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."

Comments

Selfserving Article

[Cyclops]

Only there to promote Microsoft/Novell and Oracle. It's making a campaign in favour of our enemies disguised as a positive article.

Re:Selfserving Article

[Umbral Blot]

"our enemies"? I find it hard to consider a corporate entity my enemy (or a friend). They aren't people, so it doesn't make perfect sense to relate to them in this way. Certainly I can relate to the members of the company, but those members are constantly changing. And if some of those members do things I disagree with it doesn't mean that everyone in that company is reprehensible, or out to get me.

Re:Selfserving Article

[aussie_a]

They aren't people Tell that to the law.

Re:Selfserving Article

[jb.hl.com]

The law doesn't make something so. I could legislate that a reindeer was a tree and reindeers wouldn't suddenly become trees.

Re:Selfserving Article

[theCoder]

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.

Re:Selfserving Article

[magixman]

Only there to promote Microsoft/Novell and Oracle. It's making a campaign in favour of our enemies disguised as a positive article.

I believe that attitudes such as this are actually holding back the adoption of Linux. It creates a sense that the proponents of Linux are all driven by their hatred of Microsoft rather than a cool-headed and objective choice of which operating system is better for a given situation.

Re:Selfserving Article

[Dutch_Cap]

The whole committee or just the chairman?

Re:Selfserving Article

[slashbob22]

By chair-man, do you mean Steve Ballmer?

Re:Selfserving Article

[Pad-Lok]

Judge Dredd disagrees with you.

Re:Selfserving Article

[sarathmenon]

A company is legally an entity, and is as much an entity as you when they pay taxes, get represented in courts or sign agreements. This has been the way for the past 2 or more centuries. You can sue Novell, you can pay for licenses to Novell etc ...

Of course, if you are looking to screw a company, or take them out to a date, then its a different story ;)

Re:Selfserving Article

[Cyclops]

I presume you're confusing all variants of the GNU/Linux operating system with the Linux kernel, in detriment of all the good folks work, in favor of a select few kernel developers.

As long as you continue to confuse a kernel with a full operating system, then you don't even hold a credible opinion either on the matter of the adoption of Free Software: you don't even know what you're talking about!

What is holding back the adoption of Free Software is pure and simply the concertated actions of companies like Microsoft, trying to hold on to their monopolies and power over all subjects, or users if you prefer...

I'm sorry, but this isn't the rosy world you seem to live in. They *are* out to get us.

In the paper I linked, it is described how Microsoft recommends hardware makers to not disclose any information of their hardware, because other people might make other drivers...

Re:Selfserving Article

[grcumb]

I believe that attitudes such as this are actually holding back the adoption of Linux. It creates a sense that the proponents of Linux are all driven by their hatred of Microsoft rather than a cool-headed and objective choice of which operating system is better for a given situation.

Why do you assume that the two are mutually exclusive? You don't think people are capable of making a decision based on years of frustration and pain, and deriving a logical solution to their problem?

Let me tell you something: I loathe Microsoft professionally. I avoid it whenever I can. I use their products as little as possible, to the extent that I will invest time and effort in creating an alternative rather than to use theirs.

That said, I'm objective enough to give credit where credit is due. Some of their products, for better or for worse, are the best available right now. Where that's the case, I either advocate using their products or creating something better, or both.

But when I look at what Microsoft has done - and continues to do - to the world of software, I cringe. I get really angry. I actively work to oppose them, and to find viable alternatives. The fact that I apply myself with a passion doesn't take anything away from my objectivity. So kindly leave your Platonic false dichotomies at the door, and accept that people can on occasion walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.

(P.S. If you don't think there's any reason to have strong feelings about Microsoft, you haven't been in the business long enough.)

cash cow?

[polar red]

"most large vendors remain tied to legacy cash-cow operating systems"
I wonder who they mean by cash-cow OS?

Re:cash cow?

[aussie_a]

Apple?

Legitimate at last

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Legitimate at last

[PopeRatzo]

You had to go there, didn't you. You had to bring up Bush and the myth that the war in Iraq is "lost" and was a "bad idea". You can't just leave well enough alone and talk about kernels and bandwidth and C++ and stuff, but you had to go and start pointing fingers just because a guy makes ONE LITTLE MISTAKE and invades the wrong country. Iraq/Iran, I mean, they're only ONE LETTER APART. So get ready to be modded down by some REAL AMERICANS who aren't quite so nitpicky. Not when Bush is doing such a great job, President-wise.

How about reading the freaking article?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:SharePoint?

[SQLz]

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.

Re:Propaganda

[SQLz]

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.

Re:Propaganda

[robzon]

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.

