Slashdot Mirror
10 Years of Pushing For Linux — and Giving Up
boyko.at.netqos writes "Jim Sampson at Network Performance Daily writes about his attempts over a decade to get Linux working in a business/enterprise environment, but each time, he says, something critical just didn't work, and eventually, he just gave up. The article caps with his attempts to use Ubuntu Edgy Eft — only to find a bug that still prevented him from doing work." Quoting: "For the next ten years, I would go off and on back to this thought: I wanted to support the Open Source community, and to use Linux, but every time, the reality was that Linux just was not ready... Over the last six years, I've tried periodically to get Linux working in the enterprise, thinking, logically, that things must have improved. But every time, something — sometimes something very basic — prevented me from doing what I needed to do in Linux."
Your frustrations aren't unique.
In fact, I've experienced them both at home and at work with Linux.
But I would like to point out that some of the problems you faced (like integration with MS Exchange server) are simply Microsoft not wanting to release/support/adapt to standards. I know you're not directly blaming the Linux community for your (and the seemingly global) failure in adopting it but what is putting a real big halt on it in the corporate environment is companies working against it. Maybe this will change but I highly doubt it.
The shortcomings that Linux suffers are a result of poor design. Poor design of third party devices, software & services. If all the wireless card manufacturers got together and agreed on a interoperable adapter interface to their cards, it would mean that the OS developers would just need to write one other side for ever driver of every wireless card to work. The problem is that if they opened this up, they perceive their competitors would grow stronger by seeing their research. I suppose something could be said about this hampering innovation or removing the option to continually change chipsets in the search for the cheaper/better hardware, I don't know enough about wireless cards. But one would think everyone could agree on some interface to use. This is apparently a good design practice but poor business move.
I reiterate that you are not alone in your frustration. You didn't fail to adopt Linux, Linux didn't fail to meet your needs, it was the entire community and their business practices that failed you.
My work here is dung.
I am sure there will be Hundreds of comments saying. Well if he tried this it would work, or I did it where I am and it works fine, Get rid of Microsoft Something and replace it with GNU Something then it will work better, or do you really need that feature....
But let's face the truth. Beyond running as a server of some sort where it does one thing and does it will, Linux just stinks and most of the community doesn't want to admit there is a problem and let alone fix it. There is an attitude that it is the Users aka Customers fault for any problem that occurs, and the program is perfect unless a "Skilled" hacker was able to break your application and find a security problem.
This attitude has limited Linux's growth. Let's face it, Companies actually want to migrate to Linux and get off all the problems with Microsoft but they are not going to go 10 years back in technology and loose features they come to enjoy. As well if they will have trouble communicating with other companies who don't have their infrastructure then they won't switch. IT is Information Technology, INFORMATION... is the key if they can't share Information then the Technology is useless. So if they can't run all their old apps there is a loss in information, If they cannot access a shared information location then it is loss of information, If they cannot figure out how to use the application and get the information they want then there is a loss of Information. If the Linux solution has bad or missing document (or missing Information) then it is useless.
Most companies are not willing to change everything all at once if they can't have a gradual migration then they wont go with that product set. We need more developers for Linux and Linux applications who openly say Linux Sucks, that way we can get better tools especially for business use. But right now the majority of the OSS developers are like Linux is Coolest and most noble system on earth. So how do you improve on the godly system if in your mind it is already perfect.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
This guy was pushing Linux for a decade and decided to give up today, a just a few days after Vista announcement? Give me a break
They always fail to mention that Management refuses to let the project actually work by letting go of exchange servers and this uncanny belief that you HAVE TO HAVE ACTIVE DIRECTORY OR WE WILL ALL DIE! Truth is that active directory is overrated and better solutions exist for linux, Exchange is not any better than other solutions, etc....
Many companies were able to switch when they got buy in and support from management to do so. You HAVE To replace your infrastructure and backend way before you replace the fontend. Then you can slowly change what people see and touch. It's a lot of work to pry microsoft from your server rooms.
The best solution is to not let it in to begin with or not allow it to touch anything new.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
From the "article":
I hate to use such strong language, but this guy is a total retard.
How is this news, exactly? This is like me taking a fine American car to UK and complaining that the car sucks because I have to drive on the other side of the road!
