Slashdot Mirror
Ask OSDL CEO Stu Cohen About Linux TCO Studies
This morning OSDL and OSDL member Levanta jointly released a study done by Enterprise Management Associates called Get the Truth on Linux Management. For years, a proprietary software company in Washington State has run what they call a Get the Facts campaign about Linux, full of studies that invariably show Linux to be expensive, hard to maintain, and less than totally secure. Stu Cohen, as CEO of OSDL, a group "dedicated to accelerating the growth and adoption of Linux in the enterprise," will happily answer your questions about Linux vs. Windows studies and the myths and FUD that seem to hover over them. Expect Stu's answers to the 10 - 12 highest-moderated questions later this week.
This may seem like an inane question but why don't I see more of a push to get Linux into the realm of academia?
I know that Ubuntu has made strides to incorporate themselves into learning environments but where is the effort to alert students (primarily other than computer science majors) to the benefits of Linux?
When I was a freshman at the University of Minnesota, a friend handed me a CD distribution of Debian that would change my life. I knew of the Linux labs in the University but only now did they interest me. I'm now getting my masters at George Mason University and I don't believe there's a single Linux machine on campus. In fact, the whole Computer Science department has only two Sun servers to offer me an account on! Everything else is Microsoft!
Now you may lay claim that every computer science major these days is running Linux anyway. But how about the other areas of study? I used to take music theory and people would rant and rave about their Macs or one of various composing suites in Windows. I tried explaining that Linux has (certainly more affordable) solutions to offer in this department too but no one would even listen to me. It's not like they were mixing platinum selling records, they were just looking for software to write sheet music with.
I think that both Apple and Microsoft realize that the toys people have in college become the toys they demand in real life. So there are all these efforts to garner the student's interest hoping that they will use them in their careers.
They make it free (which Linux already is), they make it easy and they make it available.
So how about it? Why isn't the Linux community minting install discs and distributing literature on campuses? Why isn't Linux tailoring cheap solutions to K-12 schools that don't have the money for Windows anyway? Why do we risk letting someone leave academia without ever experiencing the real fruits of it?
If you are doing this (and I just don't know about it), what steps have you taken?
My work here is dung.
What I would really like to know is why Linux or Windows? Why hasn't there been a really good study that included BSD, Solaris, OSX, or even licensed variants of Unix? Is it all about Linux or is it about better operating systems?
--- Location Unknown
Why would you expect that the answers of someone "dedicated to accelerating the growth and adoption of Linux in the enterprise" would be more objective, in any way, than any of the reports created by pro-MS companies?
It just doesn't make sense...
Since almost all of these studies are funded or organised by a party which appears to be inherently for or against one of the things being studied, will it be possible to find anyone willing to compare them impartially? After all, how many people would believe an Open Source company to be any less biased than MS when it comes to comparing their products?
Game dev and music blog
So basically this Q&A session is just spin in the opposite direction to the Windows spin?
Are there any really independent studies on TOC that are produced by fanbois of one side or the other?
--I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
How can we fix the problem of the way TCO studies handle security? In so many of them every OSS application under the sun gets tallied against Linux systems, regardless of how obscure, or unrequired that application may be. Yet all of the 3rd party things that have holes in them rarely seem to even get looked at when talking about Windows security. Firefox for example seems to get tagged frequently when talking about Linux security in these studies, but Firefox isn't integreated into Linux, and it runs on both platforms. IE on the other hand is integrated into the OS, sure you can not use it, but there is a ton of junk in Windows itself that requires the various bits and pieces of IE to operate correctly. What is it going to take for these studies to finally start comparing apples to apples in regards as to what really is part of the OS and what is required for it to run?
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Now I see on the webpage that you guys are basicly doing the same thing. "Co-sponsored by ODSL". Why? Because those critics don't apply to you because you're defending open source software? I beg to disagree, there are nowadays also big commercial interests in open source so in that aspect I think this study isn't much better than the one MS did.
