Slashdot Mirror
Study Finds Linux 'Ready For Prime-time'
An anonymous reader tipped us to a Techworld article proclaiming Linux as the next big thing ... again. A study of IT directors, VPs and CIOs has concluded that within five years the open-source OS will be running more than half of all important business applications. From the article: "In short, open source, especially Linux, is being legitimized by the major enterprise vendors, and user executives are more than happy to believe them ... Microsoft's thawing toward Linux is now easier to understand when faced with such data - even as Windows continues to grow as the other main server platform of choice."
Oh thank God for that! I was about to ditch Linux after 10 years of being utterly Microsoft free.
But with the blessing of these well informed and important pundits I feel the future is brighter
already!
There's something slightly sad and laughable about people who switch their minds once something is
so bloody obvious it can't be ignored any longer. Next we'll have Bush saying the war in Iraq is lost
and it was a bad idea in the first place - and everyone will applaud him for his incisive wisdom.
Why are those with the most influence always the last to know what is really going on in this world?
This isn't about Linux being ready for Joe Users Desktop or not, this is about Linux being used to run mission-critical businiess applications in the enterprise.
But who needs to even glance at the article if all one wants is to start a nice little flameware, he?
If people want to throw away TCO, security, easy of administration, power, and all the free enterprise proven software available for a glorified calendar and wiki program from Microsoft, they can go right ahead.
We have over 1000 employees and 7000 linux boxes, 1200 of which are workstations, and 4 admins. People get a 1 hour KDE training "this is how you read mail, this is how you use the internet, this is open office". Any idiot can use KDE to be productive, all the concepts are the same. You click on an icon, a program launches. If you have employees that need an admin to manage that, fire them.
We often speak of whole countries as "our enemies", so why not companies? IMHO, it makes more sense to speak of a company as an enemy than a specific member of that company. After all, individual to individual, members of the groups are not really enemies. Enemies want to destroy each other. Bill Gates isn't my enemy -- I don't (really) want to destroy him. Neither is Steve Ballmer. Or any other Microsoft employee. Microsoft the company isn't an enemy of me the individual, and the Linux community isn't an enemy to individual Microsoft employees (neither group wants to destroy the individuals of the other group). Individuals in either group may consider the other group as a whole as enemies, as the OP considered Microsoft an enemy and how people like Bill Gates consider the Linux community an enemy. Also as a whole, Microsoft is an enemy of the Linux community, as a whole.
Groups of people, like companies or countries, can very easily be enemies, even if individual members of each group don't necessarily consider each other enemies.
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
"They're barely computer literate as it is,"
All the more reason to put them on Linux.
Really, the barely computer literate arent a problem, and they become far easier to support on Linux. It's the 'think they know what they're doing' people who are a pain as they'll be upset when they cant break their systems in the same way they used to.
Of course, they'd come complaining to you when they borked their system in XP too, so as a supporting relative you're almost always better off with the family on Linux (with the possible exception being when you have a competent Windows admin in the family who'll be doing the support (lucky guy...)).
Bill Gates isn't my enemy -- I don't (really) want to destroy him. Neither is Steve Ballmer.
<rant class="awful" title="Final Sanctimony Of 2006" style="presentation: preachy;">
Recognizing both of these guys as enemies is better than regarding them in any other way. Bill Gates' public history is littered with debris of the destruction he has caused to people who were his allies and partners: I would risk the safety of things I hold dear if I regarded him as anything other than an enemy. From statements in the public record, there is no doubt that if Steve Ballmer knew me personally, he would be threatening to "fucking kill" me.
Slashdot is full of people who want to emulate one or the other of these guys. They've got a word for people who see the world the way parent post describes it: suckers.
Enemies want to destroy each other.... I don't (really) want to destroy him.
Ah-hah! There is the problem; a simple but very basic mistake in how one should interpret reality.
It isn't about you all the time, you know. Do you really think that if you decided that Gretchen will be your lover, all of a sudden she will enthusiastically come to your bed? You actually have less say in who shall be your enemy than you do in who might become your lover. Failure to recognize that the other person has a lot to say about either relationship is not a good basis for one's view of the world.
No, Grasshopper, in this life you do not get to choose your enemies. You get to choose what principles will guide your behavior. You will then find that your enemies will choose you. If you are resourceful, careful, attentive, and very, very lucky, you may be able to choose your battles. But not your enemies; they will choose you.
Now enmity is another thing entirely. Avoid it, along with hatred, hostility, and all those associated feelings. Treat your enemies dispassionately, even in the midst of battle. For unless you are actually involved in hand to hand combat, there is no place for the intense concentration and focus, the tunnel vision and imperviousness to pain and injury, that are the hallmark of these emotions.
Invest your passionate energies in your friendships and loves; don't waste them on your enemies.
</rant>
Desiderata