Thank you for your exciting commentary. Now how exactly does this contribute to the discussion about the difficulty of integrating Linux into a business environment?
why? forty-two.
Well the thing you should look back and realize. The Open Source Community rather quickly got SMB support in its file systems, and that was closed like Exchange was. The only different is that OSS Developers (Many who are in colleges) realize the demand for needed to connect to windows networking. But being that most colleges don't use exchange especially for students the amount of work done to make Linux work with exchange is pathetic at best. Having people use the web interface, or a terminal service is stupid and most and requires more horse power then currently, and they get a worse experience.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I suppose that all IT departments at companies that run Windows are just sitting on their thumbs, doing nothing, then?!
There is no silver bullet. Running a Microsoft OS (or even an Apple OS) doesn't magically make everything work. There will still be things that don't work right - it'll just be different things.
Your computer is a tool. If it doesn't do what you need, then fine; get a different tool. But for many businesses, the appropriate tool *is* linux, and it does the job well. Please don't presume to be the voice of everyman.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
If you RTFA, you see that his problems are a Microsoft environment at work that required seamless exchange of MS DOC formats and MS Exchange. Since MS does not open those formats, the applications under Linux are not 100% compatible with the proprietary MS environment. So he gave up.
/.
While his decision is probably OK for his MS centric environment, it does by no means mean that Linux is somehow at fault. So, no news.
Short: His blog entry is superfluous and was for no good reason reflected at
Dumb. Bordering on flamebait.
/. are getting tired. I liked it when articles were on something resembling reporting, and not random people complaining and submitters/editors going "hey, that's about Linux, and we have a couple wacky category icons with penguins..."
Wherever the author says "business/enterprise/IT environment", he forgets a critical proper noun: he means "Microsoft-centric business/enterprise/IT environment".
Author Gripe #1: Ancient (1998) StarOffice sucked at Word/PowerPoint files.
Author Gripe #2: In 2004, nothing played with Exchange, and "you can't function" without Exchange.
Author Gripe #3: In 2006, one version of Evolution on one distro didn't have a "subscribe" button for Exchange Server public folders.
Author Solution: Give up on Linux.
Okay... Note that none of the above have much to do with Linux. And I don't mean to be a "omg it's userspace, not the kernel" zealotroll, but really. His gripes are in two apps. The last gripe is particularly weak; I'm not knowledgeable if the problem is fixed in Evolution (or if it's even a bug), but what is potentially "there are missing buttons" does not "Linux unprepared for the enterprise environment!!!" make.
On an unrelated note (and I don't mean this as ad hominim or anything, just curious), is this site anything more than a NetQoS company blog? These kinds of posts hitting
In other words: "I blame Linux, because the company I work for is too lazy, or too stubborn, or just plain too stupid to use standard-compliant software , instead of being a Microsoft-only shop". Yeah, right. Microsoft Excel and Power Point and Word run into all kind of problems when you try to use their files under Open Office. That's not a surprise, it's a Microsoft policy and it is exactly designed to lock the competition (Linux or others) out. And, guess what? It works!
A little bit like the poor South Koreans that used Windows for everything and are now stuck with a new OS (Microsoft Vista) that is incompatible with the ActiveX encryption utilities that are used by... well, 90%+ of the population.
What this article reveals (beyond the obvious FUD) is precisely that Linux is not the problem: Microsoft is the problem, as well as its closed standards and its closed filed formats . End of story.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
> So no, it is not ready for the desktop and
> it will not be until MS and Macromedia decide so.
At least there's a Flash 9 player for Linux now, so that's nice. We couldn't do an indi Linux port until that happened... now I'm working away on it. Well, back to GtkWidget and all that...
The Army reading list
Open source operating system has problems inter-operating with closed, constantly changing, standards-free, and hostile proprietary system.
Alert the blogosphere!