The Total Cost of Owning Enterprise Management Associates is? Willing to bet the folks behind the study know...
Moderation in All Things... Especially Moderation - gurutc
How many rounds would you go, one on one, against Steve Ballmer in an auditorium full of chairs?
In looking at Microsoft's TCO claims in particular, I've been unable to avoid noticing that a lot of the company's material on this subject consists of, to put it simply, straight lies. Aside from anything else, nothing is mentioned by them about their licensing fees. How they can state with a straight face that after their licensing fees, Windows can still be cheaper than Linux is beyond me.
Legitimate performance competition is one thing, but I'm curious to know how the ODSL is able to deal with Microsoft's lack of ethics in this regard? Given Microsoft's marketing power, how are Linux advocates able to communicate to people that many of Microsoft's claims in this area are deceptive?
Say I wanted to switch from Windows Server 2003 to Linux in a company of about 400 people with the same equipment I already have, generally speaking how long would it take and how much would I need to invest?
Do I need to hire several Linux experts just to get it up and running?
Would you expect this to be relatively easy or would it be very complicated and time consuming?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
This study is sponsored by the OSDL so it has an initial bias. If it were a study proving Windows to be cheaper sponsored by Microsoft, everyone would be yelling at the bias - rightfully. So it's only fair game to strongly underline this. (BTW, I AM Linux biaised. but that's not the point here ;) )
\u262D = \u5350
Especially not in a heated market like the OS biz. Who can tell what's "better" or "worse"? To what scale do you measure? And even if you find a way to compare them, what tells you that we won't see the same phenomenon that benchmarks sparked in the CPU and Graphics sector, companies that trim their products to perform perfectly in the artificial test environment (and really suck sometimes in everyday appliances)?
Do I need graphics on a server OS? Do I need highly sophisticated user permissions on a single user machine? Do I need support for 10 billion hardware pieces? Do I need flying pages when copying? Is it important that you can trim the system to run even on a P90? Do I want to be able to use the most recent fads in anti-aliasing and pixel shading? Do I need to be compatible with 100 other formats across 20 OSs? Do I need or want to customize my kernel? Does it make sense to cram the GUI into the system (and the internet browser as well)? Is it useful to ram the Mailreader into the system so tightly that it's virtually impossible to get rid of it?
No offense, but who are you to answer those questions for me?
So which system is "better"? Neither. Or both. Or it's really one of them. It just depends on who you are, how much you know (or want to know), how flexible you would like to be, and most of all, what you want to do with your machine.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
... why don't they use it?
Almost every PDF document on the OSDL website has been created on a Windows PC or on a Mac. Even the Desktop Linux Survey Report shows:
$ pdfinfo DTL_Survey_Report_Nov2005.pdf
Title: Microsoft Word DTL_Survey_Report_v4.doc
Creator: Word
Producer: Mac OS X 10.4.3 Quartz PDFContext
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
Part of the problem here is that when comparing a Linux OS to Windows, you have to recognize the fact that Windows comes bundled with a browser. It is part of the OS and you know that few users want a computer that cannot browse the web. So, to be fair, you have to compare competing OSes on like terms and this means including a web browser with linux-based operating systems.
Most distributions include Firefox in their installation. Yes, it's true, Firefox is not linux. But then if you start going down that path, we'll start to see people going to the extreme of saying, KDE is not Linux, glibc is not linux, linux is a kernel, etc... We have to draw the line somewhere. So, we include browsers in the comparisons. But, we can't include browsers like Konqueror because not everyone uses KDE. We have to use a browser that the majority of users actually use. On Windows, this is IE. On linux-based OSes, this is mozilla/firefox. It just needs to be stated as a caveat that Firefox security holes exist on both platforms as with any application that runs on both.
We recently had an issue in which Microsoft Office included unlicensed IP (according to a court settlement). Microsoft did not require us to patch existing installations, rather simply protecting our use via the settlement, agreeing to require future installations to include the patch. This seems like a case in which indemnifications worked (although they could have offered some compensation for the extra work - it's cheaper than litigation). For background, see http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts /topics/ipi.mspx.
