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."
Only there to promote Microsoft/Novell and Oracle. It's making a campaign in favour of our enemies disguised as a positive article.
"most large vendors remain tied to legacy cash-cow operating systems"
I wonder who they mean by cash-cow OS?
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Once again, I have to ask, how well does it integrate with SharePoint?
SharePoint is going to me Microsoft's collaboration tool of choice and not only does Linux not play with it, it doesn't have a competing offering.
Heck, this is going to affect OS X as well.
(And I'm not saying SharePoint is the answer, but a lot of CIO's seem to think so. For whatever that's worth.)
The opposite of progress is congress
I would disagree. MEPIS is certainly user friendly and includes codecs if I'm not mistaken.
Slackware does too, however, some folks seem to think the Slack learning curve is steep. I would disagree, but I would not posit it as an off-the-shelf answer for most folks.
The opposite of progress is congress
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?
There never will be a "year of Linux", in the same way that there was no "year of Windows". It takes time, and it happens slowly. For me, 2006 meant the first time that I installed Linux on a laptop, and it was productive for me. Next year, some more people will discover it.
But in the very long term, I believe it's unstoppable.
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.
Of course it is. My previous company have sold a lot of Ubuntu preinstalled computers, and users really loved it. All they needed was a short (about 20 minutes) introduction to the environment, and that's it.
I still receive phone calls from our customers' friends asking if we can install Ubuntu on their computers.
Good you're talking about preloaded systems. Most linux-is-bad people compare preinstalled Windows with self-installed Linux, which is a total nonsense. And some of them even blame Linux for having to partition their harddrive to use both OSes. And some of them blame Linux for disappearing boot loader after Windows reinstall. Kinda sad.
Wow... Man... Your TCO is way over Windows network's. In a pure Microsoft environment you wouldn't need such a crap load of computers, just 1000 workstations, one server and 100-200 MCSEs.
Wow, that didn't take long!
Maybe in a paralell universe where everyone compiles kernels for breakfast and writes their own drivers.
"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...)).
Can we force them to install Windows without a restore disc that's pre-loaded with drivers? "Here's a plain Windows XP SP1 install disc. Install it, then go hunt down some drivers so that you can get SP1 to work on SATA drives so it can even be installed, which will be with terrible graphics because you need to install your graphics drivers after the OS is installed." (SATA drivers had to be loaded on a floppy to install SP1 on them. Linux had SATA support before Windows did...well, as soon as SATA drives came out, really. SP2 did correct that issue with Windows, though) So, ignoring the SP1 + SATA thing, without a restore disc with slipstreamed drivers, it's a pain in the butt. Linux does better in that regard because of the monolithic kernel. There's at least a few less drivers to hunt down.
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
There's no way the pool guy is going to clean out those bones from the bottom of a pool full of sharks, piranhas and alligators.
Money for nothing, pix for free
In my experience, 5 years is too far away to make for a worthwhile prediction. If it is that far away, we are just guessing. Far too much can happen in that time (economic downturn, anyone?)
Further, my last employer was a Windows shop. The infrastructure was designed around proprietary MS security and authentication. They don't want linux. They don't care what it runs or what it can do. If you don't have an MCSE, you aren't qualified to work there (>1600 IT employees for a company of ~9000). We made several server purchases from Dell that would have been better served by Sun (per application specs). That never happened and never will. Why having linux as an option will make a difference I have no idea.
The worst thing is that this is the norm in my experience. I use a Mac and have been called a zealot (though I use Win2k and Solaris as well) but those who use nothing other than Windows are just plain IT people. The true zealots are the Windows only users and they exist and are in control of the IT departments.
Surveys that ask if you would be willing to use something have little validity. Nearly everyone is willing to try something on a survey but in real life, the story is very different.
