Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Look at your costs before migrating to Linux clients for RDP. Terminal Services Licenses cost nearly as much as a full XP license, so you will likely spend more to do it this way. Having said that, you might be able to run your critical apps under WINE, and use Linux X clients to run it via SSH. I would definitely focus on the servers first though. Check out the O'Reilly books for LDAP and "Linux in a Windows World" for guidance, but it really depends on how many people need to use those critical windows apps, and what apps they are. Let me know what type of apps you are talking about, as there may be replacements or documented WINE support for them. AD to LDAP isn't likely to be much trouble with only a few users, and any mail, file, and print services should be relatively simple to implement, whether you convert or use winbind to maintain AD integration. Having been on both sides, though, I would definitely prefer switching to LDAP first, as AD can give you plenty of headaches down the road. Also, regardless of which path you take, be sure to make use of NTP to maintain your clocks, since a small drift will eventually wreak havoc on anything using kerberos, and it might not be the first thing that comes to mind when something suddenly stops working.
--That's the point of being root, you can do anything you want, even if it's stupid.
As always, there's not enough information. Why do you want to do this? What are you trying to accomplish? What apps? How critical are they? If you want to switch just for the sake of switching, then really, you should be fired.
We have a single W2K3 system which serves up a couple of legacy apps over RDP (Rdesktop) and integration with Samba, etc. has gone well for us. The standard KDE applications work fine although you do have to choose your distribution, largely because Flash can hang and/or crash Konqueror on a regular basis (blame Flash, not Konq).
The only issue we have run in to is that Windows will only let you log in with RDP so many times before it will blacklist your machine's hostname for not having a genuine MS license. It's a pain but we just more or less randomize the hostname regularly. Good old Micro$oft... they won't even let you administratively remove the blacklisting without delving into the Registry (haven't tried that, but I figure it must be possible). This happens infrequently, by the way, W2k3 will probably accept a good 100 connections before it whines.
...Steve
My current boss, a close friend of mine, single-handedly began a FOSS migration in our 3-location 100-desktop 20-offsite-laptop-user office about a year ago. I came on board about 3 months ago, almost through the first stages of the process. We now have 99% of our users on OpenOffice (one holdout, and I am going to fix his missing feature ASAP to get him off Excel), and 100% migrated away from IE+Outlook (most on Firefox+Thunderbird, a few people requested Mac desktops and are using Safari+Mail). We transitioned to Open Directory on an OS X Server with nary a hitch, with the added bonus that OD supports LDAP which means it plays nice with all of our new extranet and internet services (LDAP login to our helpdesk, CMS, etc).
Eventually Windows XP will lose support and we will have to consider sticking with unsupported XP, or moving to Vista/Fiji/Vienna, or a complete migration to Mac, or a final alternative that I am starting to push slowly up the list of possibilities... Linux. My boss is a Mac user, he dislikes many of the problems with Windows. He had the popular misconception that Linux is hard to install, hard to maintain, and hard to use in general. My first day, when provided free reign over my own desktop, I let him watch me go through a Kubuntu installation. Cleared up all that nonsense right quick. From a blank hard drive to a better-than-Explorer GUI, with both of our network printers completely configured, desktop shortcuts to our network shares, Firefox and Thunderbird installed as well as a GUI terminal (we have legacy apps requiring telnet to our SCO UNIX machine), all in under 30 minutes, and without touching a text console.
Running actual GUI Windows applications in Linux CAN be difficult, but often is not. There is a VERY good chance that they will 'Just Work' under WINE or Crossover Office. If you need terminal services functionality, rdesktop has worked great for me. There is also the VMWare/etc option, if the programs are old enough for the perfomance hit to not matter (and if you're developing "core" applications that only run on Windows TODAY, then youve got other problems).
Ok, I'll be the first to admit that there is a tremedous lure to FOSS software and have rolled it out myself in a number of situations, but not to desktops. I've replaced web servers, database servers and Windows file servers with servers running Apache, PostgreSQL and Samba. However, before I considered something like this in my current environment, I'd need to do a serious cost analysis that went way beyond licensing costs. For example, what will this mean to the user that has been using Windows and MS Office for 10 years? And, you mentioned that some of your core applications are Windows-only affairs. Sure, you can use RDP/Citrix to run these apps, but then you're throwing the Windows licensing costs into the mix. Not to mention the possibility that your apps won't like running in this way.
So, how much is your infrastructure *really* costing you?
How much would retraining cost?
How much would it cost to possibly have to give up your core vendor support due to running in an potentially unsupported configuration?
This may sound like I'm anti-FOSS. Actually, I'm not - I love FOSS in the right situation. WHat I AM against is FOSS for the sake of FOSS. While I "grew up" on the IT side of the house, I'm a big believer in the business needs dictating IT's role and responsiblity rather than the other way around.
My advice: Think this through before you put a lot of time into it. You may end up saving a whole lot more (not just money) by sticking with what works.
However, if I were to add to that first bit as a reply to the submitter, I'd seriously consider the question of whether or not this small shop can continue on servicing a Linux deployment with a complex mix of Windows/Linux after you leave. After all, you don't plan to work there forever and given that you have to ask others for advice, how likely is it that:
A) you can seamlessly make the transition yourself; and
B) someone else can easily pick up where you left off?
Unix-based servers are absolutely great and typically rock solid at doing server kind of stuff... much more so than Windows presently is. However, I'd actually advise you to stay with Windows. It's what a lot of people know, you know it currently works, and unless there is a serious compelling reason why you can't just continue with the status quo, it's the cheaper to use what you have than try and make changes with potentially unknown complications.
If anything, I'd setup a parallel network running Linux and host some services off of that, gradually migrating services one at a time over to it while you transition off. And if things go south and you run into issues you can't resolve, you could always pull the plug and you still have your original Windows network.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Hold up, there, cowboy. That is the wrong question to ask.
The systems and servers aren't your personal plaything. They are there to meet the needs of your employer. The small organization. The all-Windows shop.
There are often reasons for choosing the proprietary app. The predominant OS for a business of your size or type or location. Reasons that are not always narrowly technical, not always narrowly economic.
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.
ERROR: Null