How do the OSS indemnification plans stack up? Have there been any significant cases involving IP indemnification?
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
I believe that if you are OK with the application space that you can have equivalent or lower enterprise TCO on desktop Linux.
However, in broadcast engineering, we have a problem that there are lots of devices (satellite receivers, video compressors, video effects devices, video monitoring systems) that are using GNU/Linux. Each vendor seems to pick a different distribution version, basically requiring keeping track of patching 10 or 20 different OS versions. And the truth is that vendors seem so sold on the notion of Linux security, that they often don't feel the need to have to even consider the need for automatic and regular patching of the OS. While Linux does tend to have fewer security problems than Windows, they do come along every now and then.
By insisting on Windows in devices, one can at least know there is a single location for automatic patching. You do have to be on top of the situation and be wary of zero-day events, but it is fairly manageable.
The answer is 'free stuff', or at least very 'cheap stuff'. Microsoft practically gives away copies of Windows, Office, and Visual Studio (for example), so that those fresh out of high school and university are trained in it.
Ultimately, why go with a less compatible solution when you can have the mainstream one for pretty cheap? Also application support (Adobe, CAD software, Mathemtica, etc are all Windows)
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
Will 2006 be the year of Desktop Linux?
*runs*
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
It's a Serious Question. Don't TCO costs end up coming down to how much you will pay employees, how many employees you need, and the price of software? Shouldn't any capable manager be able to estimate the costs themselves? After all, I'm certain TCO varies wildly from workplace to workplace, considering what kind of system is already in place, what software is readily available for an OS, and what skills your current employees have.
My question is: is there really a use for these reports other than for 'defense': positive propaganda versus negative propaganda?
As an aside, do these studies take into account the availability and flexibility of currently extant software? Is there even a way to turn that information into TCO?
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
Maybe the TCO summaries are right after all?
Atleast partially that is.
Using the linux road, you have to pay competent people salary for actually knowing something about the system they're dealing with.
Anyone can get windows server up and running after 10 minutes of reading help files, but it won't be secure by a long shot.
I guess same applies for linux in some ways, but it's like comparing iron ball and snow ball in hell.
Both will melt down eventually if left unmaintained, but it's just matter of how long it takes.
And longer it takes, the more profit you make.
TCO might be higher, but you simply get more work done when your IT department doesn't have to spend 2 days every week reinstalling all workstations.
And getting more work done increases profits and in the long run, brings down the TCO, even if it's higher at the beginning.
TCO surveys are statistics, and statistics always tell what the collector wants them to say.
It's just matter how you count things.
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
... why don't they use it?
I believe they are advocating Linux on servers and not the desktop at this point. Linux for general end-user desktop consumption still needs a little more work IMHO.Next you would have to get rid of the (Excel, Access, Word) "power users" and users of other Windows-only software. These people, many of whom have nothing to do (but are relatives of the VP of finance and are in high-level positions) have been dicking around for 4-5 years and have written thousands of mini-apps and VBA scripts that won't run under Linux. They will quickly go up the chain of command to get your head on a platter.
Finally, you would have to educate the remaining user community.
Conclusions:
Hm. :D
It needed "a little more work" in 1999, too.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Ernie Ball goes Linux if you havn't seen it yet. There is alot of noise about these mythical enviroments that are pro windows or pro linux, but here is a good example of a real world switch. Ernie Ball makes guitar strings, so there really isn't any internal bias about who to support beyond it being a business decision. It is also a bit of an entertaining story on how they dealt with the MS strongarming about their licenses.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
What does have more impact on the success of Linux, the "Linux management study" or the "Linux desktop survey"? Which of these two areas are more important and should be taken more care of?
O. Wyss
See http://wyoguide.sf.net/papers/Cross-platform.html
Almost every PDF document on the OSDL website has been created on a Windows PC or on a Mac.