The Novell/Microsoft deal is not Microsoft "thawing toward Linux", it is Microsoft attempting to exploit the patent system to spread their FUD in new ways because all other efforts have been ineffective. It is becoming tiresome to see this lie perpetuated. I know the Novell/Microsoft press release claimed it was all about interoperability between Windows and Linux but that was just a red herring for those not familiar with Microsoft's business history, and it sounds a lot better to Novell's customers than "Novell management cashes out and does long-term harm to the company in exchange for a short term financial benefit".
Here is a simple question for anyone who believes the interoperability cover story, if Microsoft actually cared about interoperability why would they be paying Novell, or anyone else for that matter, hundreds of millions of dollars? Microsoft is the only organization in the world that has access to both complete Microsoft source code and Linux source code, if they wanted interoperability they would be in a better position than anyone else. Or, without spending a dime, they could simply release the specs which already exist internally for any number of proprietary non-standard pieces of software such as active directory protocols, smb/cifs protocols, exchange server, ntfs specs, wmv, etc etc. Rather than force everyone to reverse-engineer everything.
I don't doubt that Linux will experience significant growth over the next few years, but this particular article is just more phb-oriented magazine filler.
SharePoint is going to me Microsoft's collaboration tool of choice and not only does Linux not play with it, it doesn't have a competing offering.
Do you mean there's no open source competitive offering? Because there are products like Stoneware. That used to run on Linux, haven't checked up on it in a couple years but it offers web portal features, single sign-on, application framing. I'm not sure what else you'd want a competing product to do.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The only reason you'd ever need to replace the kernel is for better hardware support or for specific features built into the kernel like firewalling, SMBFS, NFS, etc.
Or because some major flaws have found their way into the kernel resulting in the maintainers to strongly advice everyone to upgrade asap. As it has happened several times in the past now, even in the current (2.6) kernel tree. Now read back to "active development in the kernel" and you can see a big obstacle for mission critical systems.
This is OT, but since I don't know where else to put it: Why do I have to load 500kb of css and js before the page even starts displaying? I know there was some article about pages loading for more than 4 seconds lose user interesst, well this page loads way longer (I visit the links in the RSS feed: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/31/ 0430229&from=rss 15 seconds on my 7Mb connection).
Another funny thing is that the js consist mostly of comments...
Answer is easy: complain to dell about lack of Linux drivers.
Believe me, Free Software developers really would love to support every hardware possible, but how are they supposed to do so without cooperation from hardware manufacturers? It's still amazing how much hardware is supported despite the lack of interest of most hardware vendors.
You guys always do this; you talk about "Linux" but you are really talking about either the X Windows System or you're talking about the thousands of various software tools (such as all the GNU software) in the various distributions or you're talking about the various applications software packages that run on Linux and X, most of which also run on, for example, BSD and X.
Everybody here at Slashdot knows this already but, still, and probably forever, most people won't know this. So, is this OK? I don't think so. Linux is the heart but X is the blood, lungs, bones, muscle and skin. Let's get over being shy or ignorant about the importance of X, its uniqueness as a network display protocol, the renaissance in X development, the activity in X related projects like cairo, SVG, all things GL (OpenGL,XGL, AIXGL), Desktop environments based on X, etc..
Let's get over being shy about the importance of the UNIX component model and the valuable tool extensions that make this approach so much more useful than the monolithic approaches of other operating environments, such as rsync, scripting, et al.. And lastly, let's start talking about the absolute need for network computing. That's the computing paradigm of the present and the future. Let's talk about how so much of Linux, X, rsync (for example) and the applications are already so well suited for making use of and advancing that approach to software. Network computing is replacing the desktop as the next 'big thing', so let's start talking about that, why don't we? The game console manufacturers have recognized and accepted this, so why don't we accept that this is also true for applications?
There's many IT support staff who can't administer Unix systems and therefore they can't administer Linux.
The problem is, they can't really administer MS-Windows boxes, either.
