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