologies (wireless, etc).

So far, I've only ran into a few problems... Wireless WPA-EAP connectivity being the biggest issue. I haven't been able to get it straightened out. In fact, wireless support on Linux (in my experience) has been flakey, sometimes it works perfectly and other times it's an exercise in frustration. And with Suse 10, there are a few annoying bugs that crop up, but for the most part they're survivable.

The number one issue I've seen while trying to run Suse as my business desktop in a 100% MS Windows world has been the 'compatibility curve'. Something it would take me 10 seconds to do in XP sometimes takes me 10 minutes (half the time simply due to my unfamiliarity with the distro/Linux desktop environment, the other half reconfiguration time just to make it compatible).

It isn't for the lazy or undetermined, but it can be done. There's something to be said for taking the road less traveled, and in the end I'm sure I'll be richer for the experience.

Or fired.

Re:Why the boss didn't notice

[Otter]

Yeah, I once had a coworker who simply stopped showing up to work altogether and it took well over a month for our boss to notice. I don't find this story quite as astonishing as "Simon" seems to think I should.

Fonts

[RasendeRutje]

"The fonts are so smooth I want to spread them all over my body."
That does it, I'm installing right now! I want to spread fonts all over my body too!

Misleading title

[Ctrl Alt De1337]

This is not your average office worker running Linux from his workstation, as if he was like the vast majority of office workers in the world.

"It is a simple fact that most of our clients run Windows 2003 servers and that it's my job to administer those servers..."

It's cool that he could still do that incognito with Ubuntu, but how easy was it really? Let's find out:

On getting the monitors to work: "I had to install the restricted Nvidia drivers and read the official documentation to get both monitors working, but that wouldn't be too troublesome for anyone used to mucking around with their xorg.conf file." Yes, it is Nvidia's fault, but for the uninitiated, "mucking around" in an xorg.conf file sounds scary.

On networking: "So, not exactly a quick and painless set up, but having done it once it would probably only take five minutes or so to do it again... though I'm a little concerned about the practicality of rolling out a large number of Ubuntu clients in an enterprise environment."

On email: "Ubuntu's default e-mail client, Evolution, is supposed to play nice with Outlook. It actually turned out to be very simple to get Evolution to connect to our Exchange server... That's precisely when things started going wrong. Exchange support seemed to be rather buggy and crash prone, and because Evolution is integrated into parts of the desktop, my desktop was soon littered with the burnt, twisted corpses of panel applets and daemons." He had to change a setting on the Exchange server to get things to work correctly.

On remote administration: "There is a bug in pptp-linux that prevents it from negotiating a secure connection after Windows offers to allow an unencrypted connection, but this behavior is easily solved by configuring the RRAS service on Windows Server to only allow encrypted connections."

On the office suite: "It is tempting to treat 'Base', the database application, just like Access. However it is not Access, and lacks many of Access's features. I was particularly chagrined to find it is not possible to import data from a CSV file into a table... If you rely heavily on local database files, and the Form and Report functions of Access, Base probably won't cut it for you."

That's a lot of issues that could scare away, rather than encourage, Windows-based offices from adding Linux boxes to their networks. I would love to read that article and come away thinking that Linux is ready for business, but unless everything gets switched to *nix is appears to be a big hassle to add Linux to the mix. Whether that truly is right or not I don't know, since I'm not that experienced with Linux and because a lot of the problems are with Windows not playing nice and not Linux, but if a PHB reads this article he might swear Linux off entirely. Sure, the Base functionality loss can be fixed with Cedega + Access, but does a manager who's never heard of Linux know that? It looks like Linux is not yet ready for the client side of a business, but at least the atricle outlines where the work for making that happen needs to go.

In a cubicle far, far away...

[Billosaur]

Boss: What's that? [pointing to screen]

Worker: Ubuntu. Been using it for a while. Works so much better than Windows and I'm much more productive.

Boss: Excellent! Good job! Keep it up!

[Boss shuffles off to his office, closes the door, and kneels before raised, circular object on the floor. Hologram of hooded figure appears.]

Figure: What is it?

Boss: My Master, there is a Linux-user here!

Figure: I see. The Rebels are becoming bold, moving faster than anticipated. No matter!

Boss: What shall we do?

Figure: Do nothing. I will send Darth Ballmer to deal with this "Linux-user."