A basic understanding of computers would give any decent admin the ability to administer a Unix system (whether it's Linux, *BSD, OpenSolaris, or any of 'em). They might have to spend a week or two installing and learning their way around the system, and to grok the Unix Way, but they could do it.
Too many MS-Windows admins learn by rote, and not by concept. Many can set up DHCP, for instance, but not have a clue what DHCP really does, other than hand out IP addresses.
Oh, well. The same is true of some Linux people I know-- they couldn't handle an MS-Windows system, because they lack fundamentals.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Yes.
I remember trying RH some years ago, and could barely get it off the ground.
Then, last year, I was trying to set up Wordpress under Windows, and just couldn't get it going, so I stuck Ubuntu Linux on a box. It installed like a dream, and I had one problem with the wireless card (I bought a new one!), and then it was fine. I now do Wordpress development on it.
It's a lot, lot better. I believe it's moved from "hardcore geek" to "power user" level. You still get some setup problems, it's not as easy as grabbing a PC from Dell, and nor will it do certain things so easily (like games, DVD playback, well-known applications).
So, it's not ready for Joe User to set up... yet. However, Ubuntu is quite straightforward, though. Installing software and upgrades is probably easier than Windows.
Incidentally, I agree with what you say in general. There's a whole lot more than the technical merits of Linux to consider.
Download a live ISO (or get Ubuntu to send you a CD) and try it as a live CD. I'd be interested to hear how you get on.
Does that mean installing/uninstalling software under linux is now standardized, logical and quick, even for people who never used it before? Have you ever watched a new linux user try to install all their software onto a linux box without any help? Linux will not get any mainstream adoption until THAT need is addressed, and that's a promise.
Promise all you want. Linux is already mainstream.
We're talking server here. The article is talking server. The thing it overlooks is that Linux is *already* a major enterprise player.
And when it comes to installing / uninstalling enterprise server software, MS-Windows doesn't have a standard way of installing/uninstalling. The "putting the software where it goes" piece is covered: every major GNU/Linux distro has a standard way of installing and uninstalling. MS-Windows has a semi-standard way.
But the hard part isn't putting the software where it needs to go. The hard part is setting up Cisco Call Manager, or Oracle Financials, or Apache / IIS / whatever.
As far as the desktop is concerned, you lock it down (easy to do in Linux), and set up automatic updates from a central, controlled server. Roll out your updates when the users aren't logged on, and make a forced logout procedure so users can't be logged on unless they are scheduled to work at that time.
Users should never install their own software at work. That is the second-worst cause of computer failure in the workplace. (The number one cause is incompetent admins.)
With Linux, you don't even have to worry about viruses, so you don't have the hell that AV software brings.
But, to answer your post: Linux isn't like MS-Windows.
Thank God.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
OTOH, if I'd had a million dollars for everytime it became true, I'd be living under a bridge feasting out of the bins behind the restaurant.
Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
If you buy a "preloaded PC" with linux you don't need an admin. Only thing to do is the periodic update, ubuntu and probably other distros pop up a notice when updates are available IIRC. I guess driver issues are tackled by the manufacturer.
With windows, if you don't know what defrag, scinandisk, viruses, spyware are, the pc needs to se an admin in a matter of a couple months.
With windows, hot-plugging the same device in a different usb port is a problem.
Even firewalls are more intrusive in windows, vs the arno stateful iptables firewall script i use. Unless it's the reportedly sometimes ineffective windows personal firewall.
So who need more administration?
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
"Does that mean installing/uninstalling software under linux is now standardized, logical and quick, even for people who never used it before? Have you ever watched a new linux user try to install all their software onto a linux box without any help? Linux will not get any mainstream adoption until THAT need is addressed, and that's a promise"
.. Calling rpm with half a dosen switches (after reading a manual for 3 hours)"
Have you ever watched a new user installing Windows from scratch. If installing Windows is such a breeze then why are call centers such a growth industry. Since most of the standard apps come preistalled I doubt the new user would even have to install. For instance Linspire comes out of the box with Internet Suite, Email, Internet, instant messaging, Office Suite, Instant Messaging, Digital Music, Digital Photos, Wireless Capability, Plug and Play, Web Publishing. If that's not enough then there is an online update service. Just click and install. Off the top of my head SuSE, Mandrake, Debian all come with graphical installers. As do most of the rest I assume.