That's as funny as it is sad, especially given that Word regulary generates ugly looking documents, and that Word -> PDF is generally a Bad Idea.
The only excuse I can think of is the unlikely scenario where they were typed-up by an overworked secretary who didn't know anything else. But that would invite another TCO analysis, wouldn't it? Thirty minutes of LaTeX tutoring (for example) vs. the cost of a Microsoft Word license.
In the Windows world:
New Computer: $469
Windows Tax: $300
Spyware Cleaning: $65 (Probably every 3 months)
Virus Cleaning: $65 (Probably every 3 months)
Microsoft Office: $400
Commercial AV software: $80 a year
In the Linux World:
New Computer: $469
2 hours of lessons by my trained staff: Free
If something goes wrong after warrenty: $40
the TCO of Windows is WAAY higher than Linux in my company which I own. I set the TCO
of Windows in this small town. You choose Windows, you choose to pay.
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
Too many acronyms in a title! ;-)
OSDL - Open Source Development Labs.
CEO - Chief Executive Officer
TCO - Total Cost of Ownership
Why don't we just give up on words
looks like the file was created from Word on the MAC to me. When I run against one of my own PDFs created and managed solely on linux, the creator field says writer, the producer is OpenOffice. Doesn't seem to be any direct correlation to the platform, but then- why should there be?
I'd agree with value_added that it's likely a machine in use by secretarial staff.
Can anyone from OSDL comment?
---
LaTeX tutoring? Hell, I consider myself a pretty knowledgeable Unixhead, but even I don't use LaTeX if I need to create a document quickly.
I use LyX (www.lyx.org) for that. All of the good-lookingness of LaTeX, most of the flexibility, no cryptic syntax error messages. And the best and best-integrated graphical equation editor I've ever seen.
Why would anyone expect that the criteria of someone "dedicated to accelerating the growth and adoption of Linux in the enterprise" would be more objective or that the measurements would be more accurate than any of the "studies" done by pro-Microsoft companies?
I've seen pro-Microsoft studies that "extrapolate" data out for 5 years to get their "TCO" figures.
Not to mention that "TCO" figures are meaningless when compared between different companies. There are too many variations between the tech staff, the users, the apps, the hardware, remote vs local users, and so forth.
There's certainly been a good few questions asked already, but the one I'd like to get an answer to is,
how do companies see OSDL? Do they believe it's a trustworthy group that knows what they're talking about, or does it look like another one of those 'fad-like' groups that's going to fade away? I don't mean to say OSDL is fading out, I'm curious to know what the real-world perception of it is. I've noticed that while many of my friends use linux and are generally well-versed in what's going on, they're usually totally unaware of the existence of OSDL, or it's purpose.
How will this change? How will OSDL become a trusted group for IT managers, especially in a world where most of them have only heard of Microsoft's "Get the facts", or have some shares in MS stocks?
I feel that part of the reason that one of the above posters was asking why isn't linux penetrating the educational market is because the trustees funding the schools have a say in what to use, because they're paying for it, and the trustees will usually have a significant amount of MS stocks.
What's the chance of all of this changing? Or rather, what are the means in place for all that to change?
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
...full of studies that invariably show Linux to be expensive, hard to maintain, and less than totally secure
I suspect the first two are potentially true, but that would depend entirely on the situation. Bad choices can always be made, regardless of the systems involved, that turn out to be expensive and costly to maintain. Just because it's open source doesn't make it immune to bad management.
The third is most definately true. As far as I know there is no OS that is totally secure. It's a lauable goal to be sure, but not one that I ever expect to be reached.
I'd guess the only fair way to pit one platform against another would be to offer a scenario - client company X has a list of specific needs and requirements - and let teams of experts of either party deploy their solution. Mano an mano.
Then when the smoke has settled, they are compared with regards to cost for things such as licenses, staff, etc.
It would also be important to note the differences in the solutions to the client.