Boss: Very well, My Master.

[Hologram disappears]

I did the same thing last January

[digidave]

After installing it an IT guy noticed and my boss got a bit of shit for what I did and I was asked to justify using Linux. I'm a Linux programmer, so that got solved very quickly.

We use DeskNow (http://www.desknow.com/) for email and collaboration so Exchange connectivity was never a problem. Luckily we have a lot of sales reps who don't have a company computer, so at minimum we'd have to have OWA running for them even if we used Exchange. I still don't authenticate with the AD server, but that doesn't really present a problem for me and if it does, I'll figure out how to set that up. Because I'm on Linux I don't even have an AD user, so right now my only problem is accessing the shared drives, although I have never needed to do that. They won't let me dump several GB of server backups there anyway.

I can honestly say that using Linux hasn't caused me any trouble at all. I work with a lot of Excel spreadsheets, but while they're very large (one dataset often is split in several 65000 row files) they aren't very complicated. The one that is complicated works fine in OpenOffice 1.x and 2.0. From Linux it's much easier to manage my Linux servers and test my code. I use Wine to run IE so I can test application web front ends in multiple browsers for the apps that support a web front end.

All in all it's been a smashing success for me. Several people in the office have commented about how much they love my desktop -- how nice it looks and how easy it is to work with different types of files. Even the designers on Macs are impressed. I also got someone else from work to install Ubuntu at home. I just handed him an Ubuntu Live CD and he loved it. After installing the Windows apps like OpenOffice that came with the CD, he took the plunge and couldn't be happier.

Sack of lies

[philmack]

Call me a troll or a flamebaiter if you must, but with the intent of installing linux in the workplace of "I don't have time to fiddle, all I care is whether or not it can do what I want, right now" there is no way to call this a victory. No exchange connectivity, locking out all other network clients, having to change the exchange server configuration... no way.

i work at a small company, and i can only imagine what would happen if even for 10 minutes all 70 employees didnt have access to the network shares or God forbid locked out of the exchange server. Or if someone "sneaked" onto a server to change what it serves. That last one doesnt actually take too much imagination... people have been fired for doing that.

This setting of this story seems more than a little fishy.

And i like open office plenty, but it is an alternative to office, not a substitute... when word/writer and excel/calc and powerpoint/impress documents dont look the same you cant effectivly collaborate with customers.

I love and use open source whenever i can, but at work i neither can nor may switch off of windows. ~Phil

For a larger businesses...

[Keichann]

I've been wondering for a while about the posibilities for Debian-based systems in the workplace, and here are a few things I've come up with:

- Package repositories on a corporate server
- Instead of 'contrib'/'multiverse' etc., group packages by the department/team that will need them. For example, 'base' (for all systems, all packages must be installed), 'developers', 'finance', 'power-users' etc.
- The desktop team can vet packages for stability etc. before they are sent to all systems during the quarterly/monthly updates.
- By-pass dpkg's configuration stage using pre-built configs.
- Run 'aptitude dist-upgrade' as a cron-job scheduled once per day to catch any important security updates.

Obviously, this targets large businesses, but I've never heard of anyone considering something like this. If I've missed anything super-important, please correct me before I ever try to implement it :)

Screw it - let them manage their Windows

[gelfling]

Seriously - I used to work mightily to run Linux on the desktop but in this Windows uber alles shop it gradually became less and less relevant. Most of our corporate applications are coded specifically for Windows, anyway. Hell most of our stuff wont work with non IE browsers. So just getting application parity was a bear.

And then they decided to roll out a quasi-managed desktop which basically amounts to continuous on line health checks and audits and reports going up to Big Brain Central with all sorts of red check marks for the things YOU'RE not compliant to whether or not those are relevant things for Linux. It's their machine, it's their management, but it's YOUR problem.

So I gave up. I'll have a nice compliant chubby resource choked 'managed' up the ass Windows standard client and at least now when something goes badly in the ditch I can just tell my manager "Shit that build blew up on me again, buncha things don't work so I'll be out of pocket for a few days."

My company finds that is an effective, economic and practical use of my time and their money and I honestly am done arguing this point with them.

Linux? which Linux?

[lukOh]

In old good times I managed using debian at work with vmWare.