I mean, I feel for the guy trying to get Linux to work in a Microsoft-only environment, but this isn't exactly surprising, at all. Hell, Microsoft has problems getting their own software (Entourage in Office Mac) working with Exchange. The answer is to never use Exchange in the first place. If you're already locked into Exchange and its feature set as a driving force within your business, you're going to have to suck up and deal, or go through the pain of a switchover to something that's reasonably open. I've got the same problem with a client which is a marketing department of a large Netware based company, and the marketing people all use Macs exclusively, and the Novell Mac client is too buggy to use, forcing them to install VirtualPC on their machines so they can to basic e-mail and scheduling stuff. Costly, you bet, especially in my time because of how buggy it all is, and the idiotic design flaws of their network, but they can't just switch over because they're locked in to Netware after years of use, and they're paying for that shortsighted decision. However, it's still cheaper than dealing with the upheaval of switching from Netware to something reasonable.
I *thought* the great strength of OSS was the ability of the community of users to contribute directly to its development either by direct development or by conversing with the developers. When some says "Linux would work for me/my company IF..." the development community really needs to sit up and pay attention if they want to continue to grow their userbase and be taken seriously.
All too often the reaction to just such a statement is...well, what the parent says. "It can't/won't be done, you need to just use what we/they give you, you're doing it wrong." The response of the user raising the issue is almost always to drop Linux and return to Windows, which does what they need without the hoops of Terminal Services and incomplete WINE compatibility.
You want more people using Linux? Listen when they ask for something.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
and release a version of Office/Outlook which runs on a linux box in a lot fewer words.
After all, freaking High School kids can release code packaged for Linux. Should we really believe MSFT doesn't have the chops to get the job done?
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Trying to chase MS through their Office releases, remaining completely compatable to a proprietary format is a fool's errand. This guy should have realized this way beforehand.
Linux, or any heterogeneous OS environment, works well when the data travels on an open protocol, not some convoluted, broken document format. MS does great work with their products, don't get me wrong, and I have a lot of respect for the Office suite. However, If they don't want people to use it without Windows, then don't chase it. It's just easier to work the psychology of the workers and convince them to use a different standard.
Any what's with that photo?! Did someone just mash his face backwards to fit in the frame?
Over the last year I've been moving between Windows, OS X on a Powerbook, and a relatively recent SUSE install on a PC.
The truth is that each of them has shortcomings. The good news I guess is that most of these are irritating, not fatal.
Windows IMHO is not a long term option because of the creeping DRM and the obsessive control of the computing environment that MS seems to want. Frankly I have this horrible feeling that Vista will open a can of worms that will never end.
OS X just has too many irritating or dumb features, or lack thereof, that drive me around the bend. I'm not talking about things that are different from Windows, I'm talking about boneheaded design and UI mistakes that no-one in Mac land seems to be willing to admit are a problem.
Linux, well at this point for me it works 90% out of the box, much better than a few years ago, but that last 10% can be a nightmare. As always with Linux, if it works it's lovely, but if it doesn't you're off into that hell of MAN pages and web forums, filled with half answers, slightly incorrect assumptions, and Linux arrogance.
I'm weary of tinkering with computers. I just want to turn it on and have it do what I want easily and without irritation. And I want to be able to TURN OFF "features" that annoy me.
No OS does that yet.
Three Squirrels
This article clearly points out what so many people have had trouble with-- for years now. A lot of people do not want to embrace the monopoly of Microsoft. Yet with Linux you can't really get your work done without a lot of knowledge and sweat. It's ain't easy. And to make things worse, Linux distro's customize their GUI's to look and behave like their major competitor-- Windows! I find this amusing and ironic.
I look to my own empirical evidence: Of 7 software engineers (people traditionally unlikely to consider an alternative OS for development), 5 have purchased a MacBook Pro. Of my close social group of friends, only 2 out of 10+ have a Mac.
People who want something simple buy a mac. Now, people that also want to install multiple OS's (Linux, Windows, OS X) also buy a Mac.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
No, he doesn't have to adapt.
This is a capitalistic society--Linux variants need to adapt or die. Not the customers.
Either they have to provide the functionality needed to communicate with the software in question, or they have to provide a suitable replacement with a good migration capability. Good, consistent user interfaces is a plus.
Demanding that the *customer* adapt is just silly and a good way to make sure that linux remains marginal.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
The Open Source community can develop BSD and/or Linux and associated applications until the cows come home to roost, but Microsoft and their products will never go away. There will always be people using Windows, Office, and whatever. Try as one might, true interoperability will be difficult until Microsoft cares to participate in the effort.