Will the MS solution be simpler to manage, to update? Will the Linux solution require less tweaking a year later? Will there be hacks beknownst only to the people who set up the solution.
And to make it all worth while - these contests should be arranged regularly and have different levels of difficulty and scope.
Call it "OS Deathmatch" or something silly like that and offer prices. Host it at sports arenas. Set up a fair with computer gear for sale at the entrance.
Invite thousands of low- and high-profile geeks. Invite crackers to attempt to find vulnerabilities with the solutions.
Invite companies with real-world cases to get the contestants to work on their requirements. Let them sponsor the show and in return get the elite solutions.
Not only would this generate tremendous media coverage and potential income for entrepreneurs, it will also make for much more fair scrutinizing of the software than the current crop of shady "independant experts".
There is a large shout for expanding the amount of desktops running Linux. While most users on Slashdot seem fine and dandy with the way Linux desktop is now, I believe that a lot of changes will have to occur before you can get Joe Sixpack to replace Windows or Mac with Linux, such as making tasks more automatic, improving hardware support, and completely removing the need for the command line/terminal (except for development).
Do you believe that the desktop needs to change before its user base expands? If so, what changes do you believe are necessary, and which would be mere "bonuses"?
One question in return:
Do you still make a profit on the $469 computer after throwing in 2 hours of lessons by your trained staff?
C - the footgun of programming languages
Maybe in 1995. This is 2006. Welcome to the new millenium. The most terrifying my upgrade procedures get is forgetting to type sudo before apt-get.
"Build a man a fire warm him for a day, set a man on fire and warm him for the rest of his life."
Seems if any other trademark were lied about as much as Microsoft lies about Linux[tm], there'd be legal action. When will we start seeing this?
Any school that is not managed as an enterprise is wasting its students' money.
This is really telling. Part of the argument is that linux costs more because you have to pay your staff more. As a tech or someone planing on going to school to learn one or the other which would your choose? I'd rather make more and work with Linux but that's just my opinion. There must be some benefit to working in a windoze shop other than the low pay.
Could there be a better question? How about in a court of law?
I will not mourn that which I never had to lose. - Unknown
Because of the current ubiquitousness of Windows, frequently a *nix SysAdmin needs to know more than his fair share about how to service Windows boxes. Whereas many Windows SysAdmins don't know the first thing about Linux. It's like a personal injury attorney being required to know the tax code.
Frequently the most complicated part of Linux System Administration is making it "just work" with Windows in a mixed environment (especially inside of a Windows domain). (And because Windows doesn't even acknowledge Linux inside of its OS, that invariably means it's the Linux part which needs to get complicated while Windows remains silently complacent and not any the wiser.)
I suspect that, (but I have done no research), that the TCO of doing this shit is layed on the Linux side of the aisle, when in actuality the blame for this lies with Windows for being hard to work with and not playing nice with others.
So, perhaps you can confirm or deny this, how are TCO split up in mixed environments? And if it is indeed split in the manner stated above how would you rectify this? How would you split up the TCO to be more fair in a mixed environment? And are the TCO studies of mixed environments actually being labeled TCO studies of Linux?
"Build a man a fire warm him for a day, set a man on fire and warm him for the rest of his life."
There is also the issue of staff retraining. I am aware that the study looked at availability and costs of Linux versus Windows admins, as well as how much training was needed for existing staff. But, this is overly simplistic if considering massive OS conversions. As a practical matter, you do not want to layoff your existing staff (who understand your entire setup intimately) to replace them with people who happen to have better knowledge of Linux. In some countries, you would not even be legally permitted to do so.
Am I right in guessing that the mix of operating systems in almost all these sites evolved gradually, and the decision for individual servers rarely depended on the kind of TCO evaluation favoured by studies like this latest one?
I would bet that Linux is already well known in most computer science programs. The reality is that many universities see their job as supplying the skills that industry needs. That is not a terrible thing since most people want to leave college with marketable skills. There is currently a lot more demand for people that can develop for windows than for Linux.