Their ticketing infrastructure only worked through a somewhat buggy delphi client.
All the rest I ever needed was reachable through my xterms, even an early staroffice.

Let's be clear on that: I got my new hyperfast laptop with XP these days and, hey, it works!
I can listen to online radios, make (free, OpenOffice) presentations, buy songs, copy my phone contactlist to disk, fight with ethereal dreaming for a real loopback, search my way through the last 10 best IM networks, then finally cygwin.

The problem is: it just feels no more no less like my old Pentium5. It's like buying a cray to write letters and play with naughty colored symbols, or going to a luna park not playing the bigger game.
It really depends: it's perfect for the good less techie guys down at Administration, but.. ..then I installed ubuntu. My productivity has grown 300%, I can do all above things together (with a real lo!) plus compile a kernel, debug some code, write some other, manage my data, organize security, set up services, fine-tune samba, work on servers..

I mean, with windows I can connect to the network, with Linux I can connect and/or even eventually bit-by-bit DEBUG that or anything I need to.

Freedom and opennes just feel like honest power.
If you feel you are able and can do more&better with Linux, tell your boss, then show him/her.
Corporates start to get the advantages.

Apps, maybe, but not OSes

[Brunellus]

The official line at my workplace (an all Windows 2000 shop) is no unauthorized installations, period.

I understand that this greatly simplifies the IT department's user-support tasks, and it certainly helps their security. Too many clueless users adding malware/spyware around here, anyway.

That said, I do run a number of "unauthorized" apps on my desktop:

• Firefox, so I can actually be productive while using the 'net for work. Having one window with lots of tabs is easier than being compelled to use IE (the only "authorized" choice)
• GAIM, for IM. No ads or spyware on GAIM, no worries there.
• PuTTY, so I can ssh to my home computer (handy)
• GIMP, for when I have to clean up drawings

. I think I've been fairly responsible with my choice of software. All are probably more secure than their "authorized" counterparts, and all make me more productive. Some--notably GIMP--I installed without asking anyone because it let me get the job done quickly, on time, and with a minimum of fuss.

I draw the line at installing Linux without permission, though. I'd have to defragment, repartition, install, set up shares and whatnot....it's a hassle, and too much to do undetectably. Never mind the fact that this office uses several proprietary apps that I can't run in Linux, anyway.

vmware and vmplayer can be a useful tool

[sylvandb]

The [Mentor Graphics EDA] tools are buggy enough in Windows. I can't imagine running them in WINE.

This app, that app... rather than wine, how about the newly free vmplayer (in beta right now)?

The biggest problem is hardware support. I develop hardware support kernel drivers for Windows, so my underlying OS needs to be Windows in many cases. However, for a few days now I've been running Ubuntu (Breezy, upgraded from the provided Hoary image) in a VMWare player session. Works great.

So is there any reason why a migration cannot begin this way? I think not. Start by running Ubuntu in vmplayer. Figure out what works well and what doesn't. The next step would be to reverse the situation and run Ubuntu native, and Windows in vmplayer underneath for the last app(s) that only run under Windows. It sure is nice and easy to distribute a vmplayer image with Windows and the required app(s) already installed (see sysprep). Makes it trivial to "reimage" when problems arise (and all without using 'ghost').

Most apps are going to be just fine in a vmplayer session. The more people run them that way, the more requests Mentor Graphics et al will get for 'native' versions. The more requests, the more likely and the sooner such versions will be developed.

Why even bother? I find that obtaining and tracking software licenses at work is very painful. Using free software as much as possible, means that anything non-free is 'required' and provided and so someone else will deal with the licenses. So I use 'free' as much as I can. Maybe I save money, maybe I don't. But I save time and aggravation. The relief is palpable.

sdb

Question

[HangingChad]

I'm wondering how many of you using a Windoze environment at work are running Linux at home? I am, just wondering how many other people do. I've got one token Winders box at home but the majority of the network is Linux.

Makes you wonder how long it's going to stay that way?

Ubuntu on the academic desktop

[Pixie_From_Hell]

I'm a math professor at a Windows-centric university. When I got my current job they let me have an old PC running (of all things) Windows 98. I struggled along with it for about a month until my boss (the chair) told me I could do anything I want with it. Soon I was a happy Debian user!