"but those are the reasons I put Mandrake 6.x, RH 7.0,7.1 and 7.2, suse x.x into a box and put the box under my bed and hardly bothered with them for the last 5 years"
Are you one of these Linux geeks who still live with their parents?
"I use the operating system to get things done, and I don't want to wrestle with it, I want it to do things intuitively"
You will be pleased to know that Redhat now comes with a graphical installer. As for getting things done, I put people down in front of a SuSE KDE/desktop and do know what, they can't tell the difference.
"unless getting RPM's to go to the right place and install the right way has gotten any simpler
I don't understand how you have to tell the RPM where to install. What took three hours to type RPM -Uvh.
"Long story short, I just wanted to get a basic functional web server together"
I also don't understand how you equate installing a web server with what the new user would ever want to do.
--
"do it to them before they do it to us", Sergeant Stan Jablonski
was I wonder. (Score:2), Troll
davecb5620@gmail.com
Using ubuntu, I can pop in a USB disk/backup hard drive via usb and it immediately comes with up a nautilus window for browsing. Double clicking a tar/tar.gz archive brings up the archive manager and it's simipler to use than winzip because it doesn't have several prompts before anything can be done.
Can your grandma use XP, recieve a zip from you on a usb disk and drag the files to her desktop? Does she know how to get winzip? Install it? Configure it so it doesn't run it's own daemon and steal valuable memory? Click "I agree" every time it opens?
ubuntu sounds EASIER in this context.
We're trying to incorporate more Linux systems in our office, but as an accounting firm, almost everything is Windows only. From Quickbooks to the ProSystemFX suites of Engagement and Tax, we're pretty well stuck on Windows for the most part.
:) I think it's going to be good. My younger took about 3 minutes to look around, and the next thing I knew, she had changed her background and theming - I was really impressed. AAAAAaaanyway, back to the discussion.
That said, we've been working with Citrix on an experimental basis in order to add better remote functionality to our staff - and Linux boxes might wind up being the way to go on the client end. I know I've been using Ubuntu on my laptop exclusively for a year now, and a lot of our users have been coming up to me and asking what the deal is with the cube and whatnot (Beryl - check it out if you haven't yet, very very cool - http://www.beryl-project.org/), and I just use remote desktop to manage servers and once in a while run Windows apps if I really need to.
Also, and this is a total self-serving link, I just wrote about giving my kids Linux laptops. http://endcycle.blogspot.com/ - SO FAR, they love Edubuntu. We'll see how long that lasts, though.
--endcycle--
BS. I am using a default ubuntu install right now. I make a file called foo.deb
I then use nautilus to browse to it and double click on it. It opens "gdebi", a very nice simple package installer/deb reader GUI.
If I use a real deb, it gives me a nice button with a green checkmark labeled "Install Package". The first tab it gives me is the package description. The second tab is "details" listing the maintainers, version and size. The final tab gives a list of files installed.
It's called working off-hours. Learn how to administer a network.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
For purposes of this post, I am going to ignore the implications of MS FUD in TFA, and specifically address whether or not (IMHO) Linux is ready for the desktop. Additionally, let me preface this by saying that I have used Linux as my sole desktop for PCs since 1994, but roughly two years ago switched to OS X on a Powerbook G4.
I recently tried to install Linux (specifically Ubuntu) on my Powerbook. To be fair, the live CD worked flawlessly and I was really impressed. Additionally, AirPort Extreme drivers are not working for PPC Linux, BUT I do not hold any distribution at fault for that because there are legal issues related to the open source version of the driver.
