Moving Small Organizations from Windows to Linux?

chris1646 asks: "Currently we are a small organization that is entirely a Windows shop. Next year much of the server and desktop hardware we run will need replacing. I am looking for creative ways to introduce Linux as my desktop and server OS of choice, however a couple of our core applications run exclusively on Windows. Has anyone had any success hosting Windows applications via terminal server while using Linux as the client OS? Has anyone handled a AD to open source LDAP migration?"

Comments

Start with your applications.

[jonadab]

> however a couple of our core applications run exclusively on Windows

Then that is where you have to start.

Yes, you could insert a couple of Linux systems in side roles that don't require them to run the core apps, e.g., a DNS server here and a CGI server there and so on and so forth -- and that's likely worth doing for its own sake -- but if you want to migrate entirely off of Windows, you've first got to migrate to all cross-platform applications.

Re:All of your issues are no problem.

[Sparr0]

Fortunately most of us live in a country (the USA) where MS doesn't have the authority to "require licenses".

Re:Why?

[NineNine]

A vendor like Microsoft has no reason to be nice to a small- to medium-sized company, and this leaves anyone locked in to a Microsoft system vunerable.

I'm about to spend a lot more money with MS, as we migrate our point-of-sale systems to MS RMS. They have very helpful salespeople that are willing to hold my hand even though the total bill won't be in the 5 digits, and they even are financing it for me. MS is actually very easy for my small company to deal with.

and this leaves anyone locked in to a Microsoft system vunerable.

Vulnerable to what? Give me a real world scenario. I just don't see it.

If your core apps run on Windows...

[slk]

Then you probably need to be running Windows, at least on the client.

I have a day job as the head system administrator for a medium sized but very high-tech non-profit. We run Macintosh (OSX) clients and Linux servers because they do what we need to do, and do it well. I have also been working with Linux and various other forms of Unix since 1994 (this includes using Linux and/or FreeBSD as a primary desktop OS since 1994. LaTeX works fine as a word processor if you know what you're doing.)

I also do consulting work for several smallish companies, and they all run Windows. It's really simple - if you need good 2D CAD software, you need Windows. If you need a modern multi-user accounting package that can do strange things like payroll and integrate with direct deposit, you need Windows. If you need a *good* spreadsheet (no, OOo calc doesn't count), you need Windows or OSX. If you want to run all of this on one desktop operating system, you need Windows. Crossover Office, WINE, VMWare, etc. aren't going to convert many small businesses; they want less complexity, not more. (some of these clients have Linux servers - network edge, multiprotocol file and print services, web apps, etc. - but they are close to 100% Windows on the desktop)

I think that you could convert a LOT of small businesses over if you could get a Peachtree or Quickbooks port for Linux. However, for small business, you don't stand a chance until you get *good* accounting software. OOo calc not sucking would really help too; lots of businesses make very heavy use of spreadsheets. (OOo Writer sucks, but so does Word. OOo Impress is adequate, as it's all pretty much PowerPointless anyway.)

If you're looking for long-term savings, I'd suggest considering Windows TS clients (use your old XP machines/licenses/etc), and a Windows 2k3 server terminal server. It won't be all that cheap to setup initially, but you will be able to significantly reduce your maintenance headaches.

Look at the business needs, and pick technologies that meet the business needs. Make technology work FOR your business; I've see what happens when you flip that around, and it isn't pretty.

Re:Look at costs, Servers first

[linuxrocks123]

> The question came up... why should we anyway? Every new computer comes with Windows and all the drivers preinstalled. We just have to spend 30 minutes uninstalling all the crap that comes with it.

You shouldn't be using the default Windows install anyway. You should be using an image. Default Windows installs sometimes have viruses and spyware (no, really, they do).

> And then how much of your infrastructure will you move to Linux? If you're not using an app that requires Windows you might in the future. The next version of that app might be dependent on .NET 2 which may not work under WINE, or newer versions of the computers you're using might not work with the Linux images you currently have on hand... more work to get things going..

Well, first, if it's on .Net you would be using Mono, not WINE, which already does support most of .NET 2. Second, WINE is really only suitable as a stopgap measure today; if you're being forced to use it you should be planning on changing to an alternative program anyway. Third, WINE will almost certainly support the new version of an app that is already working with it -- eventually. So if you insist on abusing WINE in the manner you describe, you might have to hold off on upgrading for a few months but that's it. As far as the images issue ... you make new images for new computers, no matter what the OS is. (See above about default Windows installs.)

> You'll simply be less flexible. Not to mention if you get run over by a bus the next admin may not:
>(a) know what the heck is going on in that setup
If you document it properly, a competent admin will be able to understand it.
>(b) know Linux in general
If this firm would hire someone with no Linux experience to maintain a 100% Linux network, they have some serious HR policy issues.
>(c) agree with the setup
Why do you perceive this to be a problem?

The rest of your comment is ignorant drivel that doesn't deserve a response.