Since then I got a new PC (a real one this time), on which I'm running Ubuntu. I've converted at least 3 other people in the department to Ubuntu (from MS Windows -- there are a couple other Linux users around, too).

Sure there have been some issues. Exchange? Printing? Networking? Sound? Nah -- the biggest problem I've had is that LaTeX/dvips/etc were configured to use A4 paper rather than letter.

Back when I was coping with my old machine (450 MHz, some pittance of RAM), a new PC arrived in the department. It was either for me or for a grad student who needed to run Mathematica. The Chair called the IT department and asked if my old warhorse could handle this (of course I was running Mathematica under Debian, but...). He was told that this box could run Windows XP or Mathematica, but not both. The grad student got the machine and I had to wait another couple of months. Sigh.

Give me a break, please....

[thoughtcr1mes]

From the article: "The short story is that Ubuntu can do everything I need to do on a business desktop..." Wait a minute. The author then goes on to say things like, "Exchange support seemed to be rather buggy and crash prone, and because Evolution is integrated into parts of the desktop, my desktop was soon littered with the burnt, twisted corpses of panel applets and daemons." Give me a break. "So, not exactly a quick and painless set up, but having done it once it would probably only take five minutes or so to do it again... though I'm a little concerned about the practicality of rolling out a large number of Ubuntu clients in an enterprise environment." And you're advocating its readiness in the same piece? I love Linux and I use Ubuntu, but let's be honest here: If you're asking whether it can do these things, then the answer is yes, but it's a hack. What kind of acceptable business software in this decade requires that we edit text files to get it working? To be fair, Ubuntu is being used in a way it's not exactly designed to do- it's being integrated into a Microsoft shop. The fact that Linux can do that at all is commendable, and I take my hat off to the Linux community. In all honesty, however, unless you're a Linux guru, the human interface for this kind of setup is just not there in Ubuntu- yet.

Re:Haven't used Linux...

[Maniacal]

I'm glad you posted this. I would have modded you insightful instead of funny but this is /. and most readers here think you must be kidding.

I like Ubuntu. I like Linux. I was excited to read the article. I want to hear about successful "Linux on the business desktop" stories. I was let down. Reading through the article all I could think was "what a pain in the ass". I have a Ubuntu desktop running next to me in my office. I installed it with the intention of proving we could run Linux on some of our desktops but have been disappointed over and over.

Windows boxes and software works best for users and administrators of Windows networks. That article actually does a good job proving that. The author then had the balls to mention the money he could save not having to buy Windows and Office. With the time he spent screwing with it he lost money.

I want an article about how a company switched their front ends AND back ends to *NIX and how that was successful for them. Quit trying to integrate Linux desktops into Windows networks. You might be successful but it'll never be more than a hack that will break one day for one reason or another.

It's like a bunch of people are running around trying to prove you can easily eat a bowl of spaghetti with a spoon because spoons are free. Buy a friggin fork or stop eating spaghetti.

Re:Sounds like a nightmare...

[PitaBred]

And keep the viruses, spyware, user-hostile and expensive software? No thanks, I'll jump a few hurdles to have a fully functional OS that doesn't go out of its way to hamstring me in the name of some corporate interest.

Not a good idea...

[Eric Damron]

I'm squarely in the Linux corner and use it at home all of the time. But if I were to install it on my PC at work I would definitely get reprimanded and maybe even fired.

The network people's job is to keep the network up, running and safe. Although I know Linux is far more secure than Windows I would be overstepping my bounds if I unilaterally made a change to the network.

I've been thinking of how I could use Linux in my programming job at work. I was thinking of buying a laptop and installing Linux. It does have some tools that would be helpful like the UML editor "Umbrello." As long I I use my own equipment and don't connect to the network they won't get upset. I could use a flash drive to transfer data. Although they don't have a warm and fuzzy feeling about that.

My Ubuntu review...

[kronocide]

I had to install some Linux dist on an old laptop with a 700MHz PIII and 64MB of RAM recently. Ubuntu froze at 52% when starting the disk partition program. (End of review.) SuSE, my old favorite, said I had too little memory to run the installation program. (WTF?) I went back to my first dist, Slackware, and discovered to my infinite delight that absolutely nothing has happened to its installation program the last 10 years. :-) It runs like clockwork, and apparently it should run on a 486 with 4MB of RAM as well. _That's_ Linux.