The installation went smoothly until I got to the Yaboot install - which failed. After considerable poking around, I read that there is a new bug in Yaboot when dealing with ATA drives. After several hours of manually editing the conf file - I finally figured out a manual workaround that solved the problem. However, I was frusturated by the whole process. Some time ago, I tried Yellow Dog (4.1, i think) - which installed flawlessly using Yaboot. This tells me that the new ATA bug was introduced recently. In the time since I first tried YD to the time I tried Ubuntu - I expected progress - not regression. While someone with time and experience can work through these problems, how can anyone expect Joe-six-pack to be impressed and not pissed when he tries it? One of the major Mac rags just ran an article about multi-desktop Macs and included mention of Linux. Each time someone with a Powerbook (or some other Mac with an ATA drive) attempts to install Ubuntu (or even openSuse for that matter), they will run across such bug and be soured.
The community as a whole needs a better way to deal with (read prevent) issues like the one I just encountered. While I understand how and why said bug occured, and how to work around it, someone trying to install Linux for the first time will run across it, get pissed, tell their friends Linux sucks, and get on with their lives. I firmly know that Linux has a better (read more stable) kernel than MS, and that all of the components necessary for Linux to be a prime candidate for the desktop are in place. Additionally, I believe that open-source is a better route. BUT, until the community gets its shit together and makes a distribution that works - Linux on the desktop will continue to be an uphill battle.
First, we compare how you install a program in that paragon of user-friendlyness, Windows:
.dmg to the desktop .dmg
1- Find out what program you need (for, say, download illegal movies)
2- Google for it
3- Find a legitimate site to download it without spyware
4- Download the program to the desktop
5- Run it with admin privileges so it can wreak havoc on your system as it wants
6- Do the Next-Next-Finish dance
Now, let's compare it to the MacOS X way of doing:
1- Find out what program you need (for, say, download illegal movies)
2- Google for it
3- Find the site for downloading it (little risk of spyware)
4- Download the
5- Open the
6- Drag the program to the Applications folder
And then, let's compare it with the Debian/Ubuntu way:
1- Start Aptitude (from the System/Administration menu)
2- Search for the keywords
3- Choose between the search hits
4- Select them for installation
5- Press Apply.
Now, let's compare what to do to keep your programs up-to-date
On Windows:
1- Check regularly all web-sites for all programs you installed and see if there is a new version
2- Repeat steps 4 through 6
3- It is possible to have to uninstall the previous version before doing step 2. Most probably you will find it out too late, anyway.
On a Macintosh:
1- Check regularly all web-sites for all programs you installed and see if there is a new version
2- Repeat steps 4 through 6
3- There may still be some application files under "Library", but Mac users don't care.
On Ubuntu:
1- You just press a button and enter your password when prompted
As you see, Linux still has a very long way to beat the ease of use of Windows.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Here's what happens when I right-click on a .deb in Kubuntu Edgy:
e bxj7.png
http://img503.imageshack.us/my.php?image=installd
I am so fucking sick of people complaining about how difficult things are to install in Linux. It always starts with something like:
"Well my friend said Slackware was good, but when I tried to install Apache..."
"Have you even TRIED to install something on Red Hat 6?"
"I downloaded this thing called a 'source tarball' and it couldn't even install it!"
"'Console'? Why do I have to speak computer-language? I thought you said Gentoo was new!"
For Christ's sake people, choose the distribution that is appropriate for your uses, and start sentences with "How do I" instead of "Linux needs to learn". If you're an idiot migrating from Windows, you should use Kubuntu, and not jump the bridge like Parent here when something isn't exactly the same.
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
Back when I was with a Solaris shop, complete newbies could start being productive with godawful CDE in only a couple of days. The idea that people need gooey flashy hardware accelerated desktops with animated paperclips in order to be productive is an absurd myth.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!