Someone that is graduating from a good but not great university with a degree in IT that doesn't know how to use Windows will have a hard time finding a job.
Not everyone gets to work for Google and even Google develops stuff for Windows.
Get a masters or PhD in CS and you will know Linux. Get a BS in IT and odds are you will know Windows.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The biggest risk to running a MS shop is the proven history of exploits on the platform that can wreck havoc on your network. True, if the patches are up to date your risk is greatly reduced, but we have seen plenty of organizations that ought to have been better prepared get clobbered. It is a real risk, and can be as a result of intentionally not being up to date (because the patch hadn't finished QA), or unintentionally (mistake or oversight by the sysadmins).
The problem from a TCO point of view: How do you quantify this in terms of a cost? Many (most?) companies are never affected at all, and thus have no cost. Others have their entire business grind to a halt for a day or two, at what must be a massive cost. So there is most definitely a cost here that should be included in the study, but any figure is almost certainly going to be criticized as either much too high or much too low. How are you planning to address this?
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
I guess my question could be phrased as: "how do you maximize the usefulness to the audience while minimizing the sacrifices to accuracy? And how much of a compromise can you really afford to make before the study actually degrades understanding?"
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Keep an eye on GrokLaw (groklaw.net) for the next couple of days. The answer is nearer than you think.
I bet we won't hear any comments from OSDL. They're probably too cowardly to admit they don't know how to use Linux.
I use Linux for all my work. I only play games on Windows, or occationally use OpenOffice or a cygwin terminal and ssh.
I expect more from Linux advocates. Unless I'm the only one.
I stand corrected on Mathemtica. I know Maple is Linux as well.
Mainstream was the wrong word I suppose, but I couldn't think of a better one.
When a student comes out of university and wants to enter the business world, being familiar with Excel, Visual Studio, SourceSafe, Adobe Photoshop, Visio, Macromedia Flash, etc _CAN_ all work to their benefit and are probably used in more businesses for non-tech jobs than OpenOffice, GCC, CVS, Gimp, ???, ???.
This isn't an attack at anything, as I use Linux and Windows in many contexts (both as server and workstation facilities) and their various support programs. I love my Linux. I'm just saying that when microsoft offers 10,000 workstations of software for $200,000 [20 bucks a workstation] you have to jump on that opportunity, as it'd normally be a few thousand per workstation. I don't have the exact figures, but when you buy in volume and for academics, things get cheap. Not to mention, more users know it from high school.
If I offer you a $5000 in the box plasma TV for $500, whether you need a TV or not, you're damn-well surely going to buy it!
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
I'll have to try it when I get home, but I'm 90% certain that's what you get if you open a document in MS Word on the Mac, and then use the native PDF exporter (which you get to through the Print dialog).
Maybe there's some formatting or something that they were worried about keeping in the outputted PDF that caused them to not want to export using OpenOffice?
Ironically enough, I don't use OpenOffice on a day to day basis, but I keep it on my work PC for the sole purpose of converting things to PDF when I'm at work. (I used to use a little freeware printer driver for this, but unfortunately it's license agreement specifies that it's for noncommercial use only.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
That's assuming they're willing to distribute source drivers.
That is often not the case. Niche hardware manufacturers will often target one particular Linux distro, on one particular architecture (usually x86), and produce binary drivers. If you don't want to use that distro, you're quite possibly SOL.
There are many cases where recompiling just ain't an option.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
My problem with Linux on the desktop right now is lack of support. I don't mean necessarily lack of hardware support (although that's an issue also), but lack of technical support options for the non-enterprise user.
Let's say I advised someone in a small business environment to switch to Linux rather than upgrade to Vista (or whatever). I, or somebody like me, helps them get everything all set up, all networked and running OpenOffice and whatever else they need. Everything is fine. And then, I go home.
What do they do when something stops working? Maybe something really simple -- "hey, I just deleted the menu bar in KDE, how do I get it back?" -- or something more complex. If they don't have an in-house IT person, I'm stuck with the rather unappealing decision of leaving them high and dry, or becoming their tech support person.