Re:It's happening - slowly

[HvitRavn]

I thought the "year of Windows" was 1995 :)

Re:Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

We have over 1000 employees and 7000 linux boxes, 1200 of which are workstations, and 4 admins.

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.

Re:It's happening - slowly

[hclyff]

Bollocks! Revolution is coming, any time now!

Re:That's a bunch of crap.

[Frozen Void]

Maybe in a paralell universe where everyone compiles kernels for breakfast and writes their own drivers.

Re:Study find that

[Znork]

"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...)).

Re:Propaganda

[mackyrae]

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.

study might be good but the article isn't

[EjectButton]

from the article:

Microsoft's thawing toward Linux is now easier to understand when faced with such data

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.

Re:SharePoint?

[Kjella]

It's the usual game of lock-ins and lock-outs. Microsoft is trying to lock people in - Linux (= a subset of the OSS community, and mostly nothing to do with the kernel) is trying to create compatible solutions to unlock them. As for Linux always copying Microsoft - somehow I don't think Microsoft is intentionally trying to spite their customers, to get best cost/gain ratio by cutting costs, obsoleteing products and charging monopolist prices sure, but I don't think there's anyone at Microsoft thinking "Hmm.. I got this great product we could sell, but that'd be too good for them. Let's give them some half-assed jumble instead."

Microsoft employ a lot of smart people, they have plenty experience, plenty HCI studies, plenty user feedback. Yes, marketing dictates that they need to put out new products no matter if the customer is happy with the current ones, but unless you consider Widnows XP perfect then there's plenty *real* improvements they can do in addition to the wizzy "new look". There's a good change they know that "ok, looks will get us this far but we need to actually deliver on a few things too". That's not to say that Linux should try to chase every distraction but SharePoint isn't just a Microsoft flirt. Many businesses want SharePoint, or something like SharePoint.

Do you know what the Microsoft products often really are to the Linux community (and I bet this'll get moderated as flamebait)? It's the rallying flag, it puts everyone on target about "what are we making". "An excel clone, a photoshop clone, a sharepoitn clone". It's the closest thing many projects have to a vision or functional goal (because they won't/can't agree on their own, bazaar thing). That doesn't mean you don't take good ideas from other places, scratch your own personal itches and so on, but it's putting everyone on the same track. It's easy to say "let's go our own way" but when hundred different developers go hundered different ways, you rarely get very far. And then "well Widnows is doing ti, so it can't be half bad" is the compromise.

You guys always do this

[viewtouch]

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?

Re:I wonder.

[Tony]

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.

my experiences -

[jmahler]

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.

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. :) 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.

Close, but not yet...

[gentlemen_loser]

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.

Re:SharePoint?

[Blakey Rat]

How about you *use* Sharepoint for at least 1/10th of a second before making moronic statements like this?

In any case, they're not throwing away:

1) TCO- it comes with Office now, and they already own Office.
2) Security- it's hard to find something to compare Sharepoint to, security-wise, since there's literally no competing software out there. But its security is sufficient for two reasons: first, it runs on intranets only and isn't exposed to the internet, and second there haven't been any huge vulnerabilities announced for it yet.
3) Ease of administration- Sharepoint makes every manager an administrator of their particular sub-site. And it's easy enough that I've seen many non-technical managers operate it correctly with no problems whatsoever. So not only is it easy to administer, but it's easy to administer for non-techs.
4) Power- Since there's no competing product in the marketplace, it's really hard to talk about power. So I won't.
5) "All the free enterprise proven software available"- Since companies using Sharepoint generally aren't using Linux, they're not throwing anything away. Sharepoint may not be free, but it's definitely enterprise-proven. After all, Microsoft is one of the biggest enterprises there is, and they use it all over on a daily basis... I doubt any Linux-based software of this type can say that much.

All that aside, the main thing you're missing is that Sharepoint is a *lot* more than a "glorified calendar and wiki program" and that, right now, there is literally ZERO competition. The reason Microsoft has a monopoly is not because their software is so great, but because, in a lot of areas, they have barely any competition. If the Linux community really wants to displace Office/Sharepoint, then they're going to have to make an alternate to it that's as easy to use as and as functional, and I don't see that happening.

(For example, most Linux users will refuse to admit that OpenOffice isn't as good as Office, or that GIMP isn't as good as Photoshop. Until those blinders come off, those products will never improve enough to compete with Office or Photoshop. Of course, GIMP's developers have their head so far up their ass, it'll likely never compete with Photoshop regardless.)

Rehash of Desiderata: a pratical application

[mysticgoat]

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

Re:Propaganda

[Brandybuck]

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.