At present, Microsoft is part of the problem, not the solution. They don't care if Open Source software succeeds and have no desire to help.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I can admin, program and integrate both platforms and exploit the advantages of both.
"Those who are limited to a single platform or language will always be limited"
Got Code?
eh? give me a story about a grandma buying a computer somewhere *that didn't already have Windows installed* and then installing Windows on it, tracking down all the important drivers, and setting up her internet connection, and then WE'LL talk.
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
Exchange is double hard; you really have to run it in a terminal environment to get the full feature set out of it. The web interface is rife with Active X...Even running it through a secure Apache proxy is a hell of a lot more complex than you would think.
My advice is always to go with Lotus, but Lotus is slow and it's a bear to customize, so even though it runs well in Linux, you've got people to soothe. Same with OpenOffice.
What it comes down to is: There is nothing wrong with Linux. We just don't have a killer office suite, or a killer server based productivity suite. End of story.
And as long as we're forced to use our biggest competitions Office and Productivity suites, we're always going to have problems.
And SMB support is HUGELY easier than having an Office/Exchange substitute.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Personally I've found with corporate networks especially that it's never good to be all of one thing in particular. Linux is best (in my opinion) at performing discrete tasks incredibly well - for example, storage (using lvm in particular), web (Apache), Internet caching & proxying, but as for operating top-to-bottom tasks such as managing numerous workstation and user policies, I'm afraid Windows wins it - the instant integration built-in to Windows is incredible.
I can plug in any Windows 2000 and upward PC into the network I manage, and within minutes, it'll be fully patched, have all the software we need installed, and be fully locked-down & generally configured (company screen-saver, explorer bar and such things) - all without actually touching it.
But I digress, my point really is that there are few cases where a network is running well without a mix of technology. Running one without the other is a bad idea if you ask me.
throw new NoSignatureException();
With all these tech companies supposedly "selling" Linux solutions, the time has never been better to offer an Evolution client for Linux, Windows, and Mac that works with a feature-rich server on the order of Exchange Server. Yet there has been (to my knowledge) no real effort to improve the groupware solutions beyound straight-up LDAP, SMTP, IMAP, and NNTP. Those are great technologies, but they're not particularly good at providing a cohesive groupware solution. At least, not without some sort of design for how they could be used to provide the missing functionality. (Calendaring is perhaps the least addressed of the missing features.)
If such a server were developed, Linux would have a much better chance in Corporate America. Especially if the said server could keep ahead of Microsoft rather than behind them. Witness Firefox as an example. Microsoft slacked on IE (as they're prone to do when they have an uncontested lead) and paid the price by being surpassed. Exchange hasn't changed to any appreciable degree for a long time now, so the opportunity exists. Strike while the iron is hot.
But then again, what do I know? I'm just another developer in this crazy corporate world.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I don't get blanket statements like this. As if there isn't buggy software for MacOS or Windows.
... um office and MSVC as being "more" productive. But the point is Linux == Kernel, it's not the distro or desktop. Maybe this guy hates KDE, but that doesn't preclude Gnome or icewm or wm from being suitable, maybe he hates OpenOffice where Abiword would be a better fit...
But i daily use Gnome, OpenOffice, tetex, gcc, etc. I can't imagine sitting here to use Windows, Office,
Go buy Vista than you hater!
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
The community, like any other community, helps itself. If you want help, become a member of the community. Don't sit on the edge and expect the community to do things for you without giving anything back.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This guy isn't looking for Linux, he's in search of a free microsoft windows clone (and office suite). Sorry dude, that's not what Linux is.
This article is not about integrating Linux into a business environment, it's about integrating with a MICROSOFT environment. Of COURSE you are going to have trouble integrating with a Microsoft environment because Microsoft has gone to extraordinary lengths to make that very very difficult (hence the reason they are in trouble with the EU.)
If you structure your IT to not be Microsoft centric, then Linux, Mac's, and Windows can all work together. If you design your entire infrastructure around Microsoft technologies, then good fracking luck.
So basically this guy's complaint is that he couldn't get Linux desktop applications to work perfectly with MS Exchange and MS Word, two of Microsoft's most proprietary applications? It worked, just not perfectly. So he gave up.
It strikes me that you could substitute MacOS or any other OS except Windows in the guy's story and all of his complaints would still be accurate.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Is quite often the GNU alternatives proposed aren't even close to being workable replacements. A good example is the classic GIMP/Photoshop thing. Anyone who's actually done prepress and played with both tools quickly finds that GIMP just won't cut it. It's neat, but you aren't going to replace PS. Yet all the time I see GIMP advocated as a replacement. I get the same thing with pro audio. I've asked, in all seriousness, for tools that can replace the expensive commercial tools like Cubase and Sonar. Invariably I get pointed to Audacity and Ardour. When I point out the massive flaws and shortcommings, I get yelled at, told to "fix it yourself the code is open", and so on.
Along those lines there's this idea that a major amount of effort should be considered acceptable for any task. If an alternative takes 50 hours to get done what the commercial package takes 1, well that's better because it's free! There's no consideration of valuation of time. You are a fool if you'd rather spend $50 than hours and hours of effort. Well of course that's not the case for many of us. I value my time and if you want to look at it in a dollar amount, I bill consulting at $100 an hour so it doesn't take much time to equal the cost of most software.
It's not that people always aren't willing to switch to a new tool/system, often they are, but it needs to offer them what their old system did. You can't present a half-assed solution and expect people to love you for it, even if it is free.
Although there is a lot of talk about TCO and such with Linux versus OS X versus Windows, it's only part of the story. Corporations, especially the large corporations which lie behind Microsoft's market share dominance, have money to burn, so it Windows costs them x more bucks per user per year, it isn't a huge issue. What they need, however, is an office suite which can make read and use the millions of documents they have on hand and the millions they need to produce We all know what office suite that is. This problem isn't unique to Linux. If MS Office for OS X disappeared overnight it would be a disaster for Apple.
Part of the problem of getting Linux accepted into wider circles is the habit of arguing on technical merit alone.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
What a hack! Blaming the open source community for Microsoft's unwillingness to make integration easier is like me blaming Ford for not making their new diesel engines run on gasoline too. It is a stupid argument. Microsoft is under no obligation to make their products play well with competing applications. People vote with their wallets and as long as Microsoft has the lion share of the market, things will remain as they are. Linux has come a long way and is a breeze to run in the majority of situations. But I still can't find a decent Broadcom wireless driver. Is that the open source community's fault? I think not. I would love to run my SLED 10 box seamlessly on my corporate domain, but the reality is that because of my own troubles with MS Exchange, I cannot do it. I don't blame anyone, certainly not Novell, Redhat, or my company and I don't post whiney blogs on the web about it either. I put on my big boys clothes, go to work and not worry about it. Someday, someone will make the integration a cinch and then I will happily hang my linux box on the corporate network and go on about my work.
Oh yeah, and he does look funny...
TheRaven64 (641858) said it right: The community does sit up if people say 'I need this feature. It's worth $X to me, who wants to implement it.' They sit up if people say 'I needed this feature and I implemented it. I also need this feature.' It does not listen if people say 'I need this feature, implement it for me for free!' If you want to pay me the $1000 that you plan to spend on proprietary software, and I'll develop the thingy that you need and make it open source, then I'd be happy do that (within reason, of course). But you'd have to accept that a) the source code would not be yours, and you're paying for a service, not software; and b) any future support of the source will either come from the user base, or you'll have to pay more money for it.
Free software is only gratis if your time is worthless.
-dave
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
I just put the following comment on the actual article, which I'll show below, but I missed adding in the professional Exchange replacements, about which you are extremely correct.
I have to agree with some of the other comments I've seen - your expectations are all wrong.
You're defining "Enterprise" as "work seamlessly in an all-Microsoft shop" and those aren't necessarily the same thing.
You also seem to be defining a good Linux experience as doing exactly what you were totally happy about in Windows but without paying.
If what you're looking for is a computer whose function is to attach to a Microsoft domain server and a Microsoft Exchange server and use all the newest Microsoft technologies relatively seamlessly, you should just install Windows. If you're happy with Windows, you should install Windows. Heck, even Microsoft Entourage for OS X can't talk to Exchange right most of the time, and MS MAKES that.
If you're talking about a transition, you're doing it backwards; put Linux on the servers first, where no non-techs have to get used to using it, where you have a greater guarantee of a limited application set, and where Linux has more experience. Also where Windows charges you more in licensing fees for fewer benefits. Samba is great.
THEN start rolling it out on desktops, starting with the thinnest ones, and using your choice of Linux-style or Windows style methods based on the situation.
But if you really want to talk fairly about Linux in Enterprise you need to talk about legitimately comparing a Linux environment with a Windows one.
You need to talk about better natural security and less time trying to clean up stupid-user infections. You need to talk about the ease of remotely configuring, updating, and reinstalling large numbers of machines. You need to talk about running remote applications via X being free. You need to talk about the registry mostly being replaced with a large number of text files you can easily and remotely overwrite and a total lack of DLL-hell, meaning you almost never HAVE to totally reinstall a machine - and if you do, you never have to open a control panel on any client machine ever to set a single setting unless you want to. A seamless ability to use any convenient desktop in the office.
Certainly there's add-on Windows enterprise software to do many of these things that Linux does naturally. And I'd point out that OS X does most of them too and has a more user friendly desktop. Some studies show substantially lower costs in terms of administrators with Linux - if the administrators know Linux.
But if all you want is a Windows machine, USE a Windows machine. Saving $129 is not, alone, a sound rationale for using Linux in a professional environment where all you seem to want is Windows.
Arete
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Please! Macs have the same interoperability problems as the ones described in the article. People who need things like Active Directory and Exchange run Windows - PERIOD.
Let me sum it up for all of you.
If person A depends on application B that run only on OS C, person A should continue using OS C. (and stop bitching about it)
If person A insists on switching to OS D, person A should be willing to give up application B, settling instead on application B', even if B' is inferior compared to the original application B. (Maybe because person A has a vested interest in detaching himself from software company M's DRM infected, activation insisted iron grip.)
Period. End of story. The End. This thread pining for the fjords.
Before the flame war begins, I'm currently (slowly) converting my team-mates to Linux/FOSS.
- Gilboa
I've tried many times to get a working Linux system, but I've always found something not working, and I don't mean Microsoft software not working. I mean sound not working or USB ports not working. Yes, I can hear everybody crying out "check the hardware compatibility lists first", and they right.
I've tried many times to get a working Windows Vista system, but I've always found something not working, and I don't mean Microsoft software not working. I mean Aero-glass not working or my old peripherals not working. Yes, I can hear everybody crying out "check the hardware compatibility lists first", and they're right.
If Microsoft can't make migration seamless from one version of their OS to the next, how can you expect a non-commercial, third-party effort do do any better?
There's more at work here than just the OS--it's the whole environment. Linux is already proven to work in a business environment--it has been capable of doing so for years. Same goes for Apple (hell, Macs even run a "genuine" edition of MS Office!). However, "a" business environment isn't ALL business environments. Enterprises with IT infrastructure based on proprietary, single-vendor platforms with no published interfaces for interoperability obviously are NOT the business environments where you'd expect to have Linux work seamlessly. It's a testament to the talents of Free software developers they can make anything work at all in such an environment!
Remember, MS is almost completely proprietary--when the folks who toil away developing Samba or Evolution have to make their software talk to Microsoft stuff (the main goal, or at least a major goal, of each of those projects) they can't just download or purchase a nice, neat spec document as if it was an IETF RFC. If MS has any spec to offer at all, it is only available under some encumbering legal condition such as an NDA or obligation to pay royalties or to not release under some or all Free software licenses. The only option they have in most cases is to pour over data from protocol analysers and other reverse-engineering tools. How can anyone expect the situation to EVER improve, much less within the space of a decade, when not only the spec is secret but it keeps changing dramatically with each generation of MS software?
MS further raises the barrier by making their interfaces and protocols DELIBERATELY COMPLEX so as to be harder to reverse engineer. This is the only explanation I can come up with for why MS does some of what they do in Exchange and Active Directory. Even more perverse is their penchant for taking open technologies like LDAP and Kerberos and obfuscating them enough to break them. This borders on criminal, as not only does this affect interoperability, it makes their own software less stable and more bloated than it needs to be.
This article offers nothing to support the contention that Linux or other Free software cannot be used to run a business--it very much can and does do this. His approach is just totally backwards--the high-level infrastructures need migrating first--get rid of Exchange and you'll be a great deal ahead of the game in more ways than one. If you are not in the position to carry that out, well then you'll be waiting for longer than two years unfortunately.
The problem with the advocacy for and against Free alternatives is the all-or-nothing attitude.
For example let's look at GIMP vs. Photoshop.
For prepress, sure, GIMP is not a replacement for PS (yet) and you would be crazy to advocate GIMP for that. But pre-press is such a tiny piece of the PS pie. In my experience, a majority of the people who think they "need" PS would do fine with GIMP. Typical example, people in my organization who have an occasional need to edit/manipulate images for the web or internal flyers are convinced that they must have PS. No, they would be fine with GIMP. But the PS zealots say that GIMP is so inferior to PS that no sane person would consider GIMP over PS.
Same with Audacity/Ardor vs. Cubase/Sonar. Audacity will do a lot and cover -most- users' needs, but you would be way off-base to think that it is a pro studio app. But Audacity is good enough in most cases, and Cubase would be an over-the-top waste of money for many of those cases. Yet, you mention Ardor or Audacity in one of those situations, and some smart-ass will convince the PHB that nothing less than ProTools will do.
It's been said a million times, right tool for the right job, but it seems that there is always someone in a position of influence that takes their advocacy too far in one direction or the other.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Capitalism works. The opportunity is there but whats holding Linux back (as I see it) is that Linux can't decide on standards among its various and diverse distros. Linux needs simulcrums for "Program Files" and the registry and the start menu. Choice is great, but software companies aren't going to take on maintaining software for 50 different platforms to reach 5% of the market. You aren't going to have enterprise level software on Linux until the tools are there for the enterprise level software developers. Linux is the smallest part of our sales and takes a disproportionate chunk of our maintenance resources. Until you give developers the tools to provide a professional consistent product across all of the major Linux flavors, Linux is going to remain a niche. Look at what all of the Windows flavors and Mac OSes have in common as features of the operating system, then subtract out what Linux doesn't do in all of its distros. That's what has to happen before Linux is going to be taken seriously by enterprise.
Ask yourselve this, all of you who do not use windows as your preferred desktop, isn't the reason you don't use Windows exactly the same as this guys reason not to use linux?
It is to me at least. I am old enough to have worked with both unixes and dos and the home computers but like so many have had to live with the fact that the Wintel machines won the majority of the market.
Until one day when enough was enough back in the 98SE days and I just had to reboot once to often. Not that that itself was a problem, I like every other MS software user had gotten used to it, the problem was that 98SE had gotten just a little bit to stable. Stable enough at least for it to be used as my primary music player. So then every reboot, every crash meant that not only did I loose my work but also my background music.
The loss of work I had learned to deal with, but since other dedicated music players do not crash this hurt.
So with the help of a linux geek I installed a very old PC with a linux distro and made it my music player. Now windows could crash and demand reboots all it wanted, the music went on and on and on and on. Cue, me moving my browsing to the linux machine. No more IE crashes taking all your hard searching with it.
Slowly, windows was replaced were nowadays my windows machine is just a game machine, for no other reason that over more then a decade I just have never been able to get windows to run properly. Just the same problem this guy has with linux.
It all depends on the person I think and their hardware. For some reaon my game machine seems to be burdened with a load of hardware that simply is not supported by the XP install disc. This always happens to me and is one of the reasons I can't help but laugh at stories about how hard it is to get drivers for linux. Because all those run-from-cd distro's seem to have no trouble at all with that machine, not Ubuntu, not Knoppix, not Mephis, just windows.
My windows game machine right now is in "wich fucking setting is going to be switched randomly during this boot". You know the one, when you find the machine boots in XP style when you selected the classic mode, when icons from the quicklaunch disappear or rearrange themselves.
But are my complaints about windows not the exact same as this guys complaints about linux? For some reason, the unix design works better for me, it clicks or something.
With linux when something is wrong I can fix it, with windows, I have no idea.
Could it possibly be that different products appeal to different people? Nah, this guy is a troll and idiot because he prefers windows over linux. Fine but then the same goes in reverse. Since I can't getwindows to run and given up and went back to a unix (lets not forget who came first) I am a quitter too.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I'm not even going to bother reading the whole piece. I don't have to - the quoted material gives the game away.
This is the SAME CRAP EVERY Windows shill writes on every Web site and in every article on the subject:
"Gee, I really LOVE Linux and OSS, BUT..."
It's bullshit. That type of sentence is a DEAD GIVEAWAY that this guy is a paid shill for Microsoft. Period.
If you want to integrate with Microsoft Exchange, you're an idiot in the first place.
There is nothing from Exchange either that most companies need or can't be found in other mail/groupware clients.
The article is the same bullshit we've seen from every other article from shills.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
these stupid articles piss me off, they always start out with the base assumption everything works on windows perfectly, which we all know to be untrue.i've used a freebsd desktop for years without problems, and it's more primitive then linux.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
we are going to have to start thinking like the people who would be using these tools on a daily basis
Bingo. And that's the problem. I'd be happy to work on something like this, but I've never used any of this groupware stuff. The people who use the groupware stuff have no clue how to write it, and are barely articulate when it comes to explaining just what it is they do with it (especially when it comes to whats missing in the 70% solutions. The best I've seen is "but it doesn't directly rip Office off! How am I supposed to use it if it doesn't look exactly like Office!"). Finally, the people stuck administering this groupware stuff have better things to do than come home and write more groupware.
Get the people who would be using these tools to start writing use-case scenarios. Archive the whole lot of these and start prototyping. Start putting together applications from the prototypes and test against the use-case scenarios. You want to fight the 800lb engineered gorilla? Engineer King Kong.
Okay so I'm a business manager at an innovation company trying to work with most of those Fortune 500 corporations whose employees use all those Microsoft applications... I'm not an IT professional, though I know a thing or two about programming in a few languanges and I own a company which produces SaaS/ASP offerings and other consulting services. And I like using different platforms to solve different problems. So does my partner, our CTO. And after being our internal champion of Thunderbird and other approaches, I gave up on non-Outlook programs from a pure user standpoint. They were like using Beta videotapes when everyone else was using VHS. So what.
Here's the thing. The entire concept of open source systems is intriguing to me... but I am constantly trying to understand what the revenue model is, and while the idealist in me wants to support the effort, and all of the IT folks around keep trying to argue how Novell and IBM and Red Hat seem to make money at it, the fundamental problem is that Linux and OSS solutions are, frankly, me-too solutions.
They are a result of people frustrated with an establishment and trying to do something which tears down the establishment through creation of this strange anarchical communist-like (non-?)establishment of their own. (That's the obvious and implied thread that runs throughout this thread and anything I've ever read from developers hooked on Linux.)
To me, that's pretty silly. You don't tear down an establishment by creating the same thing (eg., a substitute OS, substitute apps, emulation software). You DISPLACE an establishment by creating a better one... one with substantive differences from that old establishment. Linux isn't that answer. It's too similar to what has gone and been before, only has added a network of developers who donate their time (which is then leveraged by slightly better organized people who charge for their time through paid support.) Google and socially networked computing applications like YouTube and Flickr take the next steps toward some level of displacement, as they've added a social network of users of applications. Salesforce.com takes yet another step (albeit for a niche group) as it creates an environment for mashups--both socially networked "open" platform (really closed), and socially networked users. But I don't think it's the thing that's actually going to displace this establishment through creating a better one.
I loudly applaud the Open Source Linux community, yet IMHO they are not the next wave of software developers. They deserve most of the credit for the inception of the next wave of what will be the true displacement of Microsoft dependency: they've sowed the seeds of true creativity by making development and collaboration truly accessible to individuals. The next wave is not a replacement for Outlook and Exchange. It won't come from people donating their time. It will come from the efforts of people who both value openness and collaboration, yet still value their own time sufficiently to be given value in exchange for the value they provide. And no, I don't know what that is yet, anymore than you do. But I'm striving to find out. And striving to get paid for that.
We won't even be having conversations like this in another several years. Outlook won't even be significant, even if it remains predominant. Much like the VHS videotape. It will simply cease to be anything but an inexpensive utility, much like the Railroads at the turn of the previous century. Those railroads were tremendously progressive, and still have retained some level of efficacy. People tried to compete with them. And along came the automobile, far more interesting.
Who cares about email applications? Find the thing beyond group email. Stop imitating, you've learned all you can that way. Start innovating.