Of course, they have lots of options: search Google, read support forums, post question on forum, chat on IRC, post bug report, etc. But they don't have any "phone number of last resort," like they would have on a commercial OS. With Microsoft and Apple, there are pay-per-incident numbers that you can call to get support right now. (With Apple, there's the Genius Bar at the Store, too.) Sun offers support contracts for Solaris 10 workstations, hardware and software, for about $40 a month. The point is that there's somebody that a user can call who (theoretically) will have the answer to their question.
With Linux, unless you're working with a vendor or consulting firm and get a "total solution" that involves a support contract, there isn't an equivalent to that. And I think that's a big turnoff to even moderately tech-savvy business owners who would otherwise jump at the opportunity to ditch Windows.
If anyone knows of a support provider that does pay-per-incident for Linux, or even does inexpensive single-user support contracts, I'd be interested. But I don't know of any, since LinuxCare went under; I've been thinking of posting an Ask Slashdot question about this actually (see my Journal for draft).
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Businesses had very different priorities for computers than schools at the time. Schools wanted something that could be a bright and shiny educational tool. Businesses wanted to increase productivity for a minimum cost.
The IBM PC (and its horde of clones) had one virtue that Apples of the era did not--it was cheap. Its operating system was crude by comparison--but cheap. Its hardware was inelegant--but cheap. School budgets can and often are cut, but not nearly as quickly, suddenly, or viciously as corporate cost centers.
By insisting on Windows in devices, one can at least know there is a single location for automatic patching.
If you insist on any single distribution across your system, you will get a single source for all patches. Nothing magic there. Of course restricting yourself artificially to only one system has both advantages and disadvantages. Sometimes you need to have different systems for different tasks because there is no single Operating System that solves all requirements.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
First: I agree, totally with you that LaTeX (and LyX, which is really more what I'm learning to use now) generates gorgeous printed output--far nicer than Word or OOo Writer. However, I don't think that they're for everyone by a long shot.
LyX and LaTeX are great if you already have the necessary environments and document classes you need, or if you're well-trained enough to generate them yourself as needed. They are not so great if you are a low-level, low-training, "hello my computer's cupholder is broken, and please fix the internet" clerical user.
My biggest gripe is that most of the existing "ready-made" templates are geared (not surprisingly) towards mathematics, the sciences, and engineering. As a humanities guy (History, International Relations, and, soon, Law), I'd love to be able to use LyX for writing, but I can't (yet) because I'm busy trying to learn how to make the appropriate, humanities and law-friendly templates.
Nothing, however, would please me more than having my current job (I'm a clerk at a law firm) go to LyX...but considering that I work with people who still insist on typesetting everything in Courier New, 12 point, boldface (y'know, so it shows up nice on the carbon copy!), I'm not optimistic.
Wow - there are some nice graphs in that pdf! I love those pie charts! Thank God for those 'sophisticated management tools'. If it wasnt for them, we'd be screwed!
Do you expect Microsoft's upcoming Windows Vista release to help or hinder adoption of linux on the desktop and how can the open source and linux communities best take advantage of the sometimes-artificial commercial software upgrade cycle?
What would you say to the fact that if someone has a problem with a Microsoft product, they can go straight to the source. To the people who really made the product. The way Linux is developed, there are at least two tiers of manufacturing. The lower tier is the Linus and company who are developing the kerel and the high level are the actual distributors (Red Hat, Novell, etc.). In today's world, if you are in charge of a multi-million dollar project of setting up servers/datacenters, don't you want a corporate entity that is completely responsible for their product as a scapegoat?
just my 2 bytes
So you've never heard of glibc, or for that matter glibc++? Must be nice.
Nihil Illegitemi Carborvndvm
I have a sneaky suspicion that a sensibly designed hetrogenous computing environment would have the lowest TCO of all. Sadly, since these studies are inherently oppositional, they'll be more likely to polarise computer users into chosing one or the other. What sort of studies would measure and encourage interoperability instead?
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Ironically enough, I don't use OpenOffice on a day to day basis, but I keep it on my work PC for the sole purpose of converting things to PDF when I'm at work. (I used to use a little freeware printer driver for this, but unfortunately it's license agreement specifies that it's for noncommercial use only.)
Just use PDF Creator http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/
Actually the scariest part is checking that your back up ran properly last night and is usuable. BUt that's the case no matter what os you use.
Bleep
Do you think that many humanities students will cope with the marked absence of the "My Documents" folder? Or how about the lack of a "A:\", "C:\", and "D:\" drives?
/etc do what.
And what if they have a USB stick?
OpenOffice will be too different -- paragraph settings and margins are all differently arranged than Word.
I really hate to say this, but a non-trivial percentage of Electrical/Computer Engineering undergrad students don't know anything about Linux, and aren't exactly wizards at Windows either.
I'm not sure if these schools have to pay all that much. They get volume academic licenses. Microsoft wants them to use their products, otherwise the students may not when they go into the real world.
But yes, there should be more encouragement with Linux. 5 years ago, I started using Redhat almost exclusively at home. That only lasted a few months until a friend introduced me to Gentoo (it was a bit more primitive then). I immediately switched and have no regrets. An operating system like Gentoo **forces** the user to really learn how Linux works.. Distros like RedHat hide way too much from the user. As soon as X stops working, they will be helpless, as they won't know how to use the commandline tools or what files in
There should be a formal course that does the following:
2/3 of semester: Build a complete Linux from Scratch workstation
1/3 of semester: Build a complete Gentoo workstation/server, and maintain/update it.
LFS would teach people what libraries do what and how things work. Gentoo would teach them how to update/add/remove programs from source in a maintainable manner.
In every Windows vs. Linux/Unix/*nix {insert your *nix variant of choice here) I never, ever see this addressed:
Microsoft redefines "downtime" for their studies. Downtime, in their terms, does not include "scheduled maintenance windows" during which a system needs to be taken down for a backup, integrity checks, defrags (e.g., the Exchange info store), or reboot for configuration changes or patch installation. Where you might have to reboot a *nix box once a year for kernel patches (on rare occasion more often), it's not like the weekly or biweekly frequency of Windows patches which more often than not require a reboot, which can lead to downtime of a critical system service such as your DBMS, mail server, DNS server, or an active directory global catalog server.
Why do no studies make mention of this, and at minimum compare the "scheduled maintenance windows" and how the REAL downtime is affected? Windows, if PROPERLY maintained to avoid future disasters, will be nowhere near five nines' worth of downtime. No way, no how, unless it's on a LAN where you KNOW access is controlled, patches are unnecessary, and you run an intranet mail server which allows for live maintenance.
Better yet, let's have a study which ignores Microsoft's redefinition of "downtime" and instead uses what the rest of the real world regards as "downtime" - let's compare THOSE numbers.
Don't get me wrong; Microsoft produces some damn fine products and the Exchange/Outlook pair is a perfect example of that - it answers a business need that only recently has been addressed in the *nix world with Scalix, OpenExchange, and Zybil (which I only discovered when reading the latest Linux Journal). Sure there have been so-called groupware solution such as Lotus Notes for a while, but anyone who has used both Exchange and Notes will tell you that Notes sucks. It's bloated, slow, and downright painful, even if your database is well-designed; and not only that, it IS proprietary.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
One thing I didn't like about the article was the comparison of software cost. The write shows ISA 2004 as a Web server. This adds 24K to the cost. ISA 2004 is a Firewall and IIS is free with Windows. SQL Server processor edition is unnecessary. The devlopers are the only people that need direct SQL access and all 100 Web users will use IIS (Which could be a Device or CAL license). That would reduce cost dramatically also. It almost seems as if the write choose the most expensive software to exaggerate. I guess we will never get an accurate Windows vs